Prospect Info: 2015 Annual Prospect Poll #3

[Kalv]

Next is Montour imo

Manson for me (next)

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Interesting word choice here. The guy has only played 1 game in the nhl and is already 1 knee injury away from retirement. Who in their right mind would "invest" hope in him to have a lengthy and successful career over a prospect like Ritchie.

If injury is such a concern, they why is Gibson #1?

Ritchie has high potential and motor questions. We don't know if Ritchie will turn out like Getzy or not.

Noesen, despite is his injuries, is a player you don't have to worry about motor or consistent desire. He's also a good scorer. It was easy to follow Noesen's junior career as Rakell was centering him.

As for investment, there are nine other teams who passed on Ritchie. There's got to be a reason why he dropped. Ritchie wasn't a riser a la Lindholm. We took a chance on Ritchie and I hope he makes the NHL squad as well as cements his stay at the NHL level. But if he doesn't, we all know one of the determining factors.

All we have on Noesen is injury concern. There's potential there, but it hasn't had time to develop. But we do know his determination is there. He didn't have to come back early from his injuries. In fact, the org told him to slow down.

But I find your response weird. I voted Ritchie and someone said to make a case for someone else besides Ritchie. I did. And the only substantial thing you brought up was the only reason I voted for Ritchie over Noesen: injury concern, and by proxy, not enough information.

That's it. That's it? It's as if you didn't read my whole post or even my last sentence. I'll highlight it again for you just to be kind:

1. "Being on the ice ruled over potential." (Wow... isn't that what you just said, but in a very condescending fashion as well as neglecting that it was actually said?! Seriously?)

2. "If Noesen remains healthy all year, then I wouldn't be surprised to see his stock rise and possibly rise higher than Ritchie." // The premise here is "IF Noesen remains HEALTHY ALL YEAR..." How did you completely miss the premise and focused solely on the outcome?!

People have got to read and read with context. Oh... and possibly comprehend the point of the post - which was an exercise to find someone aside from Ritchie that could possibly not be such a big difference between Ritchie and the next guy. BTW, DaDucks, if it wasn't already so totes obvee, I voted Ritchie. Hence, the reasoning "Being on the ice ruled over potential" comment.

 

[Sojourn]

I've seen clips of Larsson and watched him at the scrimmage. I don't like the pick personally his skate stride is awful. I hope I'm wrong. He's not physical at all, I am not even sure what his strength are? Someone said skating but that's laughable his stride can be seen in the prospect clips its like maroon. I know it was a ducks pick and a first rounder so we should defend it, I trust our scouts with D men and I hope I'm wrong.

Montour impressed at every level and the times I've seen him in person so I'm going with him next.

All the scouting reports seem to say the same thing, that he is a mobile skater. An awkward skating stride does not make you a bad skater, and a couple of clips are certainly not going to tell you the whole story.

I think you're giving far too much weight to a few video clips.

 

[mightyquack]

Ritchie.

Gets pretty tough after that, think you could go with a few different prospects for the #4 spot and not be wrong picking any of them.

 

[DaDucks*]

If injury is such a concern, they why is Gibson #1?

Ritchie has high potential and motor questions. We don't know if Ritchie will turn out like Getzy or not.

Noesen, despite is his injuries, is a player you don't have to worry about motor or consistent desire. He's also a good scorer. It was easy to follow Noesen's junior career as Rakell was centering him.

As for investment, there are nine other teams who passed on Ritchie. There's got to be a reason why he dropped. Ritchie wasn't a riser a la Lindholm. We took a chance on Ritchie and I hope he makes the NHL squad as well as cements his stay at the NHL level. But if he doesn't, we all know one of the determining factors.

All we have on Noesen is injury concern. There's potential there, but it hasn't had time to develop. But we do know his determination is there. He didn't have to come back early from his injuries. In fact, the org told him to slow down.

But I find your response weird. I voted Ritchie and someone said to make a case for someone else besides Ritchie. I did. And the only substantial thing you brought up was the only reason I voted for Ritchie over Noesen: injury concern, and by proxy, not enough information.

That's it. That's it? It's as if you didn't read my whole post or even my last sentence. I'll highlight it again for you just to be kind:

1. "Being on the ice ruled over potential." (Wow... isn't that what you just said, but in a very condescending fashion as well as neglecting that it was actually said?! Seriously?)

2. "If Noesen remains healthy all year, then I wouldn't be surprised to see his stock rise and possibly rise higher than Ritchie." // The premise here is "IF Noesen remains HEALTHY ALL YEAR..." How did you completely miss the premise and focused solely on the outcome?!

People have got to read and read with context. Oh... and possibly comprehend the point of the post - which was an exercise to find someone aside from Ritchie that could possibly not be such a big difference between Ritchie and the next guy. BTW, DaDucks, if it wasn't already so totes obvee, I voted Ritchie. Hence, the reasoning "Being on the ice ruled over potential" comment.

1. Unlike Noesen, Gibson's career isn't under threat yet. Are his injuries an issue? yes. I'd be careful using results of these polls in your arguments without looking up past results to measure the board's accuracy. (I have Ritchie at #1)

2. Ritchie was projected around 8-10. If I'm comprehending you correctly, you are possibly more concerned with Nick's motor vs Noesen's double major knee surgery. (even despite for your vote this round)

3. Noesen is not a top 6 forward.

4. Who you voted for is actually irrelevant. Bringing Noesen's name up as a potential or actual candidate would still have received the same response from me. Let me highlight my original post for you: "who in their right mind...."