Rank D from 2003 draft

Status
Not open for further replies.

Phanuthier*

Guest
nomorekids said:
Something else I disagree with, as well.

I'm not a huge fan of overhyping ANY prospect, because it can have a tendency to make you look foolish down the road. You know, at one point...Luke Richardson was going to be THE quintessential number one NHL d-man...and here..an average NHL career later...he's looked at with scorn by fans of the defensively challenged Columbus Blue Jackets. I like what I see in Phaneuf\Suter\Crosby\Kessel and so on...but I try not to be as naive as to guarantee they'll be superstars. Anything can happen when you get to the NHL.
Fair enough

I think part of sports is ups and downs. I learned this last year at the Stanley Cup finals run... if you don't get excited, your missing out on a lot. If you do, you set yourself up to get hurt (I almost needed a shrink ;) ).

Prospects are the same thing. It's fun to get hyped up about a promising prospect, esp after all the crash-and-burn Daniel Tkaczuk's and Rico Fata's that have gone through here, and the question marks like Oleg Saprykin and the "safe" picks like Eric Nystrom. Finally, we have a prospect to get hyped up about and say "hey, this kid can actually be a someone."

Sure you set yourself up to get dissapointed, that happens. But if you keep an even-keel, wait and see with everything, then I think your missing out on something very special in sports.
 

firstroundbust

lacks explosiveness
Mar 3, 2004
5,641
0
Parts Unknown
I hate to be a homer...but I think Burns deserves more credit than he does...not only is he playing in a league a little more talented/developed than the aforementioned (except Ramholt, who's in switzerland right? forgive for any unknowing omissions), AND he's been playing that position for a relatively brief time...And playing well to boot...

maybe its just me, but I see alot of guys who are doin well in junior, but playing elsewhere is a different question. Ya Know?








.ps this is a grammatically horrid post.
 

Gardebut30

Registered User
Jun 8, 2004
1,987
1
Behn Wilson said:
1) Dion Phaneuf (#9)
2) Ryan Suter (#7)
3) Brent Seabrooke (#14)
4) Braydon Coburn (#8)
5) Mark Stuart (#21)
6) Shea Weber (#49)
7) Mike Egener (#34)
8) Tim Ramholt (#39)
9) Brent Burns (#20)
10) Shawn Belle (#30)

I like this list posted earlier except I moved Seabrooke up to #3.
Maybe its a bit of a homer pick but I think he has developed as well as anyone above except Phaneuf and Suter who are a notch above the rest.

i agree with you about this list except one thing. the "e" at the end of seabrook's name. :)
 

bruins4777*

Guest
MrMastodonFarm said:
Any reasons, seriously?

I know you are a Nashville fan, are you mad most people regard Phaneuf ahead of Suter?

Well i am somewhat mad about the overhyping about prospects, but i know a lot of people are.

But i don't think he can match stevens..cause well to me making this immediate jump RIGHT TO the NHL and succeding and dominating the way stevens did and others did, i find hard to do nowadays. I think its a lot harder for defensemen to be a 20/19 year old rookie jump in and have as much an impact. Forwards not really cause they typically dont have to work on defense nearly as much and don't have the burden that defensemen do. Goalies, well how often does a goalie reach the NHL at 18-20 and even stay? Very rarely.

So i don't think he can have the legacy that stevens had, but rather i think he can be a similar player and maybe one day be as good as stevens. But the main thing is, i don't think he is as sure a thing to become so close to stevens as people say. I really have some big question marks about him, but we'll just wait to see how he plays.
 

Jason MacIsaac

Registered User
Jan 13, 2004
22,221
5,934
Halifax, NS
Behn Wilson said:
1) Dion Phaneuf (#9)
2) Ryan Suter (#7)
3) Brent Seabrooke (#14)
4) Braydon Coburn (#8)
5) Mark Stuart (#21)
6) Shea Weber (#49)
7) Mike Egener (#34)
8) Tim Ramholt (#39)
9) Brent Burns (#20)
10) Shawn Belle (#30)

I like this list posted earlier except I moved Seabrooke up to #3.
Maybe its a bit of a homer pick but I think he has developed as well as anyone above except Phaneuf and Suter who are a notch above the rest.
I like this list except Seabrook and Coburn would be switched.
 

