X-SHARKIES Final Top 60 for 2004.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Larry Fisher

Registered User
Sep 19, 2002
4,034
1,194
Kelowna, B.C.
...

First off...X-Sharkie I do appreciate your efforts and for the most part the list is solid and close to how I see the draft going down.

I can't comment on many players, only the ones I have seen and seen often. My main question for you is where do you get your information on these prospects and out of your top 60 how many have you seen live (not on TV) and on more than one occasion???

The player I watched more than anyone on your list this past year is ranked #46, John Lammers of the Lethbridge Hurricanes. Your description is next to the opposite as far as what I see in Lammers and his performance this year.

1) He worked out very well in Lethbridge this year...um...no he didn't. He started the year off strong...obviously had it out with teammates and/or Mikko Makkela (head coach) behind closed doors and then ditched the team for few weeks, went home to B.C. and demanded a trade. He was mediocre upon his return and still seemed uncomfortable with the situation, however, his play (along with most the other forwards) did improve marginally after Lyndsay Hofford took over as coach.

2) Very shifty, crafty player.... PUts on a show with his puck movement...Always thinking about the big play. = This is correct to a point but this description better suits his linemate, Kris Versteeg, also draft eligible but is not ranked which is beyond me. John is crafty at times in the WHL but if he is to play hockey at the next level he will have to do it as a power forward as that better suits his style. His scoring abilities (SNIPER) is what sells him in the late second/early third round not his skating (shifty) or his puckhandling/passing (crafty).

3) Not shy to get agressive and use his body, he also plays solid defensive hockey when he isn't tired it seems. = This is the closest statement to the truth on John. He will muck it up at times, thus the potential power forward label, but I think the main reason he left the team was Makkela wanted him to be more committed to defense and he thought he was on the team to score. Main word in that last sentence is "think" but I do have some inside sources.

Once again good work X-Sharkie but please take time to answer the question:

Where do you get your information on these prospects and out of your top 60 how many have you seen live (not on TV) and on more than one occasion???

P.S. = No offense meant by that question it's just that I thought you were younger than most these draft eligible kids and figured your not a scout or member of the media...
 

Jason MacIsaac

Registered User
Jan 13, 2004
22,221
5,934
Halifax, NS
steblick said:
You think Wharton should be higher? A lot of people seem to (including me) but 60th is by no means way out of line. I like Sharkie's note about his dominating play of late- Wharton REALLY came on in the 2nd half and playoffs. Lisin in the 40's is low but I agree with many that his stock has dropped- he reminds me of Rico Fata a little. I like the fact Sharkie is taking a chance here. All NHL lists will also have surprising ratings like this.

I think your criticisms (MacIsaac) are far too shrill and they make you look unaware as to what the latest developments are. Sharkie is more up-to-date than you IMO, no matter where he gets his info from.

By the way, I don't denigrate Sharkie for using tapes as a basis for comments- I have sometimes too and although it's not as useful as seeing a player live at all, it is still SOMETHING- it's just that when you (Sharkie) say "I've SEEN THIS player" it makes it sound like you HAVEN'T seen all the others.
How the hell can you explain Wharton being around 60 when he is ranked 13th NA in CSB final rankings, it isn't as if he droped their either, he climbed all year. Maybe you should get in touch with developments. Was the best defensmen in the playoffs for Ottawa. Injuries have set him back but he is one of the better puck rushing defensmen with loads of raw offensive potential. Standing at 6`3 190 with nice speed and a great two way game is tough to come by in this draft. Most have atleast one flaw where Wharton is extremely solid. Much like Redden. If he falls to 40 I will eat my words in a second.

As far as Lisin goes the guy has pure speed and nice hands. Something that won't go unnoticed even if he didn't score like he should have. If he has the skills take him, the confidence with bigger boys will come.

BTW, if you think these are the only small adjustments I would make you are wrong. There are about 10 other things I would love to cut up and will do so if you please.
 

