Discussion in 'NHL Draft - Prospects' started by Flames Draft Watcher, Mar 2, 2004.
Top 35 List
Fleischmann and Fehr in the WHL top 10. ROCK!
Yay for Talbot and Dixon.
Tim Brent #3 and Corey Perry #8 in the OHL top 10 + Ryan Getzlaf #1 in the WHL top 10!
BooooOo, Vrana should be higher CHL all rookie team.
Yeah that Fleury guy is not very good... Not good enough to make the list it seems.
Schremp not on the OHL list with guys like Wolski ranked much higher? Nah...
And please I like Phaneuf, but right now, as far as PROSPECT go, Crosby would be taken before him.
Pretty obvious that they didn't bother considering Fleury a prospect. The list may have been put earlier in the season.
The Schremp call is odd but underlines how much scouts are divided over him and where he fits. He probably just barely missed the cut, which is understandable when you cosider they put drafted and undrafted prospects on the list. The 2004-2005 crops has HUGE competition when you put the 2003 draftees there.
Phaneuf over Crosby is odd. Still, they didn't put numbers there so I am not sure they meant these lists were in a definitive order.
Pouliot not on the Q list? Hes better than most on there...
No love for Daniel Carcillo?
Interesting list but it;s kind of confused as to whether it's based on potential or present ability. If its based on how good players "should/could" be by, say, January 2005, then it's not a bad list.
Bernier behind Alexandre Picard? No i'm a big fan of both... Believe me I want the Sharks to land Picard...but over Bernier? Why?
Schremp not on the list is discusting. I would take him 5th overall in the 2004 draft.
Solid listings overall.
I guess you're right about Fleury.
But the Schremp call is weird to me.
Same with Phaneuf over Crosby.
Is there a seperate list for goalies?
Phaneuf is #1
From everything I have heard and seen Phaneuf was outstanding at the WJC. Phaneuf was probably Canada's top player. Frankly I'm surpised Crosby is ranked that high. Crosby didn't exactly light it up at the WJC. Many people foolishly expected Crosby to dominate the WJC at 16. He will though in coming years. I guess Crosby is ranked high because of his outstanding performance in the QMJHL.
Brule is on this list, amazing!
Brule is a pleasant surprise on the CHL Top 35 list. He made the top 10 WHL players list and landed at a solid 6th. Two 16 year olds(Brule, Crosby) on the list of the top 35 CHL players. Very interesting.
IMO the QJMHL top 10 is very poor ...
I'm pretty sure NO GM would take Phaneuf over Crosby right now...
Talbot is impressive these days. He's scoring at a Crosby like clip and is one of the best defensively.
If they are taking this seasons play as the only criteria, and not future potential, I can see why Dion was #1. Not that I agree or disagree, but I can see the reasoning.
But it says best "prospect"!
No it doesn't. It's a list compiled by "Prospect Hockey" but the list itself is of the best players in the CHL.
Oh OK, my bad...
Then it makes more sense...
Still doesn't make sense, there's clearly better players behind clearly better prospects and vice-versa, kind of a mixed bag IMO.
Look at the criteria they rated the prospects on, and it will make more sense. The overall rating of each prospect are based on the individual rating within five categories (skill, physical tools, two-way game, projection as a pro and â€œintangiblesâ€).
Given three of these categories favour a player like Phaneuf over a player like Crosby, it starts to make sense. Especially if it was a 1-5 scale (or something like that). In skill, Crosby is clearly a 5, and putting a player like Phaneuf at 4 probably doesn't accurately represent the gap in the skill between the two. But it's also tough to put a player like Phaneuf at "3" given he does have some solid skills, and on a scale of 1-5 that would make him just average. So it makes it tough for those doing the ratings.
Overall, I would bet 90% of scouts would take Crosby if they could just pick one CHL player to build around. But the mere fact a small percentage would take Phaneuf speaks volumes about what his upside is looking like. He looks like another Jovocop to me.
Overall though, I don't think the ratings are that bad. Comparing players in different draft years (it includes players from 2002-2005) is tough to do, but interesting none the less. The fact the ratings don't jibe with how you see certain players perhaps should make you take a second look at your own rankings.
They actually have Fleischmann ahead of Fehr (who I really think is gonna be a good one). If this is fairly accurate then they really did a pretty good job in the Lang deal.
Brule is 17