An idea...I'd like HF to post the 50-100 prospects

[firstroundbust]

Every year its the top 50, and they'll list those who missed the cut. Do the writers have a top 100?

Click to read more...

 

[David A. Rainer]

In prior years, we could have done that. The committee would compile a list about 175 deep before whittling it down to 50. Not anymore. It is only about 80-90 deep now.

 

[Nich]

slackers....

 

[sbtatter]

In prior years, we could have done that. The committee would compile a list about 175 deep before whittling it down to 50. Not anymore. It is only about 80-90 deep now.

Where does Ryan White fit onto the list?

 

[Louis Houde]

Where does Ryan White fit onto the list?

in the top 100 i guess he brings nice grit and plays like he doesnt care to bleed... and he still got neat hands. While his skating technique is average, his commitment to win is very important , a future captain imo

 

[firstroundbust]

In prior years, we could have done that. The committee would compile a list about 175 deep before whittling it down to 50. Not anymore. It is only about 80-90 deep now.

would you guys care to show us those 30-40?

 

[Kevin Forbes]

would you guys care to show us those 30-40?

I wasn't on the committee, but I do know from my work with the staff that those last 30-40 players aren't as organized as the final product you see. This is because in the bottom part, there are a lot of players who wouldn't have received votes from the whole committee, thus giving them an incomplete ranking amongst the group. So in that case, I would wager the last 15-20 players or so (in the top 80-90) wouldn't be in a decent order.

For a bit of an idea of who was considered, the entire staff was requested to submit at the very least their top five prospects to the committee (it's no coincidence that March is the month for updated Top 20 rankings). So from that starting ballpark of 150, it's just a matter of whittling down.

 

[Jakomyte]

Every year its the top 50, and they'll list those who missed the cut. Do the writers have a top 100?

Forget that, I want to see the top 1000!!!

It will give me something more to post about when I disagree with selections #874-#892.

 

[Squeaky]

I wasn't on the committee, but I do know from my work with the staff that those last 30-40 players aren't as organized as the final product you see. This is because in the bottom part, there are a lot of players who wouldn't have received votes from the whole committee, thus giving them an incomplete ranking amongst the group. So in that case, I would wager the last 15-20 players or so (in the top 80-90) wouldn't be in a decent order.

For a bit of an idea of who was considered, the entire staff was requested to submit at the very least their top five prospects to the committee (it's no coincidence that March is the month for updated Top 20 rankings). So from that starting ballpark of 150, it's just a matter of whittling down.

For a list from 50-100(or 50-90, or 80 or whatever), I don't so much care about the order as I do about who was nominated and more importantly why or why not. Rankings are generally pretty silly, I put more value in the reasoning for why a prospect is picked where they are. Even just getting the thoughts of HF staff on the guys 51-80, in no particular order would be pretty valuable to me.