Hiishawk

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,225
2
Out there somewhere
Visit site
JasonMacIsaac said:
How the hell can you explain Wharton being around 60 when he is ranked 13th NA in CSB final rankings, it isn't as if he droped their either, he climbed all year. Maybe you should get in touch with developments. Was the best defensmen in the playoffs for Ottawa. Injuries have set him back but he is one of the better puck rushing defensmen with loads of raw offensive potential. Standing at 6`3 190 with nice speed and a great two way game is tough to come by in this draft. Most have atleast one flaw where Wharton is extremely solid. Much like Redden. If he falls to 40 I will eat my words in a second.

As far as Lisin goes the guy has pure speed and nice hands. Something that won't go unnoticed even if he didn't score like he should have. If he has the skills take him, the confidence with bigger boys will come.

BTW, if you think these are the only small adjustments I would make you are wrong. There are about 10 other things I would love to cut up and will do so if you please.

Did you read my post? I wrote that I have Wharton higher than 60 based on his excellent late season play. I had him high before CSB's list came out- but a lot of knowledgeable people don't have him that high and chastised me for it at the time. Because some would say Sharkie has him too high at #60 I thought you might be in that boat too. These things are not nearly as obvious as you'd like to think.

Anyway, you should tone it down a bit buddy. Saying "How the hell can you say X" and "What a joke!" - as you have a history of doing- on things that are matters of degree and perspective (and Sharkie's were all reasonable) will not endear you to anyone here. Try a decaffeinated coffee and some aromatherapy.
 

Jason MacIsaac

Registered User
Jan 13, 2004
22,221
5,934
Halifax, NS
steblick said:
Did you read my post? I wrote that I have Wharton higher than 60 based on his excellent late season play. I had him high before CSB's list came out- but a lot of knowledgeable people don't have him that high and chastised me for it at the time. Because some would say Sharkie has him too high at #60 I thought you might be in that boat too. These things are not nearly as obvious as you'd like to think.

Anyway, you should tone it down a bit buddy. Saying "How the hell can you say X" and "What a joke!" - as you have a history of doing- on things that are matters of degree and perspective (and Sharkie's were all reasonable) will not endear you to anyone here. Try a decaffeinated coffee and some aromatherapy.
I am not trying to make it so clear cut. All I am saying is there is no rankings I see around haveing Wharton around 60. I wanted an explanation why he was ranked so low behind all those other defensmen and also how Sindel is that much higher then a player like Lisin. For the record I don't like Lisin but I still have him closer to the first round.
 

Captain Conservative

Registered User
Apr 1, 2004
3,842
1
My Blue Heaven
steblick said:
Did you read my post? I wrote that I have Wharton higher than 60 based on his excellent late season play. I had him high before CSB's list came out- but a lot of knowledgeable people don't have him that high and chastised me for it at the time. Because some would say Sharkie has him too high at #60 I thought you might be in that boat too. These things are not nearly as obvious as you'd like to think.

Anyway, you should tone it down a bit buddy. Saying "How the hell can you say X" and "What a joke!" - as you have a history of doing- on things that are matters of degree and perspective (and Sharkie's were all reasonable) will not endear you to anyone here. Try a decaffeinated coffee and some aromatherapy.


Totally agree. It really makes me sick when posters are so rude without instigation, especially in the case of how Sharkie is being treated. Vlad, JasonMacIsaac, etc. have voiced these criticisms about Sharkie stealing material before, and continue to do so. Its old, and its petty. I enjoyed this list A LOT, and if they have a problem with the list, they should come up with a list of their own, and we could compare the two.
 

Jason MacIsaac

Registered User
Jan 13, 2004
22,221
5,934
Halifax, NS
Captain Conservative said:
Totally agree. It really makes me sick when posters are so rude without instigation, especially in the case of how Sharkie is being treated. Vlad, JasonMacIsaac, etc. have voiced these criticisms about Sharkie stealing material before, and continue to do so. Its old, and its petty. I enjoyed this list A LOT, and if they have a problem with the list, they should come up with a list of their own, and we could compare the two.
I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that a 16 year old can see all these prospects. For a 16 year old to have so many connections that would give him tapes is unlikely unless his father is a pro scout. My bet is that he has a McKeens subscription and mixes the rankings around. I could really care less about that. Its more Vlad that has a beef with that. If he wants to post his lists and rankings he must be able to take criticism and comments from non believers, if his rankings are similar to the NHL draft then I will shut the hell up and admit I was wrong, untill then enjoy the bashing from non believers.
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
Captain Conservative said:
Totally agree. It really makes me sick when posters are so rude without instigation, especially in the case of how Sharkie is being treated.

