Gilbert Brule and Tuuka Rask (what will their HF ratings be?)

[Rand]

No one is a generational hockey player at the age of 18! Even Gretzky had many many expert doubters at 18. Many thought with his skinny frame that he wouldn't last in the NHL and probably wouldn't be successful at all. Would Gretzky have been considered a 10 ANYTHING at 17 or 18, I don't think so. He probably would have been an 8.5C. So if you think Crosby is a 10 ANYTHING, you are saying that he has more potential than Gretzky did at age 18? THINK AGAIN BUDDY!!

Gretzky's "potential" at 18 obviously wasn't an 8.5C though. Gretzky clearly had the potential of a 10, as that is what he achieved. An 8.5C may have been his percieved potential, but what scouts percieve as ones abilities are definitely not inherently accurate.
He obviously DID have potential at 18 far beyond that of 8.5C as he accomplished vastly more then such a rating would indicate, his potential merely went largely unrecognized.

(Though personally I think his potential was clearly recognized as being extremely high, there was simply considerable doubt as to whether he would live up to it. The relative lack of broad distributed media in the late 70's compared to now certainly played a part as well)

 

[Le Golie]

No one is a generational hockey player at the age of 18! Even Gretzky had many many expert doubters at 18. Many thought with his skinny frame that he wouldn't last in the NHL and probably wouldn't be successful at all. Would Gretzky have been considered a 10 ANYTHING at 17 or 18, I don't think so. He probably would have been an 8.5C. So if you think Crosby is a 10 ANYTHING, you are saying that he has more potential than Gretzky did at age 18? THINK AGAIN BUDDY!!

My point is unless you are familiar with hockey, please do not acclaim any player to Generational Superstar status until he has at least SOME NHL EXPERIENCE!!!

What are you talking about? Propects get their grade when they get drafted. If no 18 year old is worthy of a 10, then why would the ratings go up to 10? Give your head a shake. 10's are meant for pleayers like Gretzky, Mario, Lindros and Crosby. Some live up to it - some don't.

 

[pit]

No one is a generational hockey player at the age of 18! Even Gretzky had many many expert doubters at 18. Many thought with his skinny frame that he wouldn't last in the NHL and probably wouldn't be successful at all. Would Gretzky have been considered a 10 ANYTHING at 17 or 18, I don't think so. He probably would have been an 8.5C. So if you think Crosby is a 10 ANYTHING, you are saying that he has more potential than Gretzky did at age 18? THINK AGAIN BUDDY!!

My point is unless you are familiar with hockey, please do not acclaim any player to Generational Superstar status until he has at least SOME NHL EXPERIENCE!!!

HF lists Crosby as a 10C, not me. Perhaps you should direct your caps elsewhere.

I mean, if you're Stiffler's Mom, you are obviously a good judge of the talent of teenage boys, so talk to HF and you can let them know what's what.

 

[Stiffler's Mom]

HF Rankings comments

HF lists Crosby as a 10C, not me. Perhaps you should direct your caps elsewhere.

I mean, if you're Stiffler's Mom, you are obviously a good judge of the talent of teenage boys, so talk to HF and you can let them know what's what.

I am a very good judge of talent, teenage or otherwise. I just think a 10 applied to a young player is unrealistic because these 10's are being compared to world class players in their prime ala Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier etc. How would HF evaluate a guy like Lindros at 18? Would HF have ranked Lindros say a 10B at 18 and how did he turn out? Is he even rated as a first line centre today? If he is first line he would be an 8, but if he's a 2nd line center is he now a 7? How about Brett Lindros? How would he have ranked as a high end first rounder who barely played one season have been ranked at that time? How would players like Lemieux, Gretzky, Orr, Messier have been ranked as 18 years olds by HF? What I am interested in is finding out how HF would have ranked some of the Hockey Greats BEFORE they had their NHL careers. This is the real question I'd like to see debated.

 

[Blane Youngblood]

How would he have ranked as a high end first rounder who barely played one season have been ranked at that time? How would players like Lemieux, Gretzky, Orr, Messier have been ranked as 18 years olds by HF? What I am interested in is finding out how HF would have ranked some of the Hockey Greats BEFORE they had their NHL careers. This is the real question I'd like to see debated.

I'm going to respond to this but I aknowledge I am just taking a stab at it.

Gretzky was amazing at the WJC as a 16 year old and was playing pro hockey at the age of 17. I imagine his rating would have been a 10B. It is possible that because people worry about how someone Gretzky's size would play in the NHL, that he would get a 10C rating.

Lemieux was breaking QMJHL league scoring records for his age bracket and looked to have the most amazing physical tools ever (size, hands and mind) and his rating probably would have been a 10A or 10B (he's IMO the closest to a 10A ever, but I don't think the world has ever seen a 10A).

Eric Lindros whom I remember seeing in juniors would probably be ranked as a 10B as well, because he seemd to be the total package physically but with a hockey sense not in the same stratesphere as Lemieux. Now if you remember how he started off his career, his rating would have been totally reasonable. How many players win the Hart Trophy as a 22 year old and just lift a team up the way he did.

I wasn't around for Orr coming out of junior, but judging by the fact that he played as an 18 year old, set scoring records for defenseman in juniors, and was a physical force as well, he would probably be rated a 10B as well.

Now a guy like Brett Lindros (whom I also remember from junior) would probably have earned a 8.5D rating from me. He had a chance to turn into a very solid player, but he didn't have the same ability that his brother had. He also had injury troubles before being drafted which is a bad sign to the probability to reach potential rating. Honestly, we were probably overrating him because of his brother.

I think a real interesting guy to rate would be Brett Hull, what do you guys think about his rating? Great bloodlines, good but not amazing college career, but always had an amazing shot and good hockey sense. I think he probably would have been an 8C and he turned out to be a 9.5. Any thoughts?