Hockey's Future Top 50 prospects: 1-10

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kevin Forbes

Registered User
Jul 29, 2002
9,199
10
Nova Scotia
www.kforbesy.ca
the thing with prospects is they aren't proven/established NHL players
that's why there is a cut off
to include players who for one reason or another aren't proven NHL competitors
one of these reasons could very well be an injury
due to injury, Horton is not a proven NHLer
due to Russian troubles, Zherdev is not a proven NHLer

when we were deciding the cut off, we figured if a player has played 65 games, then we could safely say he is an NHLer. If not, then some questions still remain and so he still remains a prospect

It's a balance, we wanted to include as many players as possible, while not moving our focus from covering players in junior/Europe/the minors/college to covering rookies and even sophomores in the NHL
 

J17 Vs Proclamation

Registered User
Oct 29, 2004
8,025
2
Reading.
PanthersRule said:
Lundqvist 4-10??? :shakehead

Shiskanov and Radulov should be there. I swear, if I didn't know better, I would think that Henrik Lundqvist is the best goalie prospect in the world.

I'm surprised Colailacovo made it where he did when Smid and Krajicek, Stuart, and Mejsaroz were left off. Ovechkin is clear #1, Lehtonen 2. I would've put Malkin 3, Zherdev 4, Horton 5, Phaneuf 6, Fleury 7, Suter 8, Michalek 9, and Vanek, like 20.

Lundqvist shouldn't go 4-10. I agree that if Colailacovo made it them Smid, Krajicek and Meszaros should as well. I would Zherdev other Malkin at this point. Vanek should be ahead of Michalek and Suter.
 

Captain Conservative

Registered User
Apr 1, 2004
3,842
1
My Blue Heaven
forbesy said:
the thing with prospects is they aren't proven/established NHL players
that's why there is a cut off
to include players who for one reason or another aren't proven NHL competitors
one of these reasons could very well be an injury
due to injury, Horton is not a proven NHLer
due to Russian troubles, Zherdev is not a proven NHLer

when we were deciding the cut off, we figured if a player has played 65 games, then we could safely say he is an NHLer. If not, then some questions still remain and so he still remains a prospect

It's a balance, we wanted to include as many players as possible, while not moving our focus from covering players in junior/Europe/the minors/college to covering rookies and even sophomores in the NHL


Personally I think 65 games is the perfect cutoff. It'd be more perfect if it was 65 games in a single season, but that would likely cause some logistical problems.


BTW, great job on the list guys, as always it was very interesting to read. I was exstatic to see 4 caps in the top 27!
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
JR#9 said:
Have you even seen Lundquist play???

Do you not think he should be in a top 50 prospect list, especially when you look at what he's accomplished both in the Swedish Elite league where his #'s are unmatched as well as on the international stage where he emerged and was named the best goalie in the world championships while playing against NHL players.

This year his numbers are identical to that of Kipprosoffs(sp?)who happened to be the best goalie in the world from January on last year.

Do you think the goalies that made this list have a more impressive PROVEN body of work???

A). You are comparing the Swedish league or International play to the NHL. It's a different game.

B). Lundqvist is very undersized... he's what 5-9 and about 160 lbs?

He's small, and he hasn't played in North America. That does make a huge difference when ranking these guys.

And he's only rated as the 5th best player on the Rangers board... it's tough to launch him into the top 10 league-wide prospects, when he is behind several prospects on his own team.

Is it right?

I dunno

Is it fair?

I dunno either.

The problem is, if you really want to get into it, how can you really prove one prospect is better than another unless you've seen them play in similar environments?

You really can't, so for every number you throw out that says Lundqvist is the best goalie in the world, there are an equal number that can be thrown out that shows other guys are better...
 

neelynugs

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
35,390
9,759
dawgbone said:
A). You are comparing the Swedish league or International play to the NHL. It's a different game.

B). Lundqvist is very undersized... he's what 5-9 and about 160 lbs?

He's small, and he hasn't played in North America. That does make a huge difference when ranking these guys.

And he's only rated as the 5th best player on the Rangers board... it's tough to launch him into the top 10 league-wide prospects, when he is behind several prospects on his own team.