There is instigation. This guy is a fraud. Everytime he posts, he is misguiding other posters. Since this is a public message board, it is my right to point this out and save the time of those who will be wise enough to listen.

Captain Conservative said:
Vlad, JasonMacIsaac, etc. have voiced these criticisms about Sharkie stealing material before, and continue to do so. Its old, and its petty.

I try to stay away from his threads. Since you kindly named me, I made an exception. It's up to posters at this point to decide if they want to take cues from this guy. There is however nothing petty about wanting clean boards, without bull**** reports.

Captain Conservative said:
I enjoyed this list A LOT, and if they have a problem with the list, they should come up with a list of their own, and we could compare the two.

Except that, to come up with such a list, I would have to use the same tactics. And I do not just feel like losing my integrity to impress a few gullible dimwits. Not interested.

Now, feel free to enjoy this list, where you get laghable crap such as a detailed scouting report on a defenseman who just happens to be... a forward. More power to you if you enjoy made-up stories.
 

Gwyddbwyll

Registered User
Dec 24, 2002
11,252
469
CSS is not the perfection some of you seem to think.

David Leneveu was the 6th ranked North American goalie on CSS and he was taken 45th and should have gone in the first round with hindsight. Its not a stretch to see Schneider in the same boat.

Its widely acknowledged teams will have VASTLY different lists so why is it such a shocker to have one goalie ahead of TWO others (!) Why be abusive towards someone because their list dares to be different when professional scouting staffs can have very different opinions.

"Enjoy the bashing" - Im sick of the bashing. If it carries on then HF will degenerate into SLAM. I dont doubt people are now scared to post their rankings or opinions because of the crap they see. Its a real shame.
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
Stevex said:
If it carries on then HF will degenerate into SLAM. I dont doubt people are now scared to post their rankings or opinions because of the crap they see. Its a real shame.

It would actually be a good thing if that was the case and would prevent those boards from turning into SLAM.

But I strongly doubt that will be the case. Some people are just addicted to sharing their "opinions" no matter how useless they can be, thus diluting the quality around here.

As for the rankings, they are usually very ambitious projects and in the case of a draft class, there are few individuals who are qualified for the task on their own. While I'm not opposed to them, it's not like they are vital.

You do realize that if rankings disappeared, we wouldn't lose one single bit of useful, valid information, don't you?
 

helicecopter

Registered User
Mar 8, 2003
8,242
0
give me higher shots
Visit site
JasonMacIsaac said:
if his rankings are similar to the NHL draft then I will shut the hell up and admit I was wrong, untill then enjoy the bashing from non believers.

if his rankings won't be similar to the NHL draft you won't be proven right either.
Unfortunately, since it is not a mock draft, we will have to wait something like 5yrs to be sure that this is a good or bad ranking.
 

Hiishawk

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,225
2
Out there somewhere
Visit site
Vlad The Impaler said:
Now, feel free to enjoy this list, where you get laghable crap such as a detailed scouting report on a defenseman who just happens to be... a forward. More power to you if you enjoy made-up stories.

Umm yeah Sharkie. Can you explain that Olver analysis?

But what I don't get, Vlad, is that even if he was getting his info from other online sources (and surely much of it is) why would he write something as way-off as that?

BTW, Vlad, you are correct about a dilution in quality here. I'll read other people's rankngs because I like the discussions it generates involving people who HAVE seen a certain player a lot. But the tone is getting rather..ahem..youngish.
Too bad Chimera is on McKeen's. Even when I didn't agree with him, he usually had something worthwhile or insightful to say. And I don't see Moosefan posting often anymore. Too bad.

