Rank your team's top 10

[kolanos]

Are you smoking????????
9.5??????????
You think he is better then ovechkin, Lehtonen ext?
He should be a solid 8 and probably a 7.5-8 to reach his potential

I would rate Ovechkin and Lehtonen both as 9.5. Just as Ovechkin is the top-ranked winger, and Lehtonen is the top ranked goaltender -- Phaneuf is the top ranked defenceman. Did I say Phaneuf was better? NO. If you don't recognize Phaneuf's stock skyrocketing in the hockey world, including being ranked #3 by HF (and best D, only beaten in the rankings by Lehtonen and Zherdev, and Zherdev is technically no longer a prospect) -- then you need to give your head a shake.

Oh, and the multiple question marks are unnecessary.

 

[Chaos]

With ratings...

1. D. Phaneuf, 9.5, 9

So your all but saying he is nearly a sure bet to become of the best defensemen of all time? A 9.5 should be reserved for guys like Ovechkin and Crosby....Phaneuf in no way shape or form deserves that kind of rating...I'd give him an 8/9.5...meaning he's almost a sure bet to become a top defenseman in the league...but not a sure bet to become a top d-man of all-time...thats a bit much.

 

[kolanos]

So your all but saying he is nearly a sure bet to become of the best defensemen of all time? A 9.5 should be reserved for guys like Ovechkin and Crosby....Phaneuf in no way shape or form deserves that kind of rating...I'd give him an 8/9.5...meaning he's almost a sure bet to become a top defenseman in the league...but not a sure bet to become a top d-man of all-time...thats a bit much.

One of the best defenceman of all time? What the hell are you talking about? No way can Ovechkin and Crosby be projected that way -- franchise players, sure, but best of all time? Give me a break.

Pitkanen, the last top ranked defenceman prospect was consistently rated between 9-9.5 by HF. Phaneuf is no different, easily the best defenceman in the CHL and dominating in WJC competitions. But notice that I've placed his rating higher than I see him panning out, regardless I see him becoming a top defenceman in the NHL. I give him a 9.5/9 and you suggest he should get a 8/9.5? So you think I've rated him too high presently, but you see his attained potential being higher than what I rated him? Will you make up your mind? Sheesh.

 

[Chaos]

One of the best defenceman of all time? What the hell are you talking about? No way can Ovechkin and Crosby be projected that way -- franchise players, sure, but best of all time? Give me a break.

Pitkanen, the last top ranked defenceman prospect was consistently rated between 9-9.5 by HF. Phaneuf is no different, easily the best defenceman in the CHL and dominating in WJC competitions. But notice that I've placed his rating higher than I see him panning out, regardless I see him becoming a top defenceman in the NHL. I give him a 9.5/9 and you suggest he should get a 8/9.5? So you think I've rated him too high presently, but you see his attained potential being higher than what I rated him? Will you make up your mind? Sheesh.

I dont think you understand the rating system people are using in this thread......the 1st number(9.5 is what you gave Phaneuf) is the players max potential. The 2nd number(9 is what you gave Phaneuf) is the probability of that player reaching that potential. So yes, going by what you gave Phaneuf, your almost saying Phanuef is nearly a sure bet to be a top all-time defenseman(10 is rare talent like Mario or Gretzky). My rating says exactly what you just said...I see him becoming a top d-man in the NHL(8) and the 9.5 says he's about 95% certain to become that.

 

[YouAreStupid]

When exactly are the Leafs going to play Cola? THIS should be his year. But instead they give Aki Berg more money. Dont get it.

Cola didn't have a very strong year on the Rock, he'll eventually get his chance... don't you worry

 

[YouAreStupid]

And Alexander Daigle had all the talent to be a top forward in the game.......

he sure did, except he didn't have the drive. He could have been a top player if his heart was in it.

 

[YouAreStupid]

Richard Jackman was horrendous.

But I guess you can add him to the list.

I disagree.

You could see that Jackamn has all the tools but needs to be in the perfect situation to be given the opportunity to work out the kinks in his game. Toronto certainly doesn't fit that criteria. Jackman will thrive in Pittsburgh

 

[kolanos]

I dont think you understand the rating system people are using in this thread......the 1st number(9.5 is what you gave Phaneuf) is the players max potential. The 2nd number(9 is what you gave Phaneuf) is the probability of that player reaching that potential. So yes, going by what you gave Phaneuf, your almost saying Phanuef is nearly a sure bet to be a top all-time defenseman(10 is rare talent like Mario or Gretzky). My rating says exactly what you just said...I see him becoming a top d-man in the NHL(8) and the 9.5 says he's about 95% certain to become that.