Is it right?

I dunno

Is it fair?

I dunno either.

The problem is, if you really want to get into it, how can you really prove one prospect is better than another unless you've seen them play in similar environments?

You really can't, so for every number you throw out that says Lundqvist is the best goalie in the world, there are an equal number that can be thrown out that shows other guys are better...


great post- couldn't agree more. IMO, ward and harding are ahead of lundqvist anyway.
 

xander

Registered User
Nov 4, 2003
4,085
0
Section A Lynah Rink
Visit site
HF has lundqvist at 5'11 and eliteprospects.com has him at 6'1". So 6'0 maybe?

I don't want to get too involved in this (I've only seen lundqvist once and that was on TV so I'm not an authouirty on him) but you really can't dispute what Lundqvist has been doing in the SEL, whether you count this season or not. No he hasn't played in North America, but he's proving himself in one of the worlds top mens leagues, and has done so for the past few years. Many of the goalies ranked ahead of him are playing in junior leagues. shouldn't that be taken into acount? I know he's older than some of the goalies ahead of him, but he was doing as a 20 year old too.
 
Last edited:

HOCKEY_GURU

Registered User
Jun 27, 2002
661
0
Visit site
forbesy said:
the thing with prospects is they aren't proven/established NHL players
that's why there is a cut off
to include players who for one reason or another aren't proven NHL competitors
one of these reasons could very well be an injury
due to injury, Horton is not a proven NHLer
due to Russian troubles, Zherdev is not a proven NHLer

when we were deciding the cut off, we figured if a player has played 65 games, then we could safely say he is an NHLer. If not, then some questions still remain and so he still remains a prospect

It's a balance, we wanted to include as many players as possible, while not moving our focus from covering players in junior/Europe/the minors/college to covering rookies and even sophomores in the NHL

I have no issues with whatever the cut off is, and thats HF's perrogative to do what they want.... but i simply am asking for consistency, if the cut off is 65 NHL Games then it should be applied to all players. :handclap:
 

JR#9*

Guest
dawgbone said:
A). You are comparing the Swedish league or International play to the NHL. It's a different game.

B). Lundqvist is very undersized... he's what 5-9 and about 160 lbs?

He's small, and he hasn't played in North America. That does make a huge difference when ranking these guys.

And he's only rated as the 5th best player on the Rangers board... it's tough to launch him into the top 10 league-wide prospects, when he is behind several prospects on his own team.

Is it right?

I dunno

Is it fair?

I dunno either.

The problem is, if you really want to get into it, how can you really prove one prospect is better than another unless you've seen them play in similar environments?

You really can't, so for every number you throw out that says Lundqvist is the best goalie in the world, there are an equal number that can be thrown out that shows other guys are better...


To start out with Lundquist is listed at 6'1 187lbs so I don't know where you came up with a 5'9 number.

Aside from that I am in no way saying that this kid is the best goalie in the world or that he should even be in the top 10 as others are saying but what I am saying is that he w/o a doubt HAS to be listed amoung the best 50 prospects at this point in time based on what he has already accomplished in maybe the best league outside of the NHL and he's done it since 20 yrs old.

That coupled with his performance against NHLer's at the World Championship where he was named top goalie would certainly be listed above alot of the goalies on this list, especially those at the bottom half of the list who have the advantage of NA hype over Lundquist.

It's no big deal because this is a list compiled for fun but I think in looking at this thread the player that most, and not all NYR fan say was the biggest immision was Lundquist.That's all.
 

Rich09

Registered User
Oct 22, 2004
137
0
Can someone tell me where is Alex Perezhogin? I agree that he's not in 1-10 top prospect, but not in the 50's best????
 

An Ape called Yoko

Registered User
May 15, 2003
1,339
0
Gothenborg
Visit site
dawgbone said:
B). Lundqvist is very undersized... he's what 5-9 and about 160 lbs?

He's small, and he hasn't played in North America. That does make a huge difference when ranking these guys.

