Prospect Info: HF 2015 draft rankings are out

[Treb]

Montreal rankings are out
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/teams/montreal_canadiens/
Juulsen 7.5C
Vejdemo 7.0D
Bradley 6.5D
Bourque 6B
Addison 6.5C

Click to read more...

 

[Grant McCagg]

Vejdemo a D...what is that even suppose to mean? My guess is he gets a D because no one at HF has ever properly scouted him...so that makes him an unknown..you're an unknown..you're a D...a potential bust.

You ask me..players who have been scouted little should never get a D or an A..how the hell would amateur North American "video scouts" have any clue if he might bust? I find the letter ratings to be a waste of time...come up with a grade for them and live with that..work bust potential into the final grade.

All the letters represent is a way of covering your ass..give pretty much everyone a C or D..that way if they bust...don't look so bad. You'd almost think the HF rankings grades were formulated by meteorologists - "sunny with cloudy periods and a chance of rain."

And giving Juulsen a C is an even bigger joke...the kid is as safe a prospect as you'll find outside of the top ten...not a single weakness in his game..but let's give him a C. No rhyme or reason to the letter grades at all.

 

[WeThreeKings]

I've never given credence to their rankings and I never will.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Vejdemo a D...what is that even suppose to mean? My guess is he gets a D because no one at HF has ever properly scouted him...so that makes him an unknown..you're an unknown..you're a D...a potential bust.

You ask me..players who have been scouted little should never get a D or an A..how the hell would amateur North American "video scouts" have any clue if he might bust? I find the letter ratings to be a waste of time...come up with a grade for them and live with that..work bust potential into the final grade.

All the letters represent is a way of covering your ass..give pretty much everyone a C or D..that way if they bust...don't look so bad. You'd almost think the HF rankings grades were formulated by meteorologists - "sunny with cloudy periods and a chance of rain."

And giving Juulsen a C is an even bigger joke...the kid is as safe a prospect as you'll find outside of the top ten...not a single weakness in his game..but let's give him a C. No rhyme or reason to the letter grades at all.

Pretty much. It also seems like they do work in bust factor in their rating because it seems like pure potential that Vejdemo would be higher than that. Not that I've followed him obviously but it just sounds like he'd have higher potential than that.

I put absolutely zero stock into these ratings.

 

[patsbury]

Vejdemo a D...what is that even suppose to mean? My guess is he gets a D because no one at HF has ever properly scouted him...so that makes him an unknown..you're an unknown..you're a D...a potential bust.

Like most drafted kids?

Prospect evaluation is the less quantifying things ever, based on interpretation and very little facts (stats for instance, although is does not tell the whole story). You will have a hundred different opinions if you ask as many people Don't turn so mad for a letter and a number

Also, a lot of prospects are overrated, especially here (according to HF 5-6 years ago, we should have the deepest lineup out of our drafts, which is very far from the truth/reality), so diminishing expectations should be a rule...really. I saw a rant a few days ago by a Habs member here (another topic, can't remember who exactly), couldn't agree more.

 

[DAChampion]

Isn't a 7.5 kind of high?

And ... nobody lower than 6?

 

[Treb]

Isn't a 7.5 kind of high?

And ... nobody lower than 6?

7.5 is number 3 D (8 is 2, 7 is 3-4) with the C being a chance to go down to 6-7 defenceman. Most 1st rounder are 7 or 7.5.

Anybody lower than 6 means their ceiling is fringe NHLer.

5. Fourth line forward / No. 7 defenseman / depth goaltender – players that populate the 4th line, will fill in for injured defensemen, or have some ability to play goal in the NHL but are mostly very good minor league goaltenders. Think of any enforcer you care to name, or any energy player you care to name, or any unlucky defensemen or goaltenders that don't quite have enough talent to crack an NHL lineup full time.

4. Top minor league forward / defenseman / goaltender – players unlikely to have long careers in the NHL, but they'll be recalled when injuries or other circumstances arise.

 

[NobleSix]

Isn't a 7.5 kind of high?

And ... nobody lower than 6?

