Prospect Hockey's Top 35 CHLer List

[Crosbyfan]

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 “intangibles”).
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.

It would make more sense if they gave us all the scores. Phaneuf is hailed as the best player in the CHL which he may be but thats not what they meant. Nor do they mean the best prospect (as in NHL potential) which he also could be but again thats not what they meant. He's clearly "Best rated combination talent/potential according to some criteria Player" in the CHL. The same could be said of a lot of players, especially when "intangibles" are considered without explanation as to what it means and how it is scored. Again I think that its a pretty good (not great) list of how good players may become by January 2005. But thats not what they said and I'm pretty sure that wasn't their intention.

So what was it?

 

[Avery4Byng*]

I am surprised Josh Gorges is not on the WHL list. Mind you he really has gone about his thing quietly, never drafted into the dub, never drafted into the NHL, but signed by San Jose to a contract shortly after he was passed through the draft. Anyways I think the lists look pretty damn good.

 

[Pantokrator]

Is there a seperate list for goalies?

Can anyone find the final results of who they rated out of the 65 skaters and 8 goalies? I'd like to see how the goalies were rated, who they have listed as the top goalies.

 

[sandman08]

what i wanna know is what "intangibles" refer to... also, IMO dion has an advantage of sorts when it comes to being prepared for the NHL since he's coached and drafted by sutter brothers (i know it may not be huge but its an advantage none-the-less.. i mean, all darryl has to do is call up brent and say "hey, tell dion to work on _______" or "work on ________ with dion, it'll save me ______ for when hes up here" .. i could very easily see calgary bring him up and have him actually play in the NHL instead of spending time in the AHL, especially with who he'd be working with as a coach... obviously speed would be a factor and such but whoever is coach (there were rumours that brent would take over as coach w/ darryl becoming GM full time) would just pair dion w/ a guy like reghyr or someone who is really strong defensively so the kid could still make mistakes w/o hurting the team too much

 

[CharlieGirl]

http://www.kitchenerrangers.com/News.asp?Article=435

This link includes more detailed information on the rating system used, intangibles, the panel, and a brief bio of the top 5.

 

[gb701]

Brule is 17

Brule and Crosby are both in the same year so while your comment is true, the question is "so what?". The point of the post was that there are two 87's in the top category.

 

[gb701]

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.

And I am pretty sure the rankings reflect more accurately the appropriate selections that GM's might be expected to take.

All hype aside (and the Phaneuf machine is starting to work pretty well too), at this point a GM would wait to see what Crosby does as he matures a bit, and Phaneuf probably deserves the recognition. As a prospect to build your D around, I suspect he may actually be expected to have greater impact at the pro level a couple of years earlier than Crosby.

Last time I checked, you need more than centers to have a team.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Brule and Crosby are both in the same year so while your comment is true, the question is "so what?". The point of the post was that there are two 87's in the top category.

And someone born a day earlier than Brule and therefore an 86 is a year older? The point is that this "Arbitrarily Chosen Group" is a mixed bag of potential and present ability. Not saying I agree/disagree with the list but the evaluators had to think more highly of Brule's present skill level to place him as high as they did as a 17 year old than as a 16 year old. I wonder if Guillaume Latendresse was among the 65 evaluated? I would put him (Latendresse, but Brule as well) well ahead of Talbot as a prospect and well behind in present ability.

 

[Daniel_Tkaczuk]

IMO the QJMHL top 10 is very poor ...
anyway...

I definitely question the legitimacy of the lists. The mag seems to have a lot of money behind it, but without the hockey knowledge to impress anyone over the age of 12.

 

[FearTheFlyers]

Richards and Carter in the top 5? GO FLYERS!