thestonedkoala
Guest
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.
go pierre hedin said: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
go pierre hedin said: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 said: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).
Rabid Ranger said: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.
Jim Bob said: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.
Marc the Habs Fan said:GPH is talking about the Huge Speciman, not Patty O.
go pierre hedin said: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.
#37-#93-#27 said:I apologize, I meant to say Dan Fritsche and got confused with Columbus and Minnesota - weird.
DanielBriere48 said:Crosby had a sub-par WJC
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.Ejh18 said:Care to elaborate as to why you think this?
Rabid Ranger said: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.
thestonedkoala said: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.
Vlad The Impaler said: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 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.Vlad The Impaler said: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?