7 is not bad, especially for Vejdemo. I thought he would be around a 6.5 to be honest just because of his relative anonymity.

For reference, Galchenyuk is an 8.5 B. McDavid will probably be a 9-9.5 A/B.

These numerical and alphabetical rankings are pretty general and shouldn't really be given too much stake IMO.

 

[DAChampion]

McDavid should be a 9.5 ... he dominated junior at the same level as Crosby, Lindros, and Lemieux; and by a far greater margin than Stamkos, Tavares, and Hall.

I presume he won't get a 10 since nobody expects him to break Gretzky's record.

 

[HCH]

Vejdemo a D...what is that even suppose to mean? My guess is he gets a D because no one at HF has ever properly scouted him...so that makes him an unknown..you're an unknown..you're a D...a potential bust.

You ask me..players who have been scouted little should never get a D or an A..how the hell would amateur North American "video scouts" have any clue if he might bust? I find the letter ratings to be a waste of time...come up with a grade for them and live with that..work bust potential into the final grade.

All the letters represent is a way of covering your ass..give pretty much everyone a C or D..that way if they bust...don't look so bad. You'd almost think the HF rankings grades were formulated by meteorologists - "sunny with cloudy periods and a chance of rain."

And giving Juulsen a C is an even bigger joke...the kid is as safe a prospect as you'll find outside of the top ten...not a single weakness in his game..but let's give him a C. No rhyme or reason to the letter grades at all.

LOL... good comments and great analogies. I don't put much stock in them

 

[HCH]

Like most drafted kids?

Prospect evaluation is the less quantifying things ever, based on interpretation and very little facts (stats for instance, although is does not tell the whole story). You will have a hundred different opinions if you ask as many people Don't turn so mad for a letter and a number

Also, a lot of prospects are overrated, especially here (according to HF 5-6 years ago, we should have the deepest lineup out of our drafts, which is very far from the truth/reality), so diminishing expectations should be a rule...really. I saw a rant a few days ago by a Habs member here (another topic, can't remember who exactly), couldn't agree more.

You do realize you are preaching to a professional talent evaluator.

 

[Rapala]

I've never given credence to their rankings and I never will.

Well they are just that...
Rankings.
Nothing pleases me more than when someones "rankings" get shot to hell.
I guess it doesn't occur to folks that we rarely get the full picture particularly on European prospects.
I'd pay far more attention to the scouts with hemerroids from cold benches in far away places except that they are generally close lipped...
It is their profession after all.

 

[Ezpz]

Vejdemo a D...what is that even suppose to mean? My guess is he gets a D because no one at HF has ever properly scouted him...so that makes him an unknown..you're an unknown..you're a D...a potential bust.

You ask me..players who have been scouted little should never get a D or an A..how the hell would amateur North American "video scouts" have any clue if he might bust? I find the letter ratings to be a waste of time...come up with a grade for them and live with that..work bust potential into the final grade.

All the letters represent is a way of covering your ass..give pretty much everyone a C or D..that way if they bust...don't look so bad. You'd almost think the HF rankings grades were formulated by meteorologists - "sunny with cloudy periods and a chance of rain."

And giving Juulsen a C is an even bigger joke...the kid is as safe a prospect as you'll find outside of the top ten...not a single weakness in his game..but let's give him a C. No rhyme or reason to the letter grades at all.

I don't think anyone drafted outside of the top 10 has ever been given a 7.5 B. A only goes to prospects drafted top 1-2 or guys who have made the NHL but still qualify as prospects. Like Pateryn would be a 6.5A right now.

 

[patsbury]

You do realize you are preaching to a professional talent evaluator.

Nope. He can still be wrong?

My point remain, most prospects here are vastly overrated.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I don't really have tooo much issue with their numbers for the most part, but I'm with Grant when it comes to the letters. I get what they're trying to do, but an awful lot of C/Ds get assigned due to unfamiliarity way too often, imo.

 

[Whitesnake]

Unfortunately....my new fantasy league uses those rankings to explain how great a prospect is.....

 

[Hackett]

McDavid should be a 9.5 ... he dominated junior at the same level as Crosby, Lindros, and Lemieux; and by a far greater margin than Stamkos, Tavares, and Hall.

