Discussion in 'NHL Draft - Prospects' started by Randall Graves*, Dec 19, 2005.
What would the first round draft order be?
Well, don't want to do full first round but my Top-10 would be :
I dont think any of the top teams would draft a different guy but :
It was hard to make a mistake in this 1st round... 29 of 30 players are already playing pro.
And a lot of them played at least 1 NHL game already...
Remaining players still in AHL/ECHL/NCAA without 1 NHL game :
so it means 25/30 players drafted in the 1st round played in the NHL at 20. Not so bad... Hard to argue on the top-10, the lone player on the bubble would be Kostitsyn because of the play of Carter, Richards, Brown or Seabrook for example. But still a good pick it seems...
Nearly all the 2nd round is playing in the AHL or NHL already so again, hard to say there's a bad pick, and even hard to redone a top-10. Every team had specifics needs at this time (G, D or F) and every team seems to be happy of their choices.
I would say some guys like Bergeron or Fritsche deserved to be in the 1st round but it's tough to crack the top-30 when you see who is there...
Good post. Weird actually, since I was just coming to say pretty much the same thing.
There would be some risers. And yes, Perry would be one of them if that was your intention in starting this thread . But 03 is such a talented draft class that it's quite hard to pin down who should go where today. I mean, as was pointed out there are a lot of guys already in the NHL, but that doesn't really negate the potential of those who aren't, and nor does it mean that other players won't progress.
Eric Fehr will be a force in this leauge, mark my words.
I pretty much agree most of the guys in the top 10 would be there, but I think 11 to 20 it would look MUCH different.
Not my intention, was just discussing the 03 draft with someone and all the talent, like Bergeron being a 3rd round pick. he'd easily be top 20 now, Perry and Richards would probably move into the top 20.
bergeron was a 2nd rounder - 45th overall.
the first round of this draft was unreal. which team do you think regrets their choice the most?
Bergeron was a 2nd rounder (45th overall). Just imagine if Alexander Ovechkin had just been two days older and had been eligible for this draft as well!
Not picking on the Rangers, but Jessiman's not looking too good at the moment. Atlanta probably would rather have Phaneuf over Coburn now [albeit most places had Coburn rated higher in 2003], but it's still very early for all of these prospects.
here is how my top 30 would look:
1. Nikolai Zherdev
2. Eric Staal
3. M-A Fleury
4. Dion Phaneuf
5. Patrice Bergeron
6. Jeff Carter
7. Nathan Horton
8. Thomas Vanek
9. Mike Richards
10. Milan Michalek
11. Ryan Gatzlaf
12. Dustin Brown
13. Ryan Suter
14. Dan Fritisch
15. Patrick O'Sullivan
16. Shea Weber
17. Corey Perry
18. Steve Bernier
19. J-F Jaques
20. Brent Seabrook
21. Zach Parise
22. Braydon Coburn
23. Brent Burns
24. Ryan Kesler
25. Corey Crawford
26. Mark Stuart
27. Robert Nilsson
28. Anthony Stewart
29. Eric Fehr
30. Patrick Eaves
yup - jessiman looks like a pig next to the rest of those guys, but in fairness to him, he was considered a project from the get-go.
and he still is. He's a young powerforward, and missed a year due to injury.
I dont seem to remember Bertuzzi or LeClair tearing it up early on. These guys took 5-6 years after they were drafted to begin to become productive.
My list would look somewhat close to yours.. Seabrook being the major jump on my list... and I am not that sold on Brenier either. I would (personally) have Getzlaf right around there too.
My top 10:
1. Eric Staal
2. Dion Phaneuff
3. Marc-Andre Fleury
4. Patrice Bergeron
5. Nikolai Zherdev
6. Nathan Horton
7. Thomas Vanek
8. Jeff Carter
9. Dustin Brown
10. Brent Seabrook
My top 10:
you're the only one that has Suter moving up a spot ... *places BRG on buddy list*
How in the world can people still have Zherdev over Staal at this point? Staal has been a force at both ends of the ice. He has 44 points in 32 games with 22 goals, and Zherdev has 15 points in the same 32 games, is a defensive liability, and was healthy scratched earlier in the season.