Flames Draft Watcher

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,793
0
Calgary
Visit site
1. Dion Phaneuf (#9)
2. Ryan Suter (#7)
3. Shea Weber (#49)
4. Braydon Coburn (#8)
5. Mark Stuart (#21)
6. Brent Burns (#20)
7. Brent Seabrook (#14)
8. Shawn Belle (#30)
9. Tim Ramholt (#39)
10. Mike Egener (#34)

Of the guys I feel I know well enough to rank.
 
Last edited:

Vinland

Registered User
Dec 3, 2004
577
0
King of Vinland
Behn Wilson said:
1) Dion Phaneuf (#9)
2) Ryan Suter (#7)
3) Brent Seabrooke (#14)
4) Braydon Coburn (#8)
5) Mark Stuart (#21)
6) Shea Weber (#49)
7) Mike Egener (#34)
8) Tim Ramholt (#39)
9) Brent Burns (#20)
10) Shawn Belle (#30)

I like this list posted earlier except I moved Seabrooke up to #3.
Maybe its a bit of a homer pick but I think he has developed as well as anyone above except Phaneuf and Suter who are a notch above the rest.

You are very much overrating Seabrook. Weber, Stuart and Coburn are all ahead of him. I have seen all of the extensively live and for a number of years
 

Flames Draft Watcher

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,793
0
Calgary
Visit site
Behn Wilson said:
I like this list posted earlier except I moved Seabrooke up to #3.
Maybe its a bit of a homer pick but I think he has developed as well as anyone above except Phaneuf and Suter who are a notch above the rest.

I do think it's a homer pick. Personally I'd take Weber, Coburn and Stuart ahead of Seabrook and probably Burns as well (although I haven't seen as much of Burns.)

They are all really good defensemen but Seabrook's decent but not amazing skating combined with his lack of a consistent punishing physical game puts him behind the players I listed above for me. I like his puck moving ability and he's a good all around defensemen so no knock on him, he's still a quality guy.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
bruins4777 said:
Well i am somewhat mad about the overhyping about prospects, but i know a lot of people are.

But i don't think he can match stevens..cause well to me making this immediate jump RIGHT TO the NHL and succeding and dominating the way stevens did and others did, i find hard to do nowadays. I think its a lot harder for defensemen to be a 20/19 year old rookie jump in and have as much an impact. Forwards not really cause they typically dont have to work on defense nearly as much and don't have the burden that defensemen do. Goalies, well how often does a goalie reach the NHL at 18-20 and even stay? Very rarely.

So i don't think he can have the legacy that stevens had, but rather i think he can be a similar player and maybe one day be as good as stevens. But the main thing is, i don't think he is as sure a thing to become so close to stevens as people say. I really have some big question marks about him, but we'll just wait to see how he plays.
When the comparison is made to Stevens, its upside, not an exact duplicate of his career.
 

Nik

Registered User
Dec 20, 2004
77
0
Kazan
Dion Phaneuf
Ryan Suter
Braydon Coburn
Mark Stuart
Brent Burns
Shea Weber
Brent Seabrooke
Mike Egener
Tim Ramholt
Shawn Belle
Kevin Klein
 

Vatican Roulette

Baile de Los Locos
Feb 28, 2002
14,007
2
Gorillaz-EPWRID
Visit site
bruins4777 said:
...why is weber so low? and belle also? and ramholt so high?


I dont see Weber carrying his offense to the NHL, so i see him as a modern day Murray Baron. Belle, i dont see being much more than a depth guy, the smarts just aren't there.

Ramholt has smarts and offense. Plus, he's sound defensively.

just my opinions, they may be wrong.
 

bruins4777*

Guest
pavel datsyuk said:
I dont see Weber carrying his offense to the NHL, so i see him as a modern day Murray Baron. Belle, i dont see being much more than a depth guy, the smarts just aren't there.

