How good the 2005 crop is.

[not quite yoda]

I was wondering what you guys thought of the quality of the upcoming 2005 draft.

When we were getting ready for the 2003 draft, I remember everyone raving about how good that class was. It was mentioned in the Hockey News Draft preview that the 2005 crop might turn out to be about as good. Naturally there seems to be alot of depth coming from Canada, it is also an above avg. year IMO for American players. However the weaker European crop is making it pale in comparison to 2 years ago.

The 2002 crop was considered to be very strong in the top end (Nash, Lehtonen, Bouwmeester, Pitkannen) but lacked depth after them.

So what do you think of the overall quality of "2005"?

Click to read more...

 

[westcoastsabre]

The NHL scouts I have talked to suggest 2005 is a weak draft, no where near 2003 and not as good as 2004. Outside of Crosby, Rick Dudley said the top ranked players all have warts,(too small, can't skate, aren't aggresive, etc.) which means there is something wrong with each one. After seeing him at least 15 times, I have a hard time understanding why Gilbert Brule is ranked so high. Maybe the other players just aren't very good.

 

[Legionnaire]

The NHL scouts I have talked to suggest 2005 is a weak draft, no where near 2003 and not as good as 2004. Outside of Crosby, Rick Dudley said the top ranked players all have warts,(too small, can't skate, aren't aggresive, etc.) which means there is something wrong with each one. After seeing him at least 15 times, I have a hard time understanding why Gilbert Brule is ranked so high. Maybe the other players just aren't very good.

I agree for the most part. Except, I think this will end up being a draft where you'll see a lot of late round steals. There is talent, but like you(or Dudley) said there are other issues. The talent's there though. We'll have to see how things pan out a few years down the road.

 

[Meat Wave]

I think it's deeper than the 2004 draft personally, but weaker in terms of top-end talent. As for 2003, it's pretty tough to match the talent there was in this draft year.

 

[Blind Gardien]

It seems to be deep in terms of grinding role players, or like Dudley said "warty" players. But without the Europeans up there, this doesn't seem like anything more than an average year at best.

 

[MS]

The North American group is IMO actually somewhat above-average, but the European class is the worst since Eastern Europe opened up circa 1990.

It's nowhere near 2003, but it's quite a bit better than 2004, which was one of the worst drafts ever. First 20 picks or so look pretty decent, and I'd call it an average draft. Of the last 4 drafts (2002-2005), I'd have it as the 2nd best.

 

[Greg7]

Great year for the Q, good year for the OHL, and not very good year for the WHL.

Agree with MS that overall it's basically average because the Europeans are so poor.

 

[Eb0la11]

The North American group is IMO actually somewhat above-average, but the European class is the worst since Eastern Europe opened up circa 1990.

It's nowhere near 2003, but it's quite a bit better than 2004, which was one of the worst drafts ever. First 20 picks or so look pretty decent, and I'd call it an average draft. Of the last 4 drafts (2002-2005), I'd have it as the 2nd best.

I agree with this description, its a good NA draft but bad European. I think the 2004 draft was really bad, I mean guys like Ladd, Tukonen, Picard all havent done much at all and they were like top 10 guys. This year should be better than last, the 1st rounder has quite a few 2nd liner forwards and top 4 dmen mostly.

 

[Habsfan 32]

The North American group is IMO actually somewhat above-average, but the European class is the worst since Eastern Europe opened up circa 1990.

It's nowhere near 2003, but it's quite a bit better than 2004, which was one of the worst drafts ever. First 20 picks or so look pretty decent, and I'd call it an average draft. Of the last 4 drafts (2002-2005), I'd have it as the 2nd best.

Well said. The top end talent in the top 10 is amazing this year also. Crosby,Brule,Johnson,Rask and Kopitar all have alot of talent.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

2005 is hardly weak and much much stronger then 2004 crop. This year isn't as strong as 2003 but is strong in its own right, there will be 1st round talents selected in the 2nd round easy.

 

[X-SHARKIE]

2005 is hardly weak and much much stronger then 2004 crop. This year isn't as strong as 2003 but is strong in its own right, there will be 1st round talents selected in the 2nd round easy.

Agreed, their is a good top group of 12 players, then a group of about 8 more prospects worth high mentioning...after that a kid could be taken 21st overall or 40th overall. 1st round talent will seep into the 2nd round. The 1-2 punch isn't near Ovechkin and Malkin though.

It doesn't touch 2003, no draft well in quite awhile. Top 5 value was their in the Teens and 20's. The 2nd round was just another 1st round basically.

2003 won't be matched in awhile.

2004 was underated IMO, but I like 05 more.

 

[Oilers Chick]

IMO I don't really consider this year's draft particularly strong among the current NCAA players, but the kids coming into the NCAA this fall and (in some cases) the fall of '06, this looks to be a pretty good draft for them. Players such such as Jack Johnson, Ryan Stoa, Brian Lee and Jeff Frazee to name a few.

...but of course, it'll be only a matter of time before the many "what NHL team will get Phil Kessel?" discussions will get started.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

...but of course, it'll be only a matter of time before the many "what NHL team will get Phil Kessel?" discussions will get started.

Dont forget about Pete Mueller

 

[CurtisJD13]

The 2003 draft year is an amazing thing. Look down the list of players that were taken in the first round, and you see that at least 4/5 of those players project as franchise or elite type players in alot of people's books. Just starting from the bottom, you run into Corey Perry, Shawn Belle, Mike Richards, Ryan Kesler, etc. So the 2nd round can't get much better, right? Wrong. Some of these guys have already skated NHL shifts.

The 2003 draft is a draft that won't be matched any time in the near future. If all those players pan out into what they project as, it'll be stronger than 2-3 years of some drafts combined.

 

[Form and Substance]

Remember people hyping this year's draft as one of the best ever? Well anyway (I think I'm a guilty party), this year has a very strong NA crop, WEAK european crop so above average I think because of the presence of Crosby and Brule.

 

[Epsilon]

Crosby is really the only thing that makes this draft any better than "normal" in my opinion. It actually reminds me quite a bit of the 2001 draft.

 

[borro]

IMO I don't really consider this year's draft particularly strong among the current NCAA players, but the kids coming into the NCAA this fall and (in some cases) the fall of '06, this looks to be a pretty good draft for them. Players such such as Jack Johnson, Ryan Stoa, Brian Lee and Jeff Frazee to name a few.

...but of course, it'll be only a matter of time before the many "what NHL team will get Phil Kessel?" discussions will get started.

Look up! Kessel, Joenesuu and Frolik and more discussions already abound.

 

[borro]

I was wondering what you guys thought of the quality of the upcoming 2005 draft.

When we were getting ready for the 2003 draft, I remember everyone raving about how good that class was. It was mentioned in the Hockey News Draft preview that the 2005 crop might turn out to be about as good. Naturally there seems to be alot of depth coming from Canada, it is also an above avg. year IMO for American players. However the weaker European crop is making it pale in comparison to 2 years ago.

The 2002 crop was considered to be very strong in the top end (Nash, Lehtonen, Bouwmeester, Pitkannen) but lacked depth after them.

So what do you think of the overall quality of "2005"?

One thing I think is that there will be SEVERAL 4th rounders who become NHL players based on what I am seeing in our Mock Draft. Usually you go about 2 rounds deep and the rest are "freaks." So. I think we go very deep.