What the heck are you smoking... You haven´t seen him have you. He is AT LEAST 6'1". He is a very big goalkeeper. What really amuses me is how you people think he won´t translate to NA-play. But he has the same kind of style as Kiprussof and all the other NHL-goalies. Lundqvist has accomplished A LOT at the age of 22. He is currently the best goalie in SEL. Second place is Kiprussoff and Salo on tenth place. To say he should not be in top 50 is a joke. Its frickin offending not have him in the top 50.
 

MrMastodonFarm*

Registered User
Jul 5, 2004
6,207
0
HemskyFreak83 said:
Phaneuf over-rated has it it
7th is fine
lol, thanks UnbiasedOilerfan. Seen him play alot up in Fort Mac have you?

I would have had him and Horton ahead of Fluery as well, but no biggie.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
JR#9 said:
To start out with Lundquist is listed at 6'1 187lbs so I don't know where you came up with a 5'9 number.

he's actually listed at about 7 or 8 different heights, and it depends on where you look... some go as low as 5-10, others 6-1.

That being said, he looked awfully short in the net during the WC, and he is a very skinney person, and it wouldn't suprise me if some of these measurements were rather creatively done (like a lot of players in that 5-10 area... they aren't all 5-10!).

Aside from that I am in no way saying that this kid is the best goalie in the world or that he should even be in the top 10 as others are saying but what I am saying is that he w/o a doubt HAS to be listed amoung the best 50 prospects at this point in time based on what he has already accomplished in maybe the best league outside of the NHL and he's done it since 20 yrs old.

Since when is the SEL the best league outside of the NHL? You are the first person I have ever seen to have claimed that. It's not, let's get that straight...

He doesn't have to be listed anywhere. He plays in a low scoring league, in a country infamous for torpedo (trap) hockey. It's like me pulling out stats from the RSL... it doesn't mean a heck of a lot.

That coupled with his performance against NHLer's at the World Championship where he was named top goalie would certainly be listed above alot of the goalies on this list, especially those at the bottom half of the list who have the advantage of NA hype over Lundquist.

Arturs Irbe, after spending all season in basically they ECHL, also had an incredible tournament, and he played for a very poor Latvian team. I only saw one game with Lundqvist in net, and he certainly wasn't impressive (the final game). I mean you can pull out that he performed in the World Championships that he was a good goalie, but he also faced a lot of weak competetion (Japan, Denmark), and had the benefit of a very good team in front of him.

It's no big deal because this is a list compiled for fun but I think in looking at this thread the player that most, and not all NYR fan say was the biggest immision was Lundquist.That's all.

Like I said, you can pick any argument for why a guy should be on a list, or why a guy should be off, but there is enough justification from the other side as well.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
rivercanyon said:
What the heck are you smoking... You haven´t seen him have you. He is AT LEAST 6'1". He is a very big goalkeeper.

And Mike Comrie is 5-9, Richard Park 5-11.

Let's put it this way... Salo is 5-11, and he's bigger than Lundqvist.

Yes I have seen him play, and don't equate big equipment with big goalie...

What really amuses me is how you people think he won´t translate to NA-play. But he has the same kind of style as Kiprussof and all the other NHL-goalies. Lundqvist has accomplished A LOT at the age of 22. He is currently the best goalie in SEL. Second place is Kiprussoff and Salo on tenth place. To say he should not be in top 50 is a joke. Its frickin offending not have him in the top 50.

a). Who said won't?

b). The style he plays isn't the thing he needs to adapt to. It's the game itself (which is very different in North America). The rink is smaller, which means he needs to adjust to a completely new set of angles, the players will be bigger and more physical, and the game is played a different way... that is the change he needs to adapt to.

I don't care if he is in the top 50 or not... without seeing all the prospects, it's nearly impossible to say who should be where... like I said, you can come up with a good reason why he should be in there, and I can come up with a good reason why he shouldn't...

And you can give me a name of someone who should be out with a reason why, and someone else can come up with a good reason why they should stay on the same list.

The list is imperfect... but it's sickening how much whining goes on here. Last time I checked, you haven't seen all these prospects play yet either... so what makes your opinion any better?
 