Ramholt has smarts and offense. Plus, he's sound defensively.

just my opinions, they may be wrong.
Well baron was more of an incredible shot blocker...and weber is more of a punshing all around super defensemen. I don't think he plays like normstrom much, but i'd liken what his career will be like to normstrom. I mean normstrom has gone through his career mostly as a really solid defensemen who isn't flashy, isn't great offensively, or any of that but he is an amazing leader who gets it done defensively and is the type of player any team would love to have. I liken to weber having that sort of career. And as much as i like baron, i think thats kind of an insult to how good weber can be. As for his offense not carrying to the NHL...well i agree, but we've seen that foote and normstrom dont' contribute much offensively but they don't need that to be great defensemen.

Belle, meh i guess we jsut disagree, i think he's really made strides this year.

Ramholt? Well i dunno i just don't think he's special much...I mean he's smart and all, but i can't see him more than being a no.4 guy. I mean thats pretty good, but i just don't see him ranking up with stuart, weber, seabrook, burns, and others who i feel can all be no.1/2 dmen under certain circumstances.

In terms of seabrook. i don't think he's all that flashy or skilled of a guy, but i think he's the type of heart and soul guy who really battles and can be really good. I like him a lot for his dedication despite injuries.

I guess this is just a difference of opinions....the main reason i was confused with weber is cause you ranked mark stuart so high, but weber so low. And stuart is such a stalwart defensive defensemen...granted stuart has never been asked to do much offensively so his offensive potential is an unknown right now, but i just found it weird with stuart waaaaaaay ahead of weber.
 

MrMastodonFarm*

Registered User
Jul 5, 2004
6,207
0
bruins4777 said:
Ramholt? Well i dunno i just don't think he's special much...I mean he's smart and all, but i can't see him more than being a no.4 guy.
r.
Seriously, what exactly are you basing that on?
 
Last edited:

Quiet Robert

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
5,261
0
Carl O'Steen said:
All the hype around Seabrook and Coburn blows my mind.

They don't get hyped that much imo. It's pretty well deserved. They are both great prospects. I put Coburn above Seabrook by a bit though. If Coburn plays with that intensity and meaness all the time he will be a force because he's got the size and he's pretty good offensively as well. I see no reason why Coburn shouldn't be no.3 out of the 2003 class.

Seabrooke will be a good dman as well. He's very good offensively and plays a good all-around game. He's got nice size and will only get better imo. The injuries are little concerning but, not enough to detract from his play.

I don't know why these guys shouldn't be hyped. In terms of all d prospects right now, Coburn is in the top 10 and Seabrooke is very near it if not in it already. They have all the tools and all signs point that they should have good careers.
 

CH Wizard

Guest
Carl O'Steen said:
All the hype around Seabrook and Coburn blows my mind.

Just because Coburn didn't impress you in the WJC's means nothing.Coburn not a long itme had a 4 goals game.Seriously , I think he's a little overrated but the kid has some size and skills , he isn't hyped for nothing.
 

Wally112pac

Registered User
Dec 26, 2003
1,826
0
Canada
Visit site
If anythin Seabrook is UNDERRATED.

I never read a peep about the guy.

So the guys not flashy and super physical? He doesn't have to be. He's a jack of all trades. He does everything well.
 

bruins4777*

Guest
I have seen him like twice? I just wasn't impressed. He didn't make any mistakes, but he didn't do much that was really impressiv...i probably caught him on bad games and i haven't heard much about him and i haven't read about him as much as others...so its probably just more of a thing that i dont' know as much about him.
 

Quiet Robert

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
5,261
0
Wally112pac said:
If anythin Seabrook is UNDERRATED.

I never read a peep about the guy.

So the guys not flashy and super physical? He doesn't have to be. He's a jack of all trades. He does everything well.

I agree. Based on the thread title, I think the lowest you can put Seabrooke is at 6.