Also Vlad- rather than having you looking out for the weaknesses in others' posts, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the players you know well, as you seem to be a pretty astute hockey guy.
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
steblick said:
But what I don't get, Vlad, is that even if he was getting his info from other online sources (and surely much of it is) why would he write something as way-off as that?

For one, the dude seems close to being dyslexic. Most if not all of his "work" seems hurriedly put together too.

I think what Sharkie does would be *greatly* beneficial if he did it the right way. I honestly, genuinely love the passion and motivation of this guy. But:

1-He takes way too much credit instead of properly referencing his info. Referencing info is vital as much for the information to be properly put in context as well as for ethics concern

2-He botches his compilations of second-hand info

This is terrible. I mean, starting threads and with that huge fan following, botching things up. Providing erroneous informations. This is directly against the rules of these boards yet he's been tolerated God knows why. Describing a forward's play as a defenseman, using words that strongly suggest this is firsthand viewing.... it's either a lie or the guy is probably the biggest idiot ever, mistaking a forward for D. For chrissakes...

The big problem I have with it is that it discourages low-key folks with less flashier but more reliable info from even bothering and posting. It hurts the credibility of the website immensely. Also, good luck getting guys like McKenzie to post here. He has tried, and I'm sure he's figured out anything substantial he might have to say is lost in a myriad of threads by folks who need to share their irrelevant, idiotic "opinions" (You know, "opinion"... meaning "I can say whatever I want and you can't complain because that's my opinion").

My other problem being of course that it's just wrong to provide folks with messy information.

steblick said:
BTW, Vlad, you are correct about a dilution in quality here. I'll read other people's rankngs because I like the discussions it generates involving people who HAVE seen a certain player a lot. But the tone is getting rather..ahem..youngish.
Too bad Chimera is on McKeen's. Even when I didn't agree with him, he usually had something worthwhile or insightful to say. And I don't see Moosefan posting often anymore. Too bad.

A lot great guys are gone or awfully silent. Many of the more motivated start their thing "on the side" or join other ventures. I suspect you may do too eventually.

steblick said:
Also Vlad- rather than having you looking out for the weaknesses in others' posts, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the players you know well, as you seem to be a pretty astute hockey guy.

Yeah, I'd love to do that more. Lately, it's been awful prospects-wise. I haven't followed the 2004 crop at all due to illness and all sorts of bad lucks. Add to that that the Montreal Rockets were relocated. I knew from the get go I would have a tough time. More than ever, I need information from outside sources and it's pretty difficult.

Next year, I want to keep a much closer eye on things as well as be more active networking with folks I know I can trust.
 

cdnhky1

Registered User
May 16, 2002
247
0
Visit site
These rankings are a load of crap. This guy has done what so many other people do on this site, he's picked up bits and pieces of information from the internet and other sources on players and he's thrown it together and made it sound like it's his informed opinion. There is so much information that is factually wrong that it's not possible to take these rankings serious.

Let's look at your goalie rankings for a second.

You have Schwarz as the top ranked goalie and you make the statement "SOme people dislike him because they only saw him that one game vs Canada". The truth is Canada played the Czechs twice at the 2004 WJC's and Schwarz was awful in both games. In the Dec.31 round robin game he gave up 5 goals in two periods and was pulled. He played again in the Can-Cze semi-final game. This time he managed to finish the game. Unfortunately, he gave up 7 goals in a 7-1 loss.

Then you told us that he rebounded nicely in his next performance against Finland and that we could take that to the bank because you remembered. The only problem is Finland beat the Czechs 3-2 on Dec 28. Canada and the Czechs didn't play until Dec 31 so he clearly did not stand on his head in the next game against the Finns as you remembered.

As far as Schneider is concerned, as others have stated, his rating in your post is based almost entirely on 3 games, at the u-18'.s In the first 3 games of the tournament against Denmark, Sweden and Belarus he gave up 4 goals on 40 shots. Not exactly great numbers against those teams. He then gave up 1 goal on 39 shots against Canada and 2 goals on 36 shots against the Czechs in the semis. In the final, he gave up 3 goals on 23 shots against the Russians. Other than that, there isn't much to go by since he's played so few game and I'm not sure how much credibility you can give his performances against high school players.

