Hockey's Future Top 50 Prospects: 11-25

Status
Not open for further replies.

NYRangers

Registered User
Aug 11, 2004
2,850
0
Stich said:
How many times do have to say that my issue is the 17 spot difference before you get it?

Its your reasoning. Your reasoning for that being wrong was only 1 NHL team liked him better and reports had Schwarz ranked higher.

Therefore I said, "I dont see how comparing this lists to others works. If McKeens said Montoya over Schawrz would you scream out "Well its wrong, Red Line says Schwarz over Montoya."

get it?
:teach:
 

degroat*

Guest
NYRangers said:
Its your reasoning. Your reasoning for that being wrong was only 1 NHL team liked him better and reports had Schwarz ranked higher.

Therefore I said, "I dont see how comparing this lists to others works. If McKeens said Montoya over Schawrz would you scream out "Well its wrong, Red Line says Schwarz over Montoya."

get it?
:teach:

No, I don't get it because you are completely wrong. The point of bringing up the other lists was to point out that most reputable sources don't think that there's as big of a gap between the two players as HF appears to think.

get it?
:teach:
 

degroat*

Guest
BTW... I was wrong, there's a 26 spot difference between the two. I just don't get what the powers that be has seen out of Montoya that makes him and not Schwarz better than Toivonen, Bryzgalov, Emery, & Drouin-Deslauriers.
 

xander

Registered User
Nov 4, 2003
4,085
0
Section A Lynah Rink
Visit site
Stich said:
No, I don't get it because you are completely wrong. The point of bringing up the other lists was to point out that most reputable sources don't think that there's as big of a gap between the two players as HF appears to think.

get it?
:teach:

fine, but someone else's opinion isn't a bases for your own argument. can you give us reasons why montoya isn't 17 spots better than schwarz?
 

Boondock Saint

Registered User
Mar 6, 2003
1,662
0
Stich said:
Montoya 17 spots higher than Schwarz when more reputable sources had Schwarz ranked higher before the draft? Hillarious.

Check out Schwarz's numbers this year before making a comment like that.

Dreadful start in the WHL for the Czech.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Ruckus007 said:
Ryan Miller went from #9 to #41. Looks like Kesler went from #23 to out of the Top 50. Anything's possible.

And that's a real problem. It basically means the lists aren't worth the electrons they're printed on, because in reality those players haven't had that much change in their potential. And there hasn't been enough change in folks dropping out or coming in to the list to explain it.

If you defend it by saying "well, last years list is clearly off", then the cynic in me suggests that likely this years list will prove to be garbage by next years crew.

I suspect it's pretty much the same disease that strikes most of HF (not just managment). The "recency" disease, where new prospects are immediately valued higher than older ones, or you're only as good as your last year.
 

Fists of Fuhry

Registered User
Jun 26, 2002
1,929
0
Visit site
Stich said:
BTW... I was wrong, there's a 26 spot difference between the two. I just don't get what the powers that be has seen out of Montoya that makes him and not Schwarz better than Toivonen, Bryzgalov, Emery, & Drouin-Deslauriers.
:whine:
 

andora

Registered User
Apr 23, 2002
24,304
7,365
Victoria
i don't understand how coburn is higher than jeff carter, or some of the other names in the 26-50...

coburn imo has slowed a little, still a great prospect, but a little high imo
 

Ola

Registered User
Apr 10, 2004
34,597
11,595
Sweden
sjb3599 said:
Maybe this is homerish, but no Lundqvist in the top 50 has to be the most glaring omission. Personally I think he's underrated by most Ranger fans too, including myself. While certainly not a top 10, and possibly not a top 20, to be left out of the top 50 is a bit excessive. It's the opinion of many people that he may just be the most underrated prospect in the entire NHL because he's never had the benefit of hype.

I know the big question mark is his ability to make the transition to NA ice, but age shouldn't really be a factor. I just come he comes over a proves a great deal of people wrong.

No need to worry! :) Having Vanek ranked above Lundqvist is like taking Radek Dvorak over Martin Brodeur... I doubt these guys who makes these rankings watch allot of hockey and Lundqvist isn´t the first one to show up if you read old draft lists on the web. All the talk about potential is BS since Lundqvist would be atleast top 10 in that cathegory. IMO Vanek at best will be a perimeter scorer in the NHL like Dvorak while Lundqvist is a sure bet to be a starter and the only question is how good he will become... The next Brodeur or a Aebiser type of goalie.

The idea in itself to make a list like the HF does which is basically based on where the prospects are picked the last 2-3 years is pretty useless. A top 50 list which where based on potential which included all players who fill the prospects creteria would be a much more interesting read.
 

Barnaby

Registered User
Jul 2, 2003
8,650
3,414
Port Jefferson, NY
Stich said:
How many times do have to say that my issue is the 17 spot difference before you get it?

Maybe our HF pals saw something that you didn't read...

23 GP, 10-12, 3.13 GAA, .887 save percentage.

Averages a mere 26.8 shots per game.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
Barnaby said:
Maybe our HF pals saw something that you didn't read...

23 GP, 10-12, 3.13 GAA, .887 save percentage.

Averages a mere 26.8 shots per game.

And maybe you didn't read that stats for this season were not taken into account when this list was formulated.
 

