If the 2003 draft were held again...

[thestonedkoala]

Again what about O'Sullivan? He was a mid-second round pick last year and Burns would've been the same. I think Burns would be around the same but O'Sullivan would've been a top 15 player.

 

[leafaholix*]

1. Marc-Andre Fleury
2. Nikolai Zherdev
3. Eric Staal
4. Nathan Horton
5. Thomas Vanek
6. Milan Michalek
7. Dion Phaneuf
8. Ryan Suter
9. Braydon Coburn
10. Jeff Carter
11. Zach Parise
12. Patrice Bergeron
13. Andrei Kastitsyn
14. Anthony Stewart
15. Brent Burns
16. Dustin Brown
17. Ryan Getzlaf
18. Eric Fehr
19. Brent Seabrook
20. Mark Stuart
21. Robert Nilsson
22. Ryan Kesler
23. Mike Richards
24. Hugh Jessiman
25. Marc-Antoine Pouliot
26. Steve Bernier
27. Loui Eriksson
28. Corey Perry
29. Shawn Belle
30. Jeff Tambellini

Drop quite a bit:
- Steve Bernier
- Hugh Jessiman

Rise quite a bit:
- Zach Parise
- Anthony Stewart
- Patrice Bergeron
- Brent Burns
- Loui Eriksson

 

[Marchy79]

I'm with Kryoptix on this one.. I do not see as to why Kastsitsyn would have dropped at all in the draft. There has been nothing but good talk about him around the horn.

He was the # 3 guy in scoring in the tourney, and to add to this... his line mates were # 1-2... He's the best player from Belarus hands down... Statistics are not everything. When he arrives here, we'll know for sure, but as far as dropping down the list because he has yet to play an NHL game, Because he WANTED to learn under Russian Great Tikhonov... I don't see how this affects his game at all. He's developing, and Montreal brass has already gone on record to say he IS NHL ready in terms of talent... Just look at Zherdev who got more ice time in Russia (because he IS Russian), there was some talk about him not being so good... he comes over and does well, and all of this talk dies? The same will happen when AK lands and then Montreal will be booked for grand larceny

 

[Rabid Ranger]

1. Marc-Andre Fleury
2. Nikolai Zherdev
3. Eric Staal
4. Nathan Horton
5. Thomas Vanek
6. Milan Michalek
7. Dion Phaneuf
8. Ryan Suter
9. Braydon Coburn
10. Jeff Carter
11. Zach Parise
12. Patrice Bergeron
13. Andrei Kastitsyn
14. Anthony Stewart
15. Brent Burns
16. Dustin Brown
17. Ryan Getzlaf
18. Eric Fehr
19. Brent Seabrook
20. Mark Stuart
21. Robert Nilsson
22. Ryan Kesler
23. Mike Richards
24. Hugh Jessiman
25. Marc-Antoine Pouliot
26. Steve Bernier
27. Loui Eriksson
28. Corey Perry
29. Shawn Belle
30. Jeff Tambellini

Drop quite a bit:
- Steve Bernier
- Hugh Jessiman

Rise quite a bit:
- Zach Parise
- Anthony Stewart
- Patrice Bergeron
- Brent Burns
- Loui Eriksson

Why would Jessiman's stock drop so much? He's 3rd in the ECAC in scoring, and by all accounts playing great hockey. His size and talent are things that can't be taught. Plus, he's a "hometown" prospect for the Rangers (born in NYC), and that's a significant factor as well.

 

[leafaholix*]

Because he's more of a project then anyone I put ahead of him.

Personally, I like the kind of player he supposedly is.

Btw, why did he not play for USA at the 2004 WJC?

 

[Stefferdoos]

Because he's more of a project then anyone I put ahead of him.

Personally, I like the kind of player he supposedly is.

Btw, why did he not play for USA at the 2004 WJC?

I hope you kidding with that last reply. He was there, scored two goals in the final game (OK - I know Canadians might disagree about the second one but he got the credit for it).

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

I hope you kidding with that last reply. He was there, scored two goals in the final game (OK - I know Canadians might disagree about the second one but he got the credit for it).

GPH is talking about the Huge Speciman, not Patty O.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

Bernier wouldn't have dropped that much. Don't look just at his scoring this year. He is 3rd in the league in plus/minus and 9th in hits (4th for forwards). He has lost weight, become more complete this year, and after a slow start, is picking up his scoring pace.

 

[Jim Bob]

I think there are legitimate questions about his game that have developed over the past few months. His performance at this year's WJC's didn't help matters either.

Vanek's performance at the WJCs didn't help?

The guy was the only top flight scoring threat on the Austrian squad. That was shown to be glaringly true when he had 3 goals and an assist and Austria scored a grand total of 5 goals in the entire tournament.

Vanek was in on 80% of Austria's goals.

