Prospect Info: Sens Board Prospect Rankings 2017 (11th)

[Cosmix]

Englund, then Hogberg/Formenton in some order.

That is my limited researched opinion too. I have not seen they play much.

 

[Benjamin]

Why do you say that?

Because I didn't vote for him.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Because I didn't vote for him.

Good honest answer

 

[Xspyrit]

After Englund, Hogberg and Formenton are gone, it will get tricky at #14. It should be between Wolanin and Lajoie, maybe Batherson. Nurmi, Driedger in another tier and then it drops to Gagne (who could still become a legit prospect if he puts it all together) and Ahl?

Good strong top-20 but not much after that. Good thing that you need more quality than quantity

I agree. Perron & Claesson don't belong in the top 10 IMO.

What? I know you think that Perron is too small/soft, but what's wrong with Claesson? He looked much better in the NHL than we thought he could be.

Maybe I missed it, but why is Claesson on this list? He's like a fifth year pro on a one-way deal next year. He's not a prospect anymore. He's a legit member of our top-6.

Claesson is still a prospect by HF standards. The ones we have used for over a decade. We didn't change the criterias for eligibility. When we do, we will have to separate the eras of voting distinctly, because criterias of selection will have been changed.

No, it's been explained a million times. It's purely rational.

 

[Sensinitis]

I like Formenton here. Englund thus far has just been too soft, he needs a physical edge if he has such limited offensize and puck moving ability.

In what world is Englund soft? LOL. If there's one thing he isn't, it's that.

Also, in what world is Perron 6 feet? Jeez, these height/weight stats blow my mind sometimes.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Claesson is still a prospect by HF standards. The ones we have used for over a decade. We didn't change the criterias for eligibility. When we do, we will have to separate the eras of voting distinctly, because criterias of selection will have been changed.

No, it's been explained a million times. It's purely rational.

1. Really ok ...

2. If it wasn't a mystery, no one would ask... and when they hear the answer the go

Personally I go

 

[Xspyrit]

1. Really ok ...

I have no idea why you find this funny... maybe the choice of words but it's a simple cold straight boring fact. When you change the criterias of a ranking, it basically becomes a brand new ranking. In the past, many many prospects in the same situation as Claesson have been ranked. If you change those criterias now, it means that you want something new. It's possible, but I am telling you that it won't be comparable to the past rankings.

I'm not saying it's a vital thing since hockey is just an entertainment but here is an article on the subject :

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20160406094012805

It begins like this :

Ranking organisations have a serious problem with methodological changes. Rankers take pride in producing reliable, consistent and trusted league tables that can be used to compare departments and institutions and to check year to year progress.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

I have no idea why you find this funny... maybe the choice of words but it's a simple cold straight boring fact. When you change the criterias of a ranking, it basically becomes a brand new ranking. In the past, many many prospects in the same situation as Claesson have been ranked. If you change those criterias now, it means that you want something new. It's possible, but I am telling you that it won't be comparable to the past rankings.

I'm not saying it's a vital thing since hockey is just an entertainment but here is an article on the subject :

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20160406094012805

It begins like this :

I see... well I did not realize HFSens was a ranking organization for one, my bad there, and based on some of the rankings we've seen , I would wager only a select few would care about that much about it.

 

[DrunkUncleDenis]

I see... well I did not realize HFSens was a ranking organization for one, my bad there, and based on some of the rankings we've seen , I would wager only a select few would care about that much about it.

Hah. Well, can't blame a guy for being thorough.

It's all in the details

 

[bert]

In what world is Englund soft? LOL. If there's one thing he isn't, it's that.

Also, in what world is Perron 6 feet? Jeez, these height/weight stats blow my mind sometimes.

Englund plays too soft for a player of his style and size yes. He needs a physical edge as a shut down d man. Swedes and big d men take longer, its not that he wont develop that side but it isnt there yet.

 

[Xspyrit]

I see... well I did not realize HFSens was a ranking organization for one, my bad there, and based on some of the rankings we've seen , I would wager only a select few would care about that much about it.

That's why I have said :

I'm not saying it's a vital thing since hockey is just an entertainment

But regardless of the importance you put in it, staying consistent is important IMO.

Hah. Well, can't blame a guy for being thorough.

It's all in the details

Well, details could be a big $$$ difference. I'm into franchising and yes, details count.