I presume he won't get a 10 since nobody expects him to break Gretzky's record.

I've seen 10s on here before. I think kovalchuk was a 10 at one point, for example.

The highest I've seen on the habs board is Andrei Markov at 9.0. Back then, there was no letter associated with the rating.

 

[Mr. Hab]

I don't really have tooo much issue with their numbers for the most part, but I'm with Grant when it comes to the letters. I get what they're trying to do, but an awful lot of C/Ds get assigned due to unfamiliarity way, too often, imo.

Yup, totally agree with you about the Cs and Ds...way too many!! (every year! it becomes kind of boring/mundane...always with the so many Cs and Ds!!). I kind of got used to it!! but yeah...they should really spice it up sometimes with a few Bs here and there!! (and when the potential is really high...some As!!).

Shouldn't Juulsen be 7.5 B or 8C...?

PK Subban was what? 7.5C? 8C? (he should have been 9A or 9.5A!! in my humble opinion).

Price (if I remember correctly) was 8B, no? (that was awhile ago!). Hab prospects don't usually get high ratings on HF, or maybe the HF scouts are Leaf fans?! (I have no idea!).

Anyways...I take these letter evaluations with a grain of salt!!
(but yeah...they should not be afraid sometimes to give a B to the prospects who deserve it...spice it up!! live it up a little!!).

I can't wait for Juulsen to be a part of our top 4...but patience will do it!!

 

[Compile]

Why not just project where they think they will be?

You know...
Franchise LW/C/RW etc..
1st line forward..
Starting goalie etc?

Numbers mean nothing.
McDavid can be an 11 but until he plays a couple of seasons that 11 means dick.

 

[Devourers]

I think if hf scouts are unfamiliar with a prospect they should use a ?

Would make more sense imo

 

[JC Superstar]

What I don't understand about letters is that when a prospect gets a rating it hardly ever change. I would presume that a CHL player one year away from the pros might get a C or a D, but save for a few exceptions (injury, disease), I would expect a prospect having completed his first year as a pro to be a B or an A. And it's hard to believe that after 2 or 3 years as a pro, a prospect isn't an A.

Of course it means that you have to rethink his number too which hardly ever change either. Going from 7.5D to 6A or to 8A should be a matter of 3 or 4 years, not a career move. Dumont with a C?

On the other hand, rating players mean you can't be wrong, especially on this board.

 

[Richiebottles]

Vejdemo a D...what is that even suppose to mean? My guess is he gets a D because no one at HF has ever properly scouted him...so that makes him an unknown..you're an unknown..you're a D...a potential bust.

You ask me..players who have been scouted little should never get a D or an A..how the hell would amateur North American "video scouts" have any clue if he might bust? I find the letter ratings to be a waste of time...come up with a grade for them and live with that..work bust potential into the final grade.

All the letters represent is a way of covering your ass..give pretty much everyone a C or D..that way if they bust...don't look so bad. You'd almost think the HF rankings grades were formulated by meteorologists - "sunny with cloudy periods and a chance of rain."

And giving Juulsen a C is an even bigger joke...the kid is as safe a prospect as you'll find outside of the top ten...not a single weakness in his game..but let's give him a C. No rhyme or reason to the letter grades at all.

Spot on. 100% agree.

 

[Rapala]

Like most drafted kids?

Prospect evaluation is the less quantifying things ever, based on interpretation and very little facts (stats for instance, although is does not tell the whole story). You will have a hundred different opinions if you ask as many people Don't turn so mad for a letter and a number

Also, a lot of prospects are overrated, especially here (according to HF 5-6 years ago, we should have the deepest lineup out of our drafts, which is very far from the truth/reality), so diminishing expectations should be a rule...really. I saw a rant a few days ago by a Habs member here (another topic, can't remember who exactly), couldn't agree more.

My hand is raised... LOL

 

[montreal]

Also, a lot of prospects are overrated, especially here (according to HF 5-6 years ago, we should have the deepest lineup out of our drafts, which is very far from the truth/reality), so diminishing expectations should be a rule...really. I saw a rant a few days ago by a Habs member here (another topic, can't remember who exactly), couldn't agree more.