Vanek's stock may be taking a hit this year because his production has flat lined at Minnesota, but I doubt it would knock him completely out of the top 12.

And I wouldn't be shocked if the Sabres would make the same pick should they have it all over again.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Vanek's performance at the WJCs didn't help?

The guy was the only top flight scoring threat on the Austrian squad. That was shown to be glaringly true when he had 3 goals and an assist and Austria scored a grand total of 5 goals in the entire tournament.

Vanek was in on 80% of Austria's goals.

Vanek's stock may be taking a hit this year because his production has flat lined at Minnesota, but I doubt it would knock him completely out of the top 12.

And I wouldn't be shocked if the Sabres would make the same pick should they have it all over again.

One question: Did he play well at the WJC's? I know he was on a bad team, but the answer to that question is no, he didn't. He's also had a sub par year at Minnesota, and you add those things together and it's unlikely Vanek would be a top 5 selection. I didn't say he would drop *that* far, just that he would drop. Maybe Buffalo would select him at five, maybe they wouldn't.

 

[Jim Bob]

One question: Did he play well at the WJC's? I know he was on a bad team, but the answer to that question is no, he didn't.

And that's based on what exactly?

I'm sorry, but it's extremely hard for any player like Vanek to look really good when he's the only offensive threat on his team. Every team went up against Austria knowing that all they had to do was shut down Thomas and they would be alright.

There are few players in the history of the WJCs that have looked really good in similiar situations.

He's also had a sub par year at Minnesota, and you add those things together and it's unlikely Vanek would be a top 5 selection.

Vanek's sophomore season at Minnesota isn't any worse that Heatley's sophomore season at Wisconsin.

And personally, I've seen Vanek play a lot more physically this year (case in point his hit on Jim Slater), he's been going to the front of the net on a consistent basis, and he hasn't looked out of place on the Gophers PK.

Vanek's numbers are down because the team as a whole has struggled in the early going. But, they have turned things on of late, and I'd expect Thomas to have a strong second half.

 

[Stefferdoos]

GPH is talking about the Huge Speciman, not Patty O.

Got it. I tried to follow is thread but I must have missed one.

In regards to The Specimen, I knew he was gonna flop, just based on the fact that my Rangers drafted him.

 

[big_steve]

Here's my First Round:
1. Fleury(same)
2. Staal(same)
3. Zherdev(up 1)
4. Horton(down 1)
5. Phaneuf(up 4)
6. Suter(up 1)
7. Vanek(down 2)
8. Michalek(down 2)
9. Coburn(down 1)
10. Bergeron(up 35)
11. Parise(up 6)
12. Carter(down 1)
13. Kastitsyn(down 3)
14. Stewart(up 11)
15. Brown(down 2)
16. Burns(up 4)
17. Stuart(up 4)
18. Getzlaf(up 1)
19. Seabrook(down 5)
20. Kesler(up 3)
21. Jessiman(down 9)
22. Nilsson(down 7)
23. Fehr(down 5)
24. Richards(same)
25. Pouliot(down 3)
26. Bernier(down 10)
27. Tambellini(same)
28. Perry(same)
29. Belle(up 1)
30. O'Sullivan(up 26)

 

[MePutPuckInNet]

I think the whole domestic issue would still be a problem.
Him dropping to the second round wasn't based on his skills or ability on the ice... I think it was moreso based on the problems he's had in the past with his family and his psychological state.
He may actually go earlier in the second round.

That is completely absurd. What exactly does he have to do to prove himself? Or should he just give up now, since it seems that no one is ever going to let up with this ridiculous line of "reasoning"? Geez, he's moved on, why can't you?

 

[Spezza]

I apologize, I meant to say Dan Fritsche and got confused with Columbus and Minnesota - weird.

Thing that hurt Fritsche isn't his talent, but its his long term durability. The guy has had two shoulder ops (one on each) and I'm pretty sure he also had pins implanted. Thats really what hurt his draft position.

 

[tylerr]

Why do you guys see Pouliot dropping so much?

 

[TVanek26*]

If Minnesota wins another championship (They probably will), it will be because of Vanek.Crosby had a sub-par WJC, but he is still heralded as the 2005 #1 pick and future superstar.5 or 6 games don't make a player...

 

[Jeffrey]

1- Marc-Andre Fleury
2- Eric Staal
3- Nathan Horton
4- Nikolai Zherdev
5- Milan Michalek
6- Dion Phaneuf
7- Ryan Suter
8- Thomas Vanek
9- Jeff Carter
10- Andrei Kostitsyn
11- Zach Parise
12- Braydon Coburn
13- Dustin Brown
14- Patrice Bergeron
15- Anthony Stewart
16- Hugh Jessiman
17- Brent Seabrooke
18- Brent Burns
19- Steve Bernier
20- Ryan Kesler
21- Mike Richards
22- Shawn Belle
23- Mark Stuart
24- Robert Nilsson
25- Ryan Getzlaf
26- Eric Fehr
27- Jeff Tambellini
28- Marc-Antoine Pouliot
29- Patrick Eaves
30- Patrick O'Sullivan

...
the first 15 picks were easy to make .. but after it's a lot tougher ..
in trying to not be biased toward canadians..
anyway this is my opinion ..

