Discussion in 'NHL Draft - Prospects' started by RangerBoy, Jan 27, 2006.
It depends.. If team desperately needs excellent forward they will choose kessel over johnson.
i like how they say johnson jumped to #1 to show that johnson's play has elevated his stock which is different than most people who present it as kessel dropped...the flip-flop has just as much if not more to do with johnson rising than anyone else falling.
That's pretty short-sighted and not too many GMs react that way (if any). A team desperatly in need of a forward should sign a free agent and not expect a young kid with an incomplete game - albeit with a great set of skills - to come in and be their savior.
I will say though, that Kessel might ultimately fill a few more seats than Johnson, so a team in a certain market looking for a highlight film guy might be tempted to pick him because of that (Or, just because they think he is better). But in the end, if you think Johnson will win you more games, he should be the guy, because fans love winning more than anything else.
This paragraph says it all:
"We also learned (once again) that there are knee-jerk reactionaries in the media who try to masquerade as experts in talent evaluation based on a couple of viewings at one tournament per year. These would be the same dolts who labeled Phil Kessel a "disappointment" after leading the tournament in scoring as an 18-year-old with 11 points in seven games."
I never really understood the "disappointment" label that every gave him after the tourney, granted he didn't look as sharp and as team oriented as most would like but he did tie the tournament lead in scoring. I would say the "disappointment" label should lay solely on the team itself or maybe the coaching.
I seriously hope the Blues get Johnson... Blues could use another franchise dman.. ala Pronger
Calling us "dolts" because Kessel still led tournament in scoring and I (who am not a scout) and several professional scouts happent to DARE to criticize PHIL THE THRILL for his actual flaws and issues concerning his play? Rather maybe Woodlief is the "dolt"?
He certainly is a "dolt" because though he gives a lambasting to those who criticicized his boy PHIL only seeing him in a few games in a short tournament--YET,he (Woodlief) goes into rhapsodic cheerleading for Nikolai Kulemin --after only seeing him have a few games in a short tournament--so he is at the very least speaking with a forked tongue and his logic against the Phil-bashers is therefore not sound.
Even worse--he is a "dolt" because he keeps praising Nicklas Backstrom as "rising" on his list,yet refuses to even include him in the top ten! This is idiotic--as it was clear even to "amateur" observers like me that Backstrom should be a top 5 pick--indeed ISS moved him up to #7 and he's "rising" on their list,MCKeen's has him at #4 ,and he is #2 on my list and I'm certain many NHL clubs now have him in the top 5 now ...only a "dolt" would say that AT THIS STAGE he is much more advanced than either Mueller or Staal even Kessel (in the 2 way game and passionate play dept.) He is also the only one playing against pros in the SEL...he is more advanced than the others ..period ! That makes the others more "projects"
--he is alrady more polished--yet he has more upside too---and thus he is the "safest" pick,IMO...
Finally--he is a dolt because he has Mueller ahead of Staal --Mueller did zero to impress me at the WJHC--he stunk at the Top Prospects Game too--Staal did not impressme either inthat Game--but that is only reason both should be much lower ranked than they are--neither is worthy of their ranking on most of the lists I've seen--but at least if you buy into the Staal genes "projection" theory --then you must rank Staal over Mueller --so Woodlief is a "dolt" for making both errors...
Who are you?
Is that the same thought process as you in the same post decided to tear up?
God, Woodleif is a self-righteous tool.
nigel williams at #7?
I havent heard much about this kid
Remember that the Redline Report isn't really where Woodlief thinks they will be drafted. It is just his list of the top prospects and how good they will be, I don't think it has anything to do to where they will be drafted. Probably being why Backstrom isn't in the top 10 because he is of a smaller stature and that Williams and Forney are in the top 10 because they are bigger players who are projects that will probably develop in to pros. Correct me if I am off base here.
Kinda like EJ, but not as good. Great size etc. Will be the second Dman taken in the draft.
You're correct. Red Line is Woodlief's opinion on who the best draft eligible players are, not neccessarily a projection about where they will be drafted.
so Sanguinetti's stock is falling, or NW's stock is rising?
Woodlief loves Nigel Williams
If I understand and am reading this correctly, I think what Woodlief is saying here, is that Kessel shouldn't be judged SOLELY or almost solely on what he has or hasn't done in the WJC. I think he's saying that to fairly and accurately (as possible) judge Kessel is to take into consideration not only what he's done at the WJC, but also what he has done at Minnesota as well. If you take both into consideration, you get a much better picture of what Kessel is like.
...and just for the record, I do not consider myself any type of fan of Kyle Woodlief. I agree with some of what he has to say but much of it (as far as the NCAA guys go) I disagree with.
That's my read as well.
You gotta admit though, he was awesome in Triumph.
I think it's a case of people expecting him to lead the USA to gold. I don't remember Crosby being the best player on the WJC his draft year. Crosby's team did win gold but it was the line of Carter/Dawes/? that dominated last year.
If Kessel had a bad torunament leading in points, then what can you say of Toews?
I dont know much about Sanguinetti but NW is rising fast. Top 10 right now IMO.
Toews is too busy walking around UND with a Gold Medal around his neck to care
what does that have to do with anything?? how does whether or not a guys team won or lost reflect on the evaluation of that individual player?? the caps suck, does that change the fact that ovechkin is awesome?
and my interpration of the comment was NOT to bash toews, but rather to point out that top prospects like toews didn't put up as many points as kessel so why is kessel bashed and his stock dropped, but with toews you can't base it on one tournament...
My problem is that Woodlief tears into people about how Kessel's stock has dropped "based on a couple of viewings at one tournament per year", and then states that Frolik's stock is dropping because, and I quote:
Which one is it Kyle? Who is the dolt? Could it be the one that contradicted himself in a national article?