SmokeyClause

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
9,999
0
Miami, FL
Visit site
Hero of Tragedy said:
I think this is rather arrogant of you. Shishkanov doesn't make the list because no one outside of Nashville knew of him. Baloney! The guys who make these were perfectly aware of Timofei and his potential. What makes him more worthy to be on the list over someone like Suglobov who has just as much if not more (you could argue either way) potential? You always seem to think that just because a player is drafted by Nashville he's magically moved to a realm where only Preds fans can bask in the prospect's glory and that you have the inside track on him. Hate to break it to you but theres guys in all over this board who follow prospects regardless of what team he was drafted by simply because they are fans of the players rather than indiviual teams. That group who made the list is made of such fans. The fact is you simply can't argue for him to be on the list because there are around 25-30 other guys who deserve to be on it just as much. Its my opinion that its a pretty bad idea to make a list anything more than the top 20 prospects because you start gettin into a dip of talent level where there are too many players with the potential to be good NHLers (as oppose to the few number of players that could be superstars which is why at most I'd do is top 20).

:shakehead

I didn't say he was not on the list because no one knew who he has. What I said was that I think his numbers weren't rationalized with his injury (like Michalek's and Grigorenko's) because no one knew about the injury and it's severity. There was one post on the main board about Shish's injury (that I recall) and very little talk about it outside of the Nashville board. The Michalek and Grigorenko injuries are much more mainstream and rightly so given the circumstances. Some people saw their numbers and subsequent lack of production and used the injury as an excuse. I'm not saying it's wrong; I'm just saying it didn't happen in Shishkanov's place. I'm not sure Shish should even be on the list. I was merely defending my stance that Shish's being left off could be attributed to him playing injured. If he puts up 70+ points in his rookie AHL season at the age of 20, I think he might be on that list. Just my opinion.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
xander said:
HF has lundqvist at 5'11 and eliteprospects.com has him at 6'1". So 6'0 maybe?

I don't want to get too involved in this (I've only seen lundqvist once and that was on TV so I'm not an authouirty on him) but you really can't dispute what Lundqvist has been doing in the SEL, whether you count this season or not. No he hasn't played in North America, but he's proving himself in one of the worlds top mens leagues, and has done so for the past few years. Many of the goalies ranked ahead of him are playing in junior leagues. shouldn't that be taken into acount? I know he's older than some of the goalies ahead of him, but he was doing as a 20 year old too.

FTR, TSN has him at 5-10...

Listed height doesn't really mean alot...

As for comparing him to junior goalies, you really can't... I mean the jump from junior to the NHL is huge, but I think the jump from overseas to the NHL is even bigger in a lot of cases.

JDD played for a team that gave up a lot of scoring chances, in a league with a reputation for being a high scoring league... how does that compare to Lundqvist?

It really doesn't, so you go by what you read on them.

Cam Ward played in the WHL, which is more defensive minded than the Q, and plays a completely different style than the SEL... how does he compare to Deslauriers or Lundqvist.

There isn't really any way to say who belongs where, or who belongs on the list.

You could have a pool of 100 hockey nuts, and then 20 times select 10 random people out (some guys would participate multiple times), and ask them for a top 50 list... you'd get remarkably different lists every single time.

There is nothing you can do about it.
 

NYRangers

Registered User
Aug 11, 2004
2,850
0
I don't see what size has to do with a goalie if your stopping everything. Even so, if your 5-11 or 6-6 aslong as you stop the puck it doesnt matter.
 

Mothra

The Groovy Guru
Jul 16, 2002
7,717
2
Parts Unknown
Visit site
HOCKEY_GURU said:
I have no issues with whatever the cut off is, and thats HF's perrogative to do what they want.... but i simply am asking for consistency, if the cut off is 65 NHL Games then it should be applied to all players. :handclap:

Are you saying there are players on the list that have played more than 65 games? I havent checked each one......if there are please point them out.....if not, what in the world are you talking about?
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
NYRangers said:
I don't see what size has to do with a goalie if your stopping everything. Even so, if your 5-11 or 6-6 aslong as you stop the puck it doesnt matter.

It's easier to see around Todd Bertuzzi if you are 6-6 than if you are 5-11.

What's been Lundqvists knock on him, and the main thing he needs to improve on?