I think you misunderstand the rating system, but seeing as how it was not explained in detail by the original poster I'll go with my own defintions. Regardless, if players like Ovechkin, Lehtonen, Pitkanen are rated 9-9.5 I believe that the best defensive prospect in the world should be in that same echelon, especially considering his stock only continue to rise in the hockey world. Not to mention the fact that much of this is subjective, if you can't handle that then maybe you shouldn't participate in a thread that outright requests one's subjective opinion.

 

[Chaos]

I think you misunderstand the rating system, but seeing as how it was not explained in detail by the original poster I'll go with my own defintions. Regardless, if players like Ovechkin, Lehtonen, Pitkanen are rated 9-9.5 I believe that the best defensive prospect in the world should be in that same echelon, especially considering his stock only continue to rise in the hockey world. Not to mention the fact that much of this is subjective, if you can't handle that then maybe you shouldn't participate in a thread that outright requests one's subjective opinion.

Your not listening...the rating system in this thread is not the normal rating system used by HF...how hard is that to understand? And the rating system here was explained fine in the first few posts...but I bet you didnt bother to read them. And Im sorry, but guys like Ovechkin and Lehtonen are on another level compared to Phaneuf.

 

[kolanos]

Your not listening...the rating system in this thread is not the normal rating system used by HF...how hard is that to understand? And the rating system here was explained fine in the first few posts...but I bet you didnt bother to read them. And Im sorry, but guys like Ovechkin and Lehtonen are on another level compared to Phaneuf.

You're wasting everyone's time with semantics. The original poster didn't go into detail, much of the rating definition is assumed (by other posters, including yourself). I'll stick with HF's format thank you very much. I've already explained this once, I am not doing it again.

As for Lehtonen and Ovechkin being on another level -- that's your opinion. I've probably seen more of both than you, but that's my assumption based what you've offered so far. Either way, Phaneuf is the best defenceman prospect in the world right now, I am not one to spread hype and I don't buy into hype, that's just the way I see it. No d-man prospect dominates the game like him.

If you can't deal with my opinion, too bad for you.

 

[weaponomega]

You're wasting everyone's time with semantics. The original poster didn't go into detail, much of the rating definition is assumed (by other posters, including yourself). I'll stick with HF's format thank you very much. I've already explained this once, I am not doing it again.

As for Lehtonen and Ovechkin being on another level -- that's your opinion. I've probably seen more of both than you, but that's my assumption based what you've offered so far. Either way, Phaneuf is the best defenceman prospect in the world right now, I am not one to spread hype and I don't buy into hype, that's just the way I see it. No d-man prospect dominates the game like him.

If you can't deal with my opinion, too bad for you.

I'm not going to argue whether or not Phaneuf is a 9.5, a 8, or whatever, but Starsfan09 is right, I don't think you understand the rating system used here. It was brought up in another thread where someone suggested that HF use a rating system where they rate a prospects potential, then give a number based on the PROBABILITY that they reach this potential. That is, the second number is not what their eventual rating will be, but the probability they will reach their prospect rating in their careers.

 

[tom_servo]

I would rate Ovechkin and Lehtonen both as 9.5. Just as Ovechkin is the top-ranked winger, and Lehtonen is the top ranked goaltender -- Phaneuf is the top ranked defenceman. Did I say Phaneuf was better? NO. If you don't recognize Phaneuf's stock skyrocketing in the hockey world, including being ranked #3 by HF (and best D, only beaten in the rankings by Lehtonen and Zherdev, and Zherdev is technically no longer a prospect) -- then you need to give your head a shake.

Oh, and the multiple question marks are unnecessary.

A 9.5 rating should be reserved for great players. And merely being the best defenseman of the lot does not render him great.

 

[kolanos]

I'm not going to argue whether or not Phaneuf is a 9.5, a 8, or whatever, but Starsfan09 is right, I don't think you understand the rating system used here. It was brought up in another thread where someone suggested that HF use a rating system where they rate a prospects potential, then give a number based on the PROBABILITY that they reach this potential. That is, the second number is not what their eventual rating will be, but the probability they will reach their prospect rating in their careers.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

But if you look at my posts, notice I used the term "attained potential", which is EXACTLY what you are referring.