But that's not taking into account development and asset management, which clearly have been major issues for the Habs either both at the same time or each at different points over many years of the organization. We have one of the top scouts in the NHL, but how we handle them once they are drafted has been an issue, hence guys will get ranked high since our scout has a proven track record of success but that doesn't mean they will pan out as expected if you don't develop them well and make good use of your assets.

My point remain, most prospects here are vastly overrated.

by all fans in all sports, prospects will in large always be overrated by fans clinging to hope.

I've seen 10s on here before. I think kovalchuk was a 10 at one point, for example.

The highest I've seen on the habs board is Andrei Markov at 9.0. Back then, there was no letter associated with the rating.

I don't remember Markov being a 9.0 but that was before my time, I was covering the Habs for HF when they came up with the grades. I wasn't on board for it though I thought it was a valid attempt at least.

I would have given Crosby a 10, same for Ovie.

Vejdemo a D...what is that even suppose to mean? My guess is he gets a D because no one at HF has ever properly scouted him...so that makes him an unknown..you're an unknown..you're a D...a potential bust.

You ask me..players who have been scouted little should never get a D or an A..how the hell would amateur North American "video scouts" have any clue if he might bust? I find the letter ratings to be a waste of time...come up with a grade for them and live with that..work bust potential into the final grade.

All the letters represent is a way of covering your ass..give pretty much everyone a C or D..that way if they bust...don't look so bad. You'd almost think the HF rankings grades were formulated by meteorologists - "sunny with cloudy periods and a chance of rain."

And giving Juulsen a C is an even bigger joke...the kid is as safe a prospect as you'll find outside of the top ten...not a single weakness in his game..but let's give him a C. No rhyme or reason to the letter grades at all.

I wouldn't get worked up over HF rankings and grades. I have been here since '01 and I don't recall HF ever being taken too seriously in regards to their rankings. I know in the past when I worked for them they had a lot of trouble getting full coverage for every team and often would have to have writers from other teams cover them. I complained about how hard that is cause one person covering 30+ prospects is very difficult as you well know, for people that don't get paid to do so thus must work 40 or so hours a week to pay the bills and then try to watch as much hockey as possible and still have time to do other things.

I know when I worked for HF many years ago, and even for my own site, it's so time consuming to try and see over 30 prospects play as much as possible. That's why I would focus so much on the AHL since that means at least half of the prospects you can usually see a ton of. Then I would watch a lot of NCAA since I live in the states and used to get 4-5 games every weekend easy on my directv package. Now with many KHL, Czech Elite league, SHL, games on tv it's much easier to see them now then it was when I covered the Habs at HF.

So while I never put much stock into HF, since they are more concerned with people that know how to write then their knowledge of hockey. But I also know how tough a job it is for people that do it for free with often little thanks. It is what is, something for fans to discuss but at the end of the day who cares how they rank anyone?

 

[InglewoodJack]

7.5 is number 3 D (8 is 2, 7 is 3-4) with the C being a chance to go down to 6-7 defenceman. Most 1st rounder are 7 or 7.5.

Anybody lower than 6 means their ceiling is fringe NHLer.

5. Fourth line forward / No. 7 defenseman / depth goaltender – players that populate the 4th line, will fill in for injured defensemen, or have some ability to play goal in the NHL but are mostly very good minor league goaltenders. Think of any enforcer you care to name, or any energy player you care to name, or any unlucky defensemen or goaltenders that don't quite have enough talent to crack an NHL lineup full time.

4. Top minor league forward / defenseman / goaltender – players unlikely to have long careers in the NHL, but they'll be recalled when injuries or other circumstances arise.

If this is so, how is the 1.5 spread between 7.5 and 6 the difference between being a fringe NHLer and a top 4? That's like saying that Brian Allen is a 6, while someone like Emelin or Beaulieu is only a point above.

HF is absolutely ridiculous with prospect rankings. Also, that 7.5C rating on Juulsen is pretty low, but I don't know much about him.