RE-DO the 1st & 2nd Rounds of 2005!!

LeafDangler

Registered User
Apr 25, 2006
3,388
1
Seeing as how Tuuka Rask is widely believed to be the best goaltending prospect in the world shouldn't he move into the top 5 at the very least?
 

Jason MacIsaac

Registered User
Jan 13, 2004
22,221
5,936
Halifax, NS
you honestly think if the draft was done over that Rask would make it out of the top 10?
Hard to say but I just don't see need to draft a goatlender top 5...you can get a real impact player in that spot. Goaltenders are hit or miss. Some teams are just that desperate to improve their luck between the pipes.
 

Bam Beet*

Guest
Seems like Stastny was a big time steal. Most people have him top 10 in the redraft. :bow:
 

LeafDangler

Registered User
Apr 25, 2006
3,388
1
Hard to say but I just don't see need to draft a goatlender top 5...you can get a real impact player in that spot. Goaltenders are hit or miss. Some teams are just that desperate to improve their luck between the pipes.

point taken but if Price is going to be there Rask should be as well IMO
 

Jason MacIsaac

Registered User
Jan 13, 2004
22,221
5,936
Halifax, NS
Hard to say but I just don't see need to draft a goatlender top 5...you can get a real impact player in that spot. Goaltenders are hit or miss. Some teams are just that desperate to improve their luck between the pipes.
Top 5 goaltenders in the league

Brodeur 20th overall
Kipper 116th overall
Hasek 199th overall
Luongo 4th overall
Miller 138th overall
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
For the doubters, why just not put up your rankings instead of criticizing the only guy with enough courage to go at it?
It's funny when people use this statement to defend a position, then refuse to accept the same statement when someone else tries to defend their position. Example: go read any thread *****ing about the officiating - when I point out that people have no idea how tough it is until you try it, people go berserk screaming that it's not that tough and that anyone should be able to do it ... but they aren't about to go try themselves, they don't need to try it to know how tough it is. In fact, they'll argue that because they have no experience officiating, it actually makes them more of an expert on how to call a game than someone who has 5, 7, 10, 15, 20 years of experience. It's the only time I've ever seen where having a complete lack of experience or understanding how to do a job is better in evaluating the work someone else does performing that job.

Will I put together any kind of list to re-do the 2005 draft? No - because I have neither the time nor the interest. Never have, never will. I also have no idea how, just 19 months after the draft, one should objectively put together such a list. However, it's not difficult to see a list someone else put together and see where it has huge flaws - especially when you recall hearing about the upside one guy was supposed to have or see what a kid has done for the last year and a half, and see him knocked down the list behind some other kid who made the NHL for a couple games or looked great at the most recent WJC's.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
It's funny when people use this statement to defend a position, then refuse to accept the same statement when someone else tries to defend their position. Example: go read any thread *****ing about the officiating - when I point out that people have no idea how tough it is until you try it, people go berserk screaming that it's not that tough and that anyone should be able to do it ... but they aren't about to go try themselves, they don't need to try it to know how tough it is. In fact, they'll argue that because they have no experience officiating, it actually makes them more of an expert on how to call a game than someone who has 5, 7, 10, 15, 20 years of experience. It's the only time I've ever seen where having a complete lack of experience or understanding how to do a job is better in evaluating the work someone else does performing that job.

Will I put together any kind of list to re-do the 2005 draft? No - because I have neither the time nor the interest. Never have, never will. I also have no idea how, just 19 months after the draft, one should objectively put together such a list. However, it's not difficult to see a list someone else put together and see where it has huge flaws - especially when you recall hearing about the upside one guy was supposed to have or see what a kid has done for the last year and a half, and see him knocked down the list behind some other kid who made the NHL for a couple games or looked great at the most recent WJC's.

First of all, reffing has nothing to do with this??? :dunno:

Now about what I said, you explain yourself why dissing someone's opinion is futile. Someone took the time and is interested enough in doing a list of prospects and since he's not a pro scout (most likely), he hasn't seen the 200+ players from the draft. So that person does his best to rank players HE thinks have the best upside. Now his opinion is just as good as yours, mine or someone else.

Who knows who will be the best NHLer between Cogliano and Oshie? In the end, the poster might just be right, or he could be wrong, or you could both be wrong. Nobody knows.

This kind of thread is like a game where people put out what they think the rankings should be. It's not flawed until in 10 years we can compare the NHL careers of the suspects cause prospect evaluation is inherently subjective.

You can either play or state your opinion regarding different prospects, but taking a shot at someone doesn't bring anything positive to the thread.

I've just seen so many of these threads become very uninteresting cause people would just call out one poster instead of contributing something that I felt putting out a small word to keep this one on focus was the best contribution I could do.
 

UAGoalieGuy

Registered User
Dec 29, 2005
16,237
4,212
Richmond, VA
I guess I am a little biased because Sauer is a Rangers prospect, but the way he has been playing this season and his leadership skills he could easily be a #2-3 D-man for the Rangers in a couple of years. I am really high on this kid and with him along with Tyutin, Staal, and Sanguinetti, the future of the Rangers D looks bright. Just have to put up with the weak D we have now for another year or two.
 

caley

Moderator
Aug 19, 2006
17,633
2,631
twitter.com
Ignorance has forced you to boot Michael Sauer out I see.
Yeah, that's part of it. But, I'm also looking at a guy who isn't showing a marked improvement in his numbers. It's not even so much of a matter of him being disappointing, as it is a number of player chosen below him showing quicker/more dramatic improvement.

and how did Hanzal drop?
Some of the guys dropping aren't so much a commentary on their weaknesses or anything, as much as it is players around them making significant strides.

