Prospect Info: HF Mock Draft 28th Overall

[BrodieGoat]

I want De la Rose he is projected to go in the 2nd round but i would take a chance on him at 28. Same with Duclair.

 

[Wabbit]

I want De la Rose he is projected to go in the 2nd round but i would take a chance on him at 28. Same with Duclair.

I agree about De la Rose-see post#46. Big, gritty center with upside. Duclair would be good too-his productivity was diminished supposedly by the turmoil in the remparts dressing room. He had 50pts in 55gms this year, versus 66pts in 63gms the year before. With his skating ability, his numbers should've been through the roof. He might be a good one to take a chance on.....

 

[TheHudlinator]

so fucale is a year younger and almost as good as gillies? i dont mind that.

Who said that? The post by Ashasx says that he is almost as good of a prospect not a player.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

Like Petan, I honestly don't want him as he is really small.

 

[herashak]

Who said that? The post by Ashasx says that he is almost as good of a prospect not a player.

well what do you think makes him a good prospect? how good he is, how close he is to being nhl ready, potential. id think a goalie on the same level as gillies deserves to be in the contention for our 28th pick

 

[TheHudlinator]

well what do you think makes him a good prospect? how good he is, how close he is to being nhl ready, potential. id think a goalie on the same level as gillies deserves to be in the contention for our 28th pick

His top end ability and how likely they are to reach is how I would define a prospect and Gillies is slightly better no way I use our 3rd first on another goalie when we have no RWer's, no puck moving defenseman, and little defensive depth at all.

 

[Wabbit]

His top end ability and how likely they are to reach is how I would define a prospect and Gillies is slightly better no way I use our 3rd first on another goalie when we have no RWer's, no puck moving defenseman, and little defensive depth at all.

True dat.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

His top end ability and how likely they are to reach is how I would define a prospect and Gillies is slightly better no way I use our 3rd first on another goalie when we have no RWer's, no puck moving defenseman, and little defensive depth at all.

No PMD? Did you forget about Culkin or Kulak? Now, I know we won't know how good they'll get right now, but I've watched them a few times and I just love the way they play and think at least one the them will become a top-four/six PMD.

 

[Ashasx]

well what do you think makes him a good prospect? how good he is, how close he is to being nhl ready, potential. id think a goalie on the same level as gillies deserves to be in the contention for our 28th pick

Right now, Gillies is a much better goalie than Fucale, but they are closer in terms of their overall grades as prospects.

We drafted Gillies in the 3rd round. Pronman says he is a better prospect than Fucale.

Now we draft Fucale in the 1st round in a much deeper draft?

What? Why? Goalies are pure crapshoots. Take them in the later rounds, not while players like McCoshen, Compher, etc., are still available.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

Right now, Gillies is a much better goalie than Fucale, but they are closer in terms of their overall grades as prospects.

We drafted Gillies in the 3rd round. Pronman says he is a better prospect than Fucale.

Now we draft Fucale in the 1st round in a much deeper draft?

What? Why? Goalies are pure crapshoots. Take them in the later rounds, not while players like McCoshen, Compher, etc., are still available.

Agreed. Look at Irving or Krahn for references.

 

[lggy]

I went with Mueller but to bad I can't switch my vote. Forgot about JT Compher, I think he'll be a good surprise.

I truly hope the flames stay away from fucale. He was on a stacked Mooseheads team and provided above average goaltending. I don't see why many websites project him as a number 1 goalie. Plus, he's not the tallest too.

 

[Ashasx]

Taking Jarry or Comrie in the 3rd round is infinitely better value than taking Fucale anywhere in the 1st.

 

[TheHudlinator]

No PMD? Did you forget about Culkin or Kulak?

Culkin is a nice prospect but plays on a very good team with lots of offensive players I don't think he will have the same success at the pros but I will admit I didn't think of him.

Kulak is a better offensive defenseman (imo) and I think he has a shot at being a nhl defenseman (although he is a bit small).