Regarding David Shantz, you said "Stood on his head for a poor team now two years in a row IMO." Shantz has only played for the Ice Dogs for one year. This was his rookie season and you can hardly call this season's Ice Dogs a poor team. After all, they did make it to the OHL final and they led the Eastern Conference for most of the year, thanks in large part to Shantz. Shantz led the OHL playoffs in save percentage and shutouts and finished second in gaa. He led his team to two seven game series victories. The year before he led the Thorold Jr. B team to the Ontario final breaking every goaltending record in the league. Two years ago he played 58 games. This season he played a total of 62 games.
I'll take Shantz record over 62 games and 24 playoff games over Schneiders 3 games anyday.
 

Gwyddbwyll

Registered User
Dec 24, 2002
11,252
469
Vlad The Impaler said:
The big problem I have with it is that it discourages low-key folks with less flashier but more reliable info from even bothering and posting. It hurts the credibility of the website immensely. Also, good luck getting guys like McKenzie to post here. He has tried, and I'm sure he's figured out anything substantial he might have to say is lost in a myriad of threads by folks who need to share their irrelevant, idiotic "opinions" (You know, "opinion"... meaning "I can say whatever I want and you can't complain because that's my opinion").

Thats exactly my point. Its the bashing that discourages people with reliable info, especially newcomers. I see nothing in Shark's posts that is antagonistic or discouraging, simply enthusiasm about something we all love.

How does it hurt the credibility of the website? The message boards and the website are two separate entities that I think you are confusing. Posting a ranking on hfboards.com is not the same as writing an official article on hockeysfuture.com.

..

A lot great guys are gone or awfully silent. Many of the more motivated start their thing "on the side" or join other ventures. I suspect you may do too eventually.

..

Next year, I want to keep a much closer eye on things as well as be more active networking with folks I know I can trust.

Thats what hfboards is all about. Networking rather than private cliques. Eventually you can figure out whose posts are worthy of following. Im just saying there could be a lot less antagonism than "how the hell" posts.
 

jincargo

Registered User
Jan 28, 2004
521
0
OK....thats it.

Ive had Mckeens for about 2 years...with my website I wanted to have some info on some of the lower picks and such. Sometimes I forget I have it but everytime Sharkie appears with a report on someone I know little about I make sure to check it with what they have. Its riduclous.

Case in point...Here's his "report" on Juien Ellis. Who?!? I dont know. But this was his from another post.

Julien Ellis G 6-0 190 Ellis is a goalie that I really like, Could be the Josh Harding of the draft, were he falls into the 2nd round but the team that takes him well look very smart for doing so. Ellis is a 100% butterfly goalie. 99% of his saves he goes down. He lets in the occasional bad goal, BUT! he's very mentally focues, always talking, and he always plays best after the first goal gets by him. He doesnt give the shooter much net to look at, agressive on the angles and is positionally solid. Fights hard in trafic, and finds the puck well, Getting much respect for his Glove hand, flashes it as fast as anyone in the draft, The glove hand is almost a shut down side, Handles the puck extremely well, makes smart, and good plays that help his teamates. Lateral movements side to side are excelent, almost as good as Fleury in that regard. Was peppered with shots in both games i've seen, rose to the occasion each time, A very agile butterfly goalie, with great positonal play, and lighting quick reflexes, He's everything you could ask for as a goalie prospect.

Here's Mckeens

Scouting: A butterfly style goalie … A great competitor and has a good mental game that allows him to come back strong after a bad goal … displays great positional play and is always square to the shooter … rarely takes himself out of position and gives the opposition very little to shot at … always has a sense at where the puck … is good at seeing the puck in traffic, and if he can see it he will stop it … has a lightning fast glove hand … Ellis-Plante is quick and agile in the nets, but is not acrobatic like some … he is able to make the big save and has tremendous lateral movement in the crease … capable of making hard saves looks easy … thrives on a heavy work load and is a big game goalie … handles the puck well and is very vocal in the net making sure everyone has their assignments.