 

[kolanos]

A 9.5 rating should be reserved for great players. And merely being the best defenseman of the lot does not render him great.

That rating was reserved for Pitkanen. Phaneuf is equal to Pitkanen at 19. Not the SAME, but EQUAL.

 

[gretzky1545]

attained potential sounds like it means what you think they will eventually be, meaning that no one could have a higher second number than the first in the rating system theyve created. what they actually mean and what everyone else but you kolanos realizes is that probability and attained potential are completely different, the 2nd number in the set does not refer to talent level or skill as the first number does. the 2nd number applies to a completely diff aspect of a prospect: the PROBABILITY they will attain their potential(the first number). and yes pitkanen if everything goes right could be a great D-man, and he has the potential to be among if not the best during his time in the league so his potential is very high. phaneuf has slightly lower potential but is more likely to get there, i.e. why he has a lower first number but higher 2nd number than pitkanen would at the same age.

 

[kolanos]

attained potential sounds like it means what you think they will eventually be, meaning that no one could have a higher second number than the first in the rating system theyve created. what they actually mean and what everyone else but you kolanos realizes is that probability and attained potential are completely different, the 2nd number in the set does not refer to talent level or skill as the first number does. the 2nd number applies to a completely diff aspect of a prospect: the PROBABILITY they will attain their potential(the first number). and yes pitkanen if everything goes right could be a great D-man, and he has the potential to be among if not the best during his time in the league so his potential is very high. phaneuf has slightly lower potential but is more likely to get there, i.e. why he has a lower first number but higher 2nd number than pitkanen would at the same age.

So I am wrong for suggesting that "Probability" refers to a projected attained potential, but then you use my words to define the "Potential" rating as the "probability they will attain their potential". Am I the only one who recognizes the lunacy of this? A projection IS a probability estimate -- by DEFINTION. Where is the misunderstanding here? This is English you are reading is it not? Yet three seperate posters have tried to make the case for me not understanding the supposed rating system, yet have all but made the case for exactly what I've already said -- it really is getting a little tiresome now.

I get flack for rating Phaneuf 9-9.5, yet in previous posts in this thread I see players like Ladd (9), Malkin (9.5), Fleury (9.5), Vanek (9), Miller (9) -- Phaneuf is atleast on par with half these guys -- ATLEAST. Don't see anyone questioning those ratings...forget this rating system, a rating system is worthless if you cannot recognize talent with your own eyes, even moreso if you don't even see them play in the first place.

(this isn't just directed at you, but the other 2-3 posters above)

 

[Chaos]

So I am wrong for suggesting that "Probability" refers to a projected attained potential, but then you use my words to define the "Potential" rating as the "probability they will attain their potential". Am I the only one who recognizes the lunacy of this? A projection IS a probability estimate -- by DEFINTION. Where is the misunderstanding here? This is English you are reading is it not? Yet three seperate posters have tried to make the case for me not understanding the supposed rating system, yet have all but made the case for exactly what I've already said -- it really is getting a little tiresome now.

I get flack for rating Phaneuf 9-9.5, yet in previous posts in this thread I see players like Ladd (9), Malkin (9.5), Fleury (9.5), Vanek (9), Miller (9) -- Phaneuf is atleast on par with half these guys -- ATLEAST. Don't see anyone questioning those ratings...forget this rating system, a rating system is worthless if you cannot recognize talent with your own eyes, even moreso if you don't even see them play in the first place.

(this isn't just directed at you, but the other 2-3 posters above)

You are simply being stubborn now,and Im not even gonna try to explain the simple rating system bein used in this thread, since someone else has already tried to explain it to you, and all you've done is pick apart what they have said. No one got on Ladd or Malkin being rated a 9 or 9.5 because the probability of either of them reaching it wasnt 9, like you gave Phaneuf.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Ill give detroit's a shot....

Name.... potential... actual IMHO

1. Igor Grigorenko... 8... 7.5
2. Niklas Kronwall... 7... 8
3. Jiri Hudler... 8... 7... (maybe not on detroit though)
4. Jimmy Howard... 6.5... 8.5
5. Stefan Liv... 7... 6
6. Valtteri Filppula... 6... 6 (as with hudler, maybe not with detroit)
7. Derek Meech... 5 ...7 (i think he' could be a good 5-6th dman)
8. Joey MacDonal... 5.5 ...5.5
9. Johan Franzen... 6... 6
10. Kyle Quincey... 4.5 ...6

Others:
Evan McGrath... 5.5 ....7.5 (i think he'll turn it around in the wing organization!)