I should have said we don't have anyone that I would consider to be a top 4 puck moving defenseman. I would rather stock up on guys like Bowey than get another goalie. But I will admit I exaggerated the lack of PMD we have, I believe that depth at defense and forward are more important when talking about drafting in the first round and goalies are a bit of a crap shoot and we can get someone like Jarry later who could be just as good.

 

[Wabbit]

No PMD? Did you forget about Culkin or Kulak? Now, I know we won't know how good they'll get right now, but I've watched them a few times and I just love the way they play and think at least one the them will become a top-four/six PMD.

I'm glad someone else sees something in these two. Nobody talks about them when the topic of D prospects is raised, but i think they are both grossly underrated.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Taking Jarry or Comrie in the 3rd round is infinitely better value than taking Fucale anywhere in the 1st.

Comrie was playing on the same level or better this year before he went down with his injury and looked like a lock for the Top 40.

He will likely fall to 60-90 now, and using a 3rd on him would be a much better option than a 1st on Fucale.

 

[AfricanHerbsman]

Comrie was playing on the same level or better this year before he went down with his injury and looked like a lock for the Top 40.

He will likely fall to 60-90 now, and using a 3rd on him would be a much better option than a 1st on Fucale.

This is what I'm hoping Feaster is thinking

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Comrie was playing on the same level or better this year before he went down with his injury and looked like a lock for the Top 40.

He will likely fall to 60-90 now, and using a 3rd on him would be a much better option than a 1st on Fucale.

Agree 100%.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Last time we took a goalie in the 25~ range it worked out great for us. Great idea guys!

Arguably the worst argument I've seen against drafting a player.

We took a forward at 6th overall before (Rico Fata) and it didn't work out either. So do we just take defensemen?

 

[InfinityIggy]

Arguably the worst argument I've seen against drafting a player.

We took a forward at 6th overall before (Rico Fata) and it didn't work out either. So do we just take defensemen?

Try looking at more than just 1 draft, and you will see a trend. If you don't understand my argument, that doesn't make it a bad one. In our franchise history we have selected 4 goalies in the first round, want to take a guess at exactly how many worked out?

In contrast here is our franchise history of goalies taken in the 3rd round:

Vernon, Anderson and Gillies.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Arguably the worst argument I've seen against drafting a player.

We took a forward at 6th overall before (Rico Fata) and it didn't work out either. So do we just take defensemen?

Why not give a better argument for taking Fucale then?

Or just realize this is the Internet and people are never going to agree.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Try looking at more than just 1 draft, and you will see a trend. If you don't understand my argument, that doesn't make it a bad one. In our franchise history we have selected 4 goalies in the first round, want to take a guess at exactly how many worked out?

The fact that I understand your argument is why it's bad. I could try to explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Why not give a better argument for taking Fucale then?

Or just realize this is the Internet and people are never going to agree.

Because I have already given that argument - and I'm fine with the disagreement, if that's what it was... You seriously think that "because the other goalies drafted by the flames were bad, so this guy will be bad" is a valid argument?

 

[InfinityIggy]

The fact that I understand your argument is why it's bad. I could try to explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.



Because I have already given that argument - and I'm fine with the disagreement, if that's what it was... You seriously think that "because the other goalies drafted by the flames were bad, so this guy will be bad" is a valid argument?

No I really don't think you do.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Because I have already given that argument - and I'm fine with the disagreement, if that's what it was... You seriously think that "because the other goalies drafted by the flames were bad, so this guy will be bad" is a valid argument?

I think there is some merit yeah, but more so in conjunction with the other arguments already made in this thread, pool depth, history of drafting goalies in the NHL period, availability of others available in later rounds etc.

 

[Wabbit]

I think there is some merit yeah, but more so in conjunction with the other arguments already made in this thread, pool depth, history of drafting goalies in the NHL period, availability of others available in later rounds etc.

I would add to the argument by saying that i have to wonder how good Fucale is. His stats aren't eye popping, and he played on an exceptional team.

 

[tyflames]

No love for Atturi Lehkonen?
From what I've read, he is small but a good scorer with a great shot and has grittiness.