KingPurpleDinosaur

Bandwagon Kings Fan
Dec 17, 2002
2,897
0
irvine, ca
www.anteaterhockey.com
the ones i question are Kostitsyn (love him, but i think 15 is WAAAAY too high for this guy), stewart (i think he can move down a few slots), getzlaf (can move up a few slots), schremp (move down around 5), richards (i would put him around late 40's, but that's just me), grebeshkov (up 5 or so), and defiantely swap montoya with bryzagalov. i dont see what montoya has done to deserver being placed ahead of what Bryzgalov has already done.

i think montoya is being a bit overrated on this board. i swear, people are pretty damn close to calling him a "franchise" player when id ont think he's anywhere near that caliber. good goalie, but not a franchise one.
 

Chimaera

same ol' Caps
Feb 4, 2004
30,888
1,713
La Plata, Maryland
Decent list... I have less qualms with who's in this section, largely because the difference between number 12-13 isn't that much between number 25ish.


I'd also like to second the idea that Maxime Ouellet is about where he should be.

He should've been way higher last year (49 was an atrocity) and although he is older, he's consistently put up really solid numbers in the AHL. And he didn't look bad in a few of his showings for the Caps the past year, even with the awful defense. He did have a bad night or two, but... hey, with one real defenseman, it's kinda hard to have a good one.
 

Barnaby

Registered User
Jul 2, 2003
8,650
3,414
Port Jefferson, NY
Epsilon said:
And maybe you didn't read that stats for this season were not taken into account when this list was formulated.

Obviously... point is maybe they saw something they didn't like that led them to believe that he wasn't that great after all.

..... but thanks for playing
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
Barnaby said:
Obviously... point is maybe they saw something they didn't like that led them to believe that he wasn't that great after all.

..... but thanks for playing

You think that any of these guys had actually seem him play more than a couple of times before the season started?
 

Barnaby

Registered User
Jul 2, 2003
8,650
3,414
Port Jefferson, NY
Epsilon said:
You think that any of these guys had actually seem him play more than a couple of times before the season started?

Couldn't tell ya... but I'd like to think that they've seen these guys a handful of times at the least which is more then I could say about most of us.
 

Ola

Registered User
Apr 10, 2004
34,597
11,595
Sweden
Barnaby said:
Couldn't tell ya... but I'd like to think that they've seen these guys a handful of times at the least which is more then I could say about most of us.

I think its kind of obvious they haven´t. Atleast when there where a NHL season they could get a glimpse of a prospect or two but now I doubt they seen more then maybe 5-10% of the players. They have never listed a player who wasn´t hyped before the draft for example. They list players who are hyped in the media from the age of 16-17 and then get drafted high at the age of 18. Players at the age of 18 are basically a half developt product. Hockey players keep develop tremendously even long into their 20´s. Take Zetterberg for example. The year after he was drafted anyone who saw him play knew that he was gooing to be really good. Still you never see someone like Zetterberg on a HF list. My advaice to HF would be to put together a list based on potential and how far players have gotten in their development. Not a mixed draft list from 02-04...
 

Barnaby

Registered User
Jul 2, 2003
8,650
3,414
Port Jefferson, NY
I do think they do a very good job considering. I mean you can't expect them to fly out to somewhere deep in Russia to see Zetterberger but still. There are a few dissagrements such as no Lundvquist or Stuart, but I really dont see any big problems. I feel like they give us a solid list. Just look at NHL teams draft list - all 30 will be different so you cant expect everyone to be happy here. Some people nitpick (so and so should be 4 spots higher..etc) but all in all its in the right neighborhood
 

Legionnaire

Help On The Way
Jul 10, 2002
44,254
3,965
LA-LA Land
Barnaby said:
I do think they do a very good job considering. I mean you can't expect them to fly out to somewhere deep in Russia to see Zetterberger but still. There are a few dissagrements such as no Lundvquist or Stuart, but I really dont see any big problems. I feel like they give us a solid list. Just look at NHL teams draft list - all 30 will be different so you cant expect everyone to be happy here. Some people nitpick (so and so should be 4 spots higher..etc) but all in all its in the right neighborhood

That's some good suff right there. :joker:
 

Vic Rattlehead*

Guest
Oh well, the staff did their best, but I would like to hear a simple reason why Stuart isn't on this list.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CoolburnIsGone

Guest
PecaFan said:
And that's a real problem. It basically means the lists aren't worth the electrons they're printed on, because in reality those players haven't had that much change in their potential. And there hasn't been enough change in folks dropping out or coming in to the list to explain it.

If you defend it by saying "well, last years list is clearly off", then the cynic in me suggests that likely this years list will prove to be garbage by next years crew.

I suspect it's pretty much the same disease that strikes most of HF (not just managment). The "recency" disease, where new prospects are immediately valued higher than older ones, or you're only as good as your last year.
The only way to get the consistency that everyone wants is to have the same crew do the list every yr which I doubt happens (or will ever happen) while the site is free. Everyone can come up with stats or reasons why player A should be ranked higher than player B and vice versa. So to say the list is "garbage" or "aren't worth the electrons" is just as subjective as the list itself. Also remember that last yr's list was done later in the yr (I think put out around February or March) and didn't include a few players like Nathan Horton because at the time he was no longer considered a prospect. HF changed a lot of things since that last list (most notably the rating system). Am I surprised by how much the list has actually changed and the players jumping around so much...nope, I expected it. Do I think it has to do with a "recency" issue...not as much as it has to do with the overall changes in the site.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->