I think Quincey has much higher potential than Meech. IMO, Meech is nothing special. Quincey is turning out to be a very nice pick for the WIngs.

 

[Redrum]

1. D. Phaneuf, 8.5, 9
2. T. Ramholt, 7.5, 7.5
3. K. Chucko, 7.5, 8
4. E. Nystrom, 7, 7.5
5. A. Taratukhin, 6.5, 7.5
6. A. Medvedev, 8.5, 6
7. B. Krahn, 8.5, 6
8. Y. Trubachev, 8, 6
9. D. Boyd, 7, 6
10. T. Maki, 6.5, 7.5

 

[db23]

I don't see the point of separating potential and probability of acheiving the potential. They are one and the same thing. Character, work ethic, good citizenship, etc. are as much a part of a players skill set by the age of 18 as anything else. If a prospect is emotionally stable and well balanced his potential is higher than a teammate with similar skills who is less focussed. I can't see the separation. Gretzky would never have won the hardest shot or speed races at a Skills Competition, but that didn't stop his overall "potential" from being off the charts. What set Gretz apart from the rest were his focus, his athletic intelligence, and his work habits.

 

[LaLaLaprise]

I don't see the point of separating potential and probability of acheiving the potential. They are one and the same thing. Character, work ethic, good citizenship, etc. are as much a part of a players skill set by the age of 18 as anything else. If a prospect is emotionally stable and well balanced his potential is higher than a teammate with similar skills who is less focussed. I can't see the separation. Gretzky would never have won the hardest shot or speed races at a Skills Competition, but that didn't stop his overall "potential" from being off the charts. What set Gretz apart from the rest were his focus, his athletic intelligence, and his work habits.

No. You have it ALL wrong.

the first number is what they "project" to be when they hit their prime. The 2nd number is what is the probabilty they will hit that number.

 

[db23]

No. You have it ALL wrong.

the first number is what they "project" to be when they hit their prime. The 2nd number is what is the probabilty they will hit that number.

"The Prize". As in isn't he " the prize"?

Anyhow, without the need to confuse the issue, this is my projection for Hab prospects.

1. Chris Higgins 7
2. Ron Hainsey 6.5
3 Kyle Chipchura 6
4 Tomas Plekanec 6
5 Duncan Milroy 5.5
6 Alex Perezhogin 5.5
7 Andrei Kostitsyn 5
8 Konstantin Korneev 5
9 Olivier Michaud 5
10 Corey Locke 4.5

 

[Habitantpeasoup]

"The Prize". As in isn't he " the prize"?

Anyhow, without the need to confuse the issue, this is my projection for Hab prospects.

1. Chris Higgins 7
2. Ron Hainsey 6.5
3 Kyle Chipchura 6
4 Tomas Plekanec 6
5 Duncan Milroy 5.5
6 Alex Perezhogin 5.5
7 Andrei Kostitsyn 5
8 Konstantin Korneev 5
9 Olivier Michaud 5
10 Corey Locke 4.5

 

[Hunter Gathers]

1) Fedor Tjutin 8/7
2) Alvaro Montoya 8/7.5
3) Josef Balej 8/6.5
4) Hugh Jessiman 8.5/6.5
5) Henrik Lundqvist 7.5/7
6) Lauri Korpikoski 7.5/7
7) Maxim Kondratiev 7/6.5
8) Tomas Pock 7/6.5
9) Petr Prucha 8/6
10) Jarkko Immonen 7.5/6.5

 

[leafaholix*]

I disagree.

You could see that Jackamn has all the tools but needs to be in the perfect situation to be given the opportunity to work out the kinks in his game. Toronto certainly doesn't fit that criteria. Jackman will thrive in Pittsburgh

You're disagreeing with what exactly?

My point that he was horrendous? Because if you are, then you're wrong. Richard Jackman would play a very steady game one night and come back with a game in which he did everything wrong. He was always out of position, held onto the puck for too long, threw it up the middle, banked it off the boards (at a 90 degree angle) which turned to odd man rushes, took bad penalties, etc...

He showed glimpses of talent, but he never put it together.