Hmmmmm....you tell me. :shakehead

Like I appreciate what he does...but he's so naive about how he does it. Playing it off as if he has no idea what Mckeens writes and blah blah blah. I should cancel my subscription to be honest....since almost everything he writes its straight out of Mckeens.
 

Flames Draft Watcher

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,793
0
Calgary
Visit site
JasonMacIsaac said:
Wharton 60th......lol Joke indeed.

Way too many things wrong here. It looks like you are trying to make controversy on these picks because there is noway the draft will go this way. Lisin in the 40's?

There's also no way the draft will go the way YOU think it will. Or have you put up your list so that people can similarly mock you when you turn out to be totally off?
 

Flames Draft Watcher

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,793
0
Calgary
Visit site
Leafaholix said:
CSB...

Mid-term: 7th.
Final: 7th.

Montoya, Peters, Shantz, Dubnyk, and Lacosta have been ranked ahead of him on both lists.

I'll take CSB over McKeen's anyday... even though it's a total crapshoot.

Have you looked at CSS's track record over the past 5 years? It's far from pretty.

I'm not sure you should be discounting Schneider unless you've seen him play a fair amount. You don't seem to be qualified to be questioning some of the things you're questioning.
 

Rabid Ranger

2 is better than one
Feb 27, 2002
31,014
11,020
Murica
Flames Draft Watcher said:
Have you looked at CSS's track record over the past 5 years? It's far from pretty.

I'm not sure you should be discounting Schneider unless you've seen him play a fair amount. You don't seem to be qualified to be questioning some of the things you're questioning.



99% of us aren't qualified to be questioning anything. That's an exaggeration of course, but you get my point. I think we can all tell who is a legitimate scout or has legitimate access to actual scouting reports. Those individuals are far and few between. Is X-Sharkie one of them? No, but neither is Jason MacIssac. Therein lies the rub.
 

Flames Draft Watcher

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,793
0
Calgary
Visit site
Rabid Ranger said:
99% of us aren't qualified to be questioning anything. That's an exaggeration of course, but you get my point. I think we can all tell who is a legitimate scout or has legitimate access to actual scouting reports. Those individuals are far and few between. Is X-Sharkie one of them? No, but neither is Jason MacIssac. Therein lies the rub.

I just think Leafaholix is making some pretty strong statements and bashing of others opinion without much to back him up. Seems to think CSS is the be all and end all and that Schneider can't go in the 1st because he's rated 7th by CSS.

That of course is BS. Schneider could go anywhere and the failure to recognize that he could go in the first is very shortsighted of him.
 

Rabid Ranger

2 is better than one
Feb 27, 2002
31,014
11,020
Murica
Flames Draft Watcher said:
I just think Leafaholix is making some pretty strong statements and bashing of others opinion without much to back him up. Seems to think CSS is the be all and end all and that Schneider can't go in the 1st because he's rated 7th by CSS.

That of course is BS. Schneider could go anywhere and the failure to recognize that he could go in the first is very shortsighted of him.


I agree. The main issue with a player like Schneider is, unless you watch high school hockey or have traveled out of the continent to attend international tournaments, all you can go by are scouting reports. Since most of us don't leave our state/province with much regularity we need to shut our yaps about guys we have no real first hand knowledge of, unless we throw out certain qualifiers.
 

leafaholix*

Guest
Flames Draft Watcher said:
I just think Leafaholix is making some pretty strong statements and bashing of others opinion without much to back him up. Seems to think CSS is the be all and end all and that Schneider can't go in the 1st because he's rated 7th by CSS.

That of course is BS. Schneider could go anywhere and the failure to recognize that he could go in the first is very shortsighted of him.
To have him ahead of Dubnyk and Shantz just because he had a very good U-18 tournament is shortsighted. Especially since he's playing HS hockey when Dubnyk and Shantz are playing at the highest level of junior hockey in North America.

A comparison between the three...

Cory Schneider, HS: 24 Games, 1.42 GAA, .956%, 6 SO.
Cory Schneider, U-18: 6 Games, 5-1, 1.71 GAA, .929%, 1 SO.

Devan Dubnyk, WHL: 44 Games, 2.27, .917%, 6 SO.
Devan Dubynk, U-18: 6 Games, 3-3, 2.02 GAA, .917%, 1 SO.

