Draft depth: 2004 vs 2005

[All Star United]

Hey guys,

which draft class do you think is the deepest: 2004 or 2005? Why?

Thx

Click to read more...

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Hey guys,

which draft class do you think is the deepest: 2004 or 2005? Why?

Thx

Hard to say this early, but as a guess, 2005, basically because this has been called the weakest draft class in years.

 

[fedorov_jr]

Hard to say this early, but as a guess, 2005, basically because this has been called the weakest draft class in years.

is it though??? earlier on, i thought people were talking about this year having more high end talent than last year, but not as much depth, is that not the case? or were they just referring to malkin/ovechkin as high end talent???

 

[Russian Fan]

Hard to say this early, but as a guess, 2005, basically because this has been called the weakest draft class in years.

I wonder who said that ? I dont think 2004 is a weakest draft. I think it's a usual draft with some heavy future players at top 12-15.

 

[Kugel]

I wonder who said that ? I dont think 2004 is a weakest draft. I think it's a usual draft with some heavy future players at top 12-15.

i heard that this draft was weak......last year there were players taken in the 2nd round that woulda gone 1st round in other drafts......i think this draft has alot of top end players......like the top 10-15 players......i heard 2005 is supposed to be very good..

 

[Vincent_TheGreat]

Much more top end talent in 2005!

 

[Russian Fan]

i heard that this draft was weak......last year there were players taken in the 2nd round that woulda gone 1st round in other drafts......i think this draft has alot of top end players......like the top 10-15 players......i heard 2005 is supposed to be very good..

Like you said & I said you can say that 2004 was a weak draft because you compare it with 2003 that was a phenomenal depth draft class. To say it's a weak draft you need to compare it with some other ''weak'' & some ''normal'' draft year to say what you think of 2004.

The top 12-15 2004 vs 2003 is IMO equal against each other.

I agree with you that 2nd,3rd,4th,5th,6th,7th,8th,9th round of the 2003 draft was better but the point was that it doesn't mean 2004 is weak.

 

[X-SHARKIE]

2005. This well be one hell of a draft IMO.

2004 has two great, and the top 15 is not bad at all. Weakest draft in years? no. I just think that we were all spoiled by the 2003 draft, so much top end talent and so much depth, that it makes 2004 look bad.

2005 > 20004.

 

[montreal]

I'd compare the '02 draft to the '04 and the '03 draft to the '01 draft and maybe the '05 draft. In '02, there were some real quality players, but the depth of the draft at that time looked thin. While good players could be found in every round, the skill level on average wasn't that great. From what I've seen '04 could be much like '02, in that you will find some very good players, but the depth isn't there, and the skill level on average isn't all that high.

What I will say about this draft, is it seems one of the weaker drafts for the Q, and a average to below average draft for the NCAA. But it could be one of the USHL's top drafts (only in my opinion based on very limited viewing) and it seems like a stronger year for Euro's and big defensemen.

 

[X-SHARKIE]

Very true Montreal. This is one of the best USHL classes in awhile.

Bodes well for the Sharks, who are willing to pluck talent from there

Also for me, because I see alot of these guys live and talk to them before.