Phaneuf
Suter
Coburn
(To me that's the top three, not much debate there)
Weber
Seabrooke
Burns

You can debate those three, but I don't see Seabrooke going much lower than 6. I haven't seen enough of Stuart though. However from what I've seen of Seabrooke, he's been impressive and 5/6 is a good spot.
 

Vatican Roulette

Baile de Los Locos
Feb 28, 2002
14,007
2
Gorillaz-EPWRID
Visit site
bruins4777 said:
Well baron was more of an incredible shot blocker...and weber is more of a punshing all around super defensemen. I don't think he plays like normstrom much, but i'd liken what his career will be like to normstrom. I mean normstrom has gone through his career mostly as a really solid defensemen who isn't flashy, isn't great offensively, or any of that but he is an amazing leader who gets it done defensively and is the type of player any team would love to have. I liken to weber having that sort of career. And as much as i like baron, i think thats kind of an insult to how good weber can be. As for his offense not carrying to the NHL...well i agree, but we've seen that foote and normstrom dont' contribute much offensively but they don't need that to be great defensemen.

Belle, meh i guess we jsut disagree, i think he's really made strides this year.

Ramholt? Well i dunno i just don't think he's special much...I mean he's smart and all, but i can't see him more than being a no.4 guy. I mean thats pretty good, but i just don't see him ranking up with stuart, weber, seabrook, burns, and others who i feel can all be no.1/2 dmen under certain circumstances.

In terms of seabrook. i don't think he's all that flashy or skilled of a guy, but i think he's the type of heart and soul guy who really battles and can be really good. I like him a lot for his dedication despite injuries.

I guess this is just a difference of opinions....the main reason i was confused with weber is cause you ranked mark stuart so high, but weber so low. And stuart is such a stalwart defensive defensemen...granted stuart has never been asked to do much offensively so his offensive potential is an unknown right now, but i just found it weird with stuart waaaaaaay ahead of weber.

Weber-I've seen Weber play a few times, aside from the WJC. He played well, but i couldn't see the hype surrounding him. He's good in juniors on the offensive side of the puck, and very good defensively. Comparing him to Norstrom is fine, but i dont think he will ever be as good as Norstrom. He might turn out to be a little better than Murray Baron(IMO), but thats just a style comparison. In any event, i dont see his game warranting this type of hype.

The times i've seen Belle play, my only thought is "If he only had a brain..."

Stuart i see as developing more into a Norstrom type, well, more than Weber. I just think Stuart is better than Weber.
 

chriss_co

Registered User
Mar 6, 2004
1,769
0
CALGARY
Granted that Phaneuf is playing as a man amongst boys in the WHL... granted that we still dont know how he will translate his current play to the NHL..

BUT one thing is certain

you have to have a solid attitude and a solid head on your shoulders to work out the NHL grind as a rookie/sophomore and Phaneuf has every characteristic mentally to tough it out and become a great NHLer

its been a while since ive seen such a skilled and talented hockey player accompanied with a solid attitude and maturity

thats why phaneuf deserves his hype and why he will live up to it (or very close to it)
 

bruins4777*

Guest
pavel datsyuk said:
Weber-I've seen Weber play a few times, aside from the WJC. He played well, but i couldn't see the hype surrounding him. He's good in juniors on the offensive side of the puck, and very good defensively. Comparing him to Norstrom is fine, but i dont think he will ever be as good as Norstrom. He might turn out to be a little better than Murray Baron(IMO), but thats just a style comparison. In any event, i dont see his game warranting this type of hype.

The times i've seen Belle play, my only thought is "If he only had a brain..."

Stuart i see as developing more into a Norstrom type, well, more than Weber. I just think Stuart is better than Weber.

I'm begining to understand your view point more....

When i see belle i think the same thing as you, but i think he can learn...maybe i'm just an optomist i don't want to see that skill package go to waste.

As for weber vs. stuart. I'm glad you put stuart in higher regards then weber...cause well i'm a bruins fan :) I see stuart as more of a stevens like defensively, with strong outlet passing....at least thats my hope.

But we'll see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->