Hockey's Future Fall 2005 Org Rankings (1-15)

Status
Not open for further replies.

NYRangers

Registered User
Aug 11, 2004
2,850
0
Kevin Forbes said:
reread the NYR weaknesses,
more depth between the pipes
questions up front are mentioned as a weakness...
Kondratiev is a defenseman?

OK, I read it backwards.

I should have added Prucha in the with Korpikoski and Immonen as guys who are on pace to be scoring line guys. Dawes as an honorable mention too. They just need the uber forward prospect.

Yes, Kondratiev is a defensemen.
 

Kevin Forbes

Registered User
Jul 29, 2002
9,199
10
Nova Scotia
www.kforbesy.ca
NYRangers said:
OK, I read it backwards.

I should have added Prucha in the with Korpikoski and Immonen as guys who are on pace to be scoring line guys. Dawes as an honorable mention too. They just need the uber forward prospect.

Yes, Kondratiev is a defensemen.

I mentioned Kondratiev because you did...as being a top line guy...I see from this post that you meants Korpikoski?
 

David A. Rainer

Registered User
Jun 10, 2002
7,287
1
Huntington Beach
profile.myspace.com
I would just like to say that I am OUTRAGED that my team is too HIGH! They should be at least 20 spots LOWER.

(Thought I would be the first person in the history of these boards to make this statement while we have seen the opposite statement uttered entirely too often)
 

King'sPawn

Enjoy the chaos
Jul 1, 2003
21,809
20,599
David A. Rainer said:
I would just like to say that I am OUTRAGED that my team is too HIGH! They should be at least 20 spots LOWER.

(Thought I would be the first person in the history of these boards to make this statement while we have seen the opposite statement uttered entirely too often)

You hater! Go follow the ducks!

Seriously, though, I'm surprised the Kings are as high as they are. I know it won't last, though, since Gleason, Brown, and Cammalleri are all graduating after this year.
 

KingPurpleDinosaur

Bandwagon Kings Fan
Dec 17, 2002
2,897
0
irvine, ca
www.anteaterhockey.com
agreed, i think kings are a bit high. although there may be "some" potential with our goalies, we still dont have anyone who has inarguable backup potential. and we just don't have any super star status from any our prospects, but hey, watever u say. with that said, i also agree on brown, he's had a good year in the NHL, its difficult looking at him like i look at other "prospects". some goes for cammalleri and gleason.
 

tom_servo

Registered User
Sep 27, 2002
17,139
5,978
Pittsburgh
zetterberg40 said:
good work

although im starting to not really like these lists. I dont think current NHL players should really count at all on these lists or atleast take out the big ones that are gonna stick, it just doesnt seam right looking at dustin brown AGAIN for LA or Lehtonen for Atlanta.. oh well good work anyway

I'm of the opinion that prospect should mean "young player", not "young player who isn't yet good enough".

Perhaps players who are already paying dividends in the NHL are incongruous with the definition of "prospect", but I think that a worthwhile prognosis of hockey's future can only be made by including the Joni Pitkanens with the Ryan Whitneys.
 

McDeepika

Registered User
Aug 14, 2004
9,333
1,130
It is not working for me, I get this weird font. Can somebody post the teams in order?
 

McDonald19

Registered User
Sep 9, 2003
22,957
3,824
California
I knew the Ducks would fall once Perry and Getzlaf graduated...but that hasn't happened yet so why aren't they in the top 5.

Anaheim's top 5 Perry/Getzlaf/Ryan/Smid/Mikkelson is equal to or better than any other team in the top 10 besides Washington and Pittsburgh.

Weaknesses are supposedly goaltending and no top pairing d-men. Smid and Mikkelson both have top pairing upside. Levasseur and Wall have starter potential with Bouthillette likely having backup potential. How are these weaknesses?

I'm a homer but the Ducks should have been 3rd or 4th.
 

Thirty One

Safe is safe.
Dec 28, 2003
28,981
24,354
McDonald19 said:
I knew the Ducks would fall once Perry and Getzlaf graduated...but that hasn't happened yet so why aren't they in the top 5.

Anaheim's top 5 Perry/Getzlaf/Ryan/Smid/Mikkelson is equal to or better than any other team in the top 10 besides Washington and Pittsburgh.

Weaknesses are supposedly goaltending and no top pairing d-men. Smid and Mikkelson both have top pairing upside. Levasseur and Wall have starter potential with Bouthillette likely having backup potential. How are these weaknesses?

I'm a homer but the Ducks should have been 3rd or 4th.
I think the fact that you named a 7th rounder first, justifies calling goaltending a weakness, even though I like Levasseur
 

McDonald19

Registered User
Sep 9, 2003
22,957
3,824
California
-31- said:
I think the fact that you named a 7th rounder first, justifies calling goaltending a weakness, even though I like Levasseur

He was definetly a steal in the 7th round. Redline had him #1 for goalies going into the draft. Theres no reason to draft goalies in the first round anymore with quality guys slipping to later rounds.
 

Thirty One

Safe is safe.
Dec 28, 2003
28,981
24,354
Profet said:
::covers Lundqvist's ears::

;)
haha, should have put a disclaimer on that

I think the fact that you named a 2005 7th rounder first, justifies calling goaltending a weakness, even though I like Levasseur
 

Namso

Registered User
Aug 25, 2005
4,031
0
habs should expect a huge drop next year as some of our prospects graduate. Still good future for us.
 

Habs33

Registered User
Sep 4, 2003
518
0
Visit site
Matt MacInnis said:
In regards to comments about teams with "NHL players" on the list.

A hard line has to be drawn at some time. HF has made a decision where that line will be, and no matter where that line is, people will be unhappy.


Good work!
Just an Idea for classifying prospects in other categories:
how about in addition to the top 50 prospects (whihc is very cool), How about creating 3 more categories:
Top 25 Defense prospects
Top 25 Goalie prospects
Top 25-50 forwards

again publish these lists in addition to your current lists.

seems here things are more specialized and people will stop complaining about discrepencies between org rankings and top 50 prospects...
the actual number '25' is totally up to you, but having these new categories is key.

but like you say, you can't satisfy evryone, but believe this will help keep the site alive with more meaningful comparisons and discussions.
 

David A. Rainer

Registered User
Jun 10, 2002
7,287
1
Huntington Beach
profile.myspace.com
Habs33 said:
Good work!
Just an Idea for classifying prospects in other categories:
how about in addition to the top 50 prospects (whihc is very cool), How about creating 3 more categories:
Top 25 Defense prospects
Top 25 Goalie prospects
Top 25-50 forwards

again publish these lists in addition to your current lists.

seems here things are more specialized and people will stop complaining about discrepencies between org rankings and top 50 prospects...
the actual number '25' is totally up to you, but having these new categories is key.

but like you say, you can't satisfy evryone, but believe this will help keep the site alive with more meaningful comparisons and discussions.

We did that last summer with the Top 50 list, except it was Top 15 goalies, Top 30 Dmen, and Top 45 forwards.

Link
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->