David Shantz, OHL: 43 Games, 2.91 GAA, .911%, 1 SO.
David Shantz, PO's: 24 Games, 2.04 GAA, .929%, 5 SO.
 

Dr.Sens(e)

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,014
1
Ottawa
Visit site
Man, what was lame discussion. My 2 cents are as follows...

If you think he is using McKeens material, then definitely call him on it. Or better yet, let HF or McKeens know. As a McKeens subscriber, I have neither the time nor inclination to check that kind of stuff, but if he is using the material, that isn't cool.

But if that's not your beef, give it a rest.

Why is it that it's always the wannabe draft guru's who get so upset by these posts? It's like they're afraid this poster will start stealing their thunder. A reminder - THIS IS A MESSAGE BOARD. No one has their real identity up, and every post is caveat emptor (ok something like that, more "reader beware"). There is NO CREDIBILITY for anyone using a "handle". It's up to EACH reader to determine the validity or accuracy on their own. If you disagree or want to challenge some of his assertions, go for it. But this "Fraud" talk is pointless. How can anyone NOT be a fraud who is anonymous?

Obviously much of it's second hand information, but if he wants to run around accumulating and summarizing it while throwing in some of his own opinions on what he's seen, it actually does have some value. It certainly has interest for some. As a McKeen's and Redline subscriber, there is obviously better information I can read, but as one poster said, it generates discussion around players where new information is in fact revealed. Even in this finger pointing discussion, there are at least a few morsels of info.

But that's all in the eye of the beholder I guess...
 

X-SHARKIE

Registered User
I am Max Giese, im 16 years old, Live in Wisconsin, and i've been watching the NHL entry draft since 1997. So there goes who I am talk lol.

Man, I come on this thread, seeing that there’s 50 plus votes and I’m excited to talk about the draft with all of you….there is like what, 3 posts talking about the 2004 entry draft? This is a joke. If you don’t like me then don’t read what I post, I explained my self countless times and it’s getting old.
I’m not going to sit here and say I saw all these players….I didn’t. But I won’t stand here and let people say I stole this information or stuff like that. I saw most, but some of it is 2nd hand info. You’re right, I should give credit where credit is due. I would like to think a family friend of mine Rick W, He’s a retired man living near Thunder Bay, He has provided me with information and tapes for a long time. In return I tape NCAA games off the dish. He travels to CHL games and has been to tournaments across the world, He was the first person to ever really sell me on Michalek a year ago, and a lot of the information I get is from discussions from him. He is a long time friend, grew up and played hockey with and still talks to Bill Wray of the Sudbury Wolves…So believe me when I tell you I’ve heard all about how great Ryan McDonough is and how he’ll improve the team immedietly ect.
I would also like to thank the some of the locals from Seattle, Maine, Moosejaw, and Ottawa for helping me with getting game footage. Former poster Stock Rocks has helped me in the past but I haven’t spoke with him in quite awhile. I also read Redline, and McKeens draft updates just like any other fan and I sure do listen to the people who see them more then I could ever dream of...who doesn't.
BACK TO THE DRAFT: Olver was a honest mistake. I watched Michigan play this year to see Montoya, Olver was Quaterbacking the powerplay. He caught my eye and I watched him a bit, His defensive zone work is impressive. Honest mistake.
2nd…Julien Ellis. I don’t know why your comparing my stuff to some one elses.. How many different ways can you a player plays? McKeens hit the guy right on the dot IMO. Theres no two ways to correctly explain how a player plays the game. Two people watching Peter Forsberg play, well come away and both say wow he’s one strong and competitive player. So I don’t see the problem there.
I still back my Schneider opinion. I saw him play in Green Bay this summer and I was in awe, and the performance he put in at the U-18 just proved he can do it vs high competition.
So Finland beat the Czechs 3-2…It sure as hell wasn’t Schwarz fault. He played amazing.

Once again, Please, only comments on the 2004 Draft…if you don’t have a passion for the NHL entry draft, and are here to complain, please just keep it your self. I want to talk about the draft, not about my life.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->