Shots upstairs.

There isn't a league that compares to the NHL in terms of having players who can shoot high. So he's both not very tall, and needs to work on his upstairs game...

Size has lots to do with being a goalie... excellent ones will overcome a lack of size, others won't. Just because he isn't on a top 50 list doesn't mean he won't have a good career, and just because you aren't on the list doesn't mean you are a failure.
 

HOCKEY_GURU

Registered User
Jun 27, 2002
661
0
Visit site
forbesy said:
I believe it was, and if it wasn't then please let us know who was overlooked.

Ok I re checked some of the players i thought could be eligeable.. and many werent , for this I do appologize, however some were eligeable and perhaps they were close to top 50 but not quite on that list, ... there are some players that IMHO shoudl be top 50 and so do many posters here for instance Kronwall and Lundquist, i also wonder if M-A Bergeron could be there too (26 points in 54 games in NHL as a rookie)... kronwall and Bergeron showed they can play in the NHL and should be top notch offensive D-men/ pp QB in the league... perhaps HF sees things differently and I can accept that..after all lists are personal opinions to a large extent , would be nice however to get some thoughts on why certain players dindt make the list or where approximately they would have ended up had there been a top 100... i gave earlier a list of potential top 50....ie svatos.. hudler.. meszaros..pock...kaigorodov..etc... ah well maybe we can start a new thread for posters called "the Best of the Rest"..see where they would place certain names.... Once again thanks for your Efforts...debates/analysis all part of the fun :D
 

SmokeyClause

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
9,999
0
Miami, FL
Visit site
Vlad The Impaler said:
You still don't get it because you're too wrapped up in HFmania.

Not making those lists anymore is not necessarily "punishment", even in the loose and overly dramatic definition your are using. In certain cases I guess it could be, when you're dropped the list because you're not considered good enough.

In the case of Staal, it's simply a cutoff number to signify you aren't a prospect anymore. Staal was not punished. He was promoted. He's "happy". In fact, one could say that it's Horton who gets the shaft here.

Now, do I also need to explain that Stanley Cups are more important than "winning" the top organizational rank spot in HF's top 30 or do you get that part?

You are right about the fact that I am not getting something. But you are wrong about what that something is. I do get what you are saying, along with almost everyone on this board save for a few fanatics. What I don't get is why you are saying it, especially towards me. I know these lists are meaningless. I know hockey is meaningless. I don't care. For the same reason you are on here arguing and conversing, I am as well. I enjoy talking about it. Maybe if you would step off your high horse long enough to understand that you aren't the only one on this board with a modicum of intelligence, this conversation wouldn't be necessary.

And back to Staal, since you are having trouble with my meaning of punishment, let's go with this. What makes Horton a prospect and Staal not? Fine, we'll stoop to your argument. Why is Horton not priveledged along the lines of Staal or Chistov? That's the crux of my argument. What is the big difference between them? Does the 65 figure really adequately represent a cutoff?

Oh and while you are at it, tell me why the Stanley Cup is more important than being ranked #1 in HF organizational rankings? I'm just dying to know.
 

Flames Draft Watcher

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,793
0
Calgary
Visit site
NYRangers said:
I don't see what size has to do with a goalie if your stopping everything. Even so, if your 5-11 or 6-6 aslong as you stop the puck it doesnt matter.

You fail to see how size affects a goalie? That seems extremely hard to believe.

Typically these days when a goalie can't see a shot he butterflies to cover the bottom of the net. This tends to leave the uppermost portion of the net open. With small goalies you get a large amount of space open up there because their torso does not cover it. With a 6'4 goalie who is properly positioned you would have much less of the net open when he is in the butterfly.

It's pretty obvious if you've watched the game. A guy like a Fred Brathwaite let's in a lot of top shelf screened goals whereas guys like Turek/Luongo/Kolzig/etc tend to stop more of those because they cover more of the net. It's a concept I would think most kids would intuitively understand.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
GURU, about Bergeron...

The problem is, he is a small guy, something like 5-9. He's never going to be able to play against the top players, meaning at best he's a PP specialist who sees time agaisnt the oppositions 3rd/4th lines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->