 

[st_roland]

Crosby had a sub-par WJC

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[PanthersRule96]

Care to elaborate as to why you think this?

Now I think about it and I think Zherdev would be picked one or two spots better than Kast. Kasytsin was supposedly proven to be 100 percent healthy and the whole Russian federation thing with Zherdev hurt his stock IMO, not him or his skill or anything. Just that it was an issue that would probably only be cleared with lots of money that stingy teams won't want to pay to russia.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Why would Jessiman's stock drop so much? He's 3rd in the ECAC in scoring, and by all accounts playing great hockey. His size and talent are things that can't be taught. Plus, he's a "hometown" prospect for the Rangers (born in NYC), and that's a significant factor as well.

How is that a significant factor?

I can see how that makes him more valuable for the Rangers. Hometown talent is nice and all. But how does that fact make him a significantly better prospect?

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Again what about O'Sullivan? He was a mid-second round pick last year and Burns would've been the same. I think Burns would be around the same but O'Sullivan would've been a top 15 player.

What makes you think that? I've heard mix reviews on O'Sullivan so far. I think he probably *deserved* a better faith in the draft, don't get me wrong. But whatever was the reason so many teams passed on him, I fail to see why SO MANY would change their minds. Certainly not enough to put him top 15, probably not even top 25.

I might agree if several prospects had seen their stock drop but so far, many of the draftees are showing great things and improvements. Who can he knock off realistically? If anything, many of these guys would be fighting to rise which means the results of the draft would be somewhat similar, IMO.

I think the 2003 draft was fantastic and most teams have to be happy so far with their prospects. This is a rare thing and tends to demonstrate the 2003 was probably hyped with good reasons. It's a great year for everybody, IMO.

 

[shveik]

I think that the top 6 picks in the draft are more or less untouchable. You can rehash them any which way you like, but the difference between them is minimal outside of Fleury (for a goalie to prove he belongs in the NHL at 18 is very rare, so imo Fleury is the runaway #1 at the draft). Vanek did not bust out, but IMO he was drafted due to his potential, not due to what he shows at the moment. He has the most raw offensive ability of the whole draft, and that's hard to pass up.

As for the rest, both Burns and especially Bergeron showed they belong in the NHL. Both would have moved into top 15 if draft was held today.

 

[Brock]

What makes you think that? I've heard mix reviews on O'Sullivan so far. I think he probably *deserved* a better faith in the draft, don't get me wrong. But whatever was the reason so many teams passed on him, I fail to see why SO MANY would change their minds. Certainly not enough to put him top 15, probably not even top 25.

I might agree if several prospects had seen their stock drop but so far, many of the draftees are showing great things and improvements. Who can he knock off realistically? If anything, many of these guys would be fighting to rise which means the results of the draft would be somewhat similar, IMO.

I think the 2003 draft was fantastic and most teams have to be happy so far with their prospects. This is a rare thing and tends to demonstrate the 2003 was probably hyped with good reasons. It's a great year for everybody, IMO.

Well O Sullivan would probably be a top 20 pick for me.

I'll take a stab at redoing this maybe later, but Off the top of my head Patty O would be a top 20 pick if i was running the draft.

I get the chance to see him a good amount because I live beside Mississauaga and IMO he's the most talented player in the OHL. His offensive abilities are absolutely top flight and his defensive game is improving too, which is good news. He pretty much creates scoring opportunities everytime he steps on the ice.

Essentially I'd like to wipe my arse with all of these supposed character issues and wipe it in the face of every GM whom passed on him in the second round and let them get a nice whiff of the hand they dealt themselves.

And I do agree that people are truly now seing that we weren't all lying when we said that this draft was the best ever.

 

[#37-#93-#27*]

How is that a significant factor?

I can see how that makes him more valuable for the Rangers. Hometown talent is nice and all. But how does that fact make him a significantly better prospect?

Well it probably doesn't but he's done nothing to hurt himself. His status as a prospect now is better then it was draft day and the fact he's home grown probably helps him in the sense there's a greater chance and another factor or reason for why he could make the NHL one day.

One things for sure, he's done nothing to hurt himself so I too am puzzled why he'd drop down more then half the selections specially when you consider the likely reasons he was drafted was his size and the fact his determination is strong (by the Rangers that is), I'm sure he'd still be atop their draft list once it's time for their selection.