RE: Downie and Cogliano
Cogliano was a player rated on the outside of the first round based mainly on the fact that he was so small. The way the new NHL rules have actually panned out makes a player like Cogliano, a shifty, ridiculously fast pivot much more valuable than in years past. He had a good freshman season and is on a better than a point per game tear this season. His game of speed and passing is going make him invaluable at the NHL level.

Downie is improving each year at the OHL level. He has an unteachable combinatio of skill and grit. It's a bit of a toss-up as to whether or not his game will translate to the NHL level, and I may have rated him a tad high, but if this draft were held today, knowing what we now know about Downie's competitiveness and fire, I guarantee you he would not make it out of the top ten.

T.J. Oshie went 21-24-45 in his freshman year playing 2nd line on a deep UND team while Andrew Cogliano was only 12-16-28 in 5 fewer games at Michigan; this year, Cogliano is 15-11-26 playing 2nd lineon a deep UM team while Oshie is 6-14-20 playing a lot of 1st line and having played through a broken thumb. You drop Oshie from 24th to 29th, while Cogliano jumps from 25th to 7th. I'd really like to see the reasoning behind this.
Heh, you should've seen the first rankings, somehow I misplaced Oshie and had him fall down into the second round. Oshie honestly fell through the cracks on my list, so I wedged him back in wherever he fit. He probably should be a bit higher.

I'd also like to see some kind of explanation why Taylor Chorney is ahead of Oshie, too - because that one is equally as baffling.
Because of the completely arbitrary way that this was done, you can't really compare where defencemen are ranked Vs. forwards. Like I said, I ranked the forwards, then I ranked the defencemen, then I plunked them down. So I'm not saying Chorney is better than Oshie, I'm saying if the team was that concerned with taking a defencemen and not taking the best player available, they might go with Chorney over Oshie.
LeTang at 14?
LeTang has already showed he can play and compete at the NHL level. That's why he's ahead of guys like Parent, Kindl, et al.
Franzen at 26?
Franson at 79 just might be the steal of the draft. He didn't get to show as much of his game at the WJC as he could have, but Franson is a dynamic puck-mover. As great of players as Shea Weber and Ryan Suter along the Predators blueline are, it will ultmately be Cody Franson who is going to run the Nashville power play for the next ten years. The only defencemen in this draft with (arguably) bigger offensive upside than Franson, are Bourdon, Johnson, and maybe Kindl.
Tom Pyatt at 23?
Again, he's a techinically sound player who is improving year in, year out. His stock was rising and thought to be a steal before the WJC, the WJC just cemented it. He was arguably the most consistent forward on a very impressive Canada squad.
I think you're putting way too much stock in the recent WJC with some of these guys.
Granted. But, it's not like there are multiple chances to see some of these players in a given year.
 
Last edited:

BelovedIsles

Registered User
Oct 22, 2005
20,062
5,365
Go back and re-read your original question and my response, and see if it clicks. If not, maybe someone else will explain it.

Yet in the same token you disregarded his main argument, another popular trend around HF I might add.
 
Last edited:

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
Go back and re-read your original question and my response, and see if it clicks. If not, maybe someone else will explain it.

Sorry, I still don't get your comparison, as reffing doesn't really have anything to do with assessing prospects... Besides, I don't see how bringing your life's frustrations subjects add anything to the thread either. This ain't a professional board, so its mostly amateurs trading views on things. Anyway, thanks for being condescending, really nice exchanging with posters like you.
 

SchwenningerWildWing

Registered User
Aug 23, 2006
672
21
Germany
Respect for what Stastny plays this season, but he is a 85 born player and I highly doubt that anybody would take an overage player in the top 10. He surely is one of the steals of this draft but without knowing what happens in the future he´d again go early to mid 2nd round.
I´m also curious why everybody drops Bourret out of the 1st round. He had some adjustment problems to the AHL but he has 8g and 16a in 34 games so far without playing in the Wolves top line
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
Why putting up a great performance at the WJC means squat for long-term NHL success:

http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.php/hockey/comments/wjc_no_guarantee_of_nhl_success/

If I had the time, I'd dig out all the award winners at the WJC's over the last 10 years and we could see how many of them did squat in the NHL. (I'm betting there's a decent chunk that did squat - a cursory look at the scoring leaders from 1999-2003 shows a slew of guys who finished high on the list and have done nothing or next to nothing since. Anyone else remember when Jon Disalvatore was 3rd in scoring at the WJC's?) The point here is that using a 6/7-game tournament against players of the same age to make a judgment on how much better/worse a player is the year after he was drafted is like watching a player's performance in the 3rd period of the last game of a "3 games in 4 nights" stretch and trying to make an accurate call on how good that player will be in the future. It's probably worthless.

Which is why some people hate the WJC's - because people go nuts over the performance of a guy there and begin to wildly overrate (or underrate) him accordingly.
 

Kaizer

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
4,574
428
Berlin, Germany
Why putting up a great performance at the WJC means squat for long-term NHL success: ...

There is a big difference between players and you just can not put them all in the same bracket and count percents:
- If 17 years old played great at WJC like Cherepanov and Kane it should be mentioned because they are young for this level and they will only continue their development.
- If 17 years old didn't show something special like JVR or Voracek, it's ok, it's not their level yet and - they will continue to develop. There is huge difference between 17 and 19 years old
- If 18 years old played bad like Frolik or good like .. (can't remember anyone :D), it's not a big deal yet but it's a good or bad sign.
- And it's absolutely another story if 19 years old 6'3, 210 lbs. projected power forward played like crap (a-la Stoa) or so called power play specialist with shot of Joe Sakic can't hit the net (a-la Schremp) I can't understand what will they do at higher level, but if 19 years old played very good, there is nothing sensational - he was supposed to play like this if he wanted to play at higher level.

Of course there are exceptions but there are my overall thoughts about perfromance of different players at WJC.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->