He's looking like Stanislav Chistov did the last time hockey was played, after a great debut he fizzled out.
I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, but wow that's pretty funny.
The only differance is that Bertuzzi and LeClair only had trouble putting it together at the NHL level, Jessiman has struggled to make an AHL club and is now playing hockey in the ECHL. Granted, he's doing some good things in the ECHL, but it's not nearly the level of hockey of the AHL.
Bertuzzi went straight to the NHL from Guelph and registered about 40 points in his debut pro season. He wasn't in the AHL, he wasn't in the ECHL, he was in the NHL. Aside from a 13 game stretch in 96-97, Bertuzzi has never played pro hockey below the NHL level. Not once. The parallel between Bertuzzi and Jessiman is invalid for that reason. NYR isn't so deep at forward that, before the season, they couldn't have risked giving him a look at the NHL level had his play waranted it.
John Leclair has the same story. Only 10 games of any experience outside the NHL level. Care to see what he did?
1991-92 Fredericton Canadiens AHL 8 7 7 14
That was the AHL, not the ECHL as well. I know at the time there was a more diverse system of minor league hockey, but the fact he only played 8 games outside the NHL in his pro career speaks volumes about his immense potential. Potential that, to this point, Jessiman has not shown.
Both of these guys didn't climb out of the woodwork and start scoring at a tremendous clip in the NHL. Both were decent enough gambles to at least hold a spot on an NHL roster.
EDIT: what is also failed to mention is that Jessiman, before his injury, could only register 2 points in 12 games with Dartmouth, of all places. At that point in his development, he should have had at least 20 points in that amount of time. Hell, he scored 47 points in 34 games as a freshman in his draft year for crying out loud. He should have at the very least bettered those numbers with a maturing body and hockey sense.
There is a differance between production and skill + potential. Believe it or not, these kids aren't molded into what player they will be yet. Some find that Zherdev, maybe not on current play or production, would be a greater asset to a franchise than Staal. Remember, we are drafting players and not making a list of who is playing better.
As for Chistov, after getting off to a very slow start, he has picked up his game and is currently outproducing his young compatiots Semin and Svitov combined by a fair margin. He isnt anywhere close to the top of the scoring race, but hanging in there.
As it was always advertised, it was a brilliant draft. You can really argue for any of those top 5 players being 1st overall and any of those players being 5th overall in this draft. It was just one of those drafts where you legitimately drafted upon organisational need and came out happy.
San Jose(both picks, could've had Phanuef)
Vancouver(Kesler is a nice player but passed on Richards amongst others)
with that said, it's only been a few years since that draft, Michalek and Kostsitsyn still have plenty of potential though.
I still fail to see the validity of that argument. Staal, as of right now, is performing as one of the top players in the league on both offense and defense. Zherdev is performing under expectations for a player of his age as well as judging him by past precident.
What youâ€™re saying is that Zherdev has the potential to be one of the top scorers in the league, which Staal is already performing as, and is now more valuable than Staal based on this assumption? Would you say that Zherdev has 50 goal potential? Well Staal is on pace with 22 goals in 32 team games. Would you say that Zherdev has the potential to be a decent defensive player? Staal is already well above average. Are you saying that Zherdev has the potential to lead a team almost single handedly to a playoff birth, well have you seen the standings in the east lately?
Iâ€™m not singling out your points to try to disrespect your opinion, Iâ€™m just challenging the idea that the unknown is always better than the known quantity on these boards. I know itâ€™s hockeyâ€™s future and all, but the present has to be taken into account as well when youâ€™re evaluating talent and evaluation a draft.
It sounds to me as if you're saying that there are GM's in this league that would skip Staal, who is already looking like an elite talent, to take a potential elite talent.