I think Schremp underlies the problem with the prospect rating system. He comes into the draft with one of the top 5 skillsets with guys like Ovechkin, Malkin, Radulov (the big 3 from Russia), Schremp, and heck...maybe Denis Parshin, yet at the same time....he is drafted lower than the 3 Russians and exceeds Parshin who has obvious size problems that he needs to overcome. So anyways, lets break things down -
Alexander Ovechkin - 9A
Evgeny Malkin - 8.5 B
Alexander Radulov - 7.5 C
Denis Parshin - 8D
Robbie Schremp - 9 C
Those are the 5 players, largely considered the most taleneted skill wise in the draft and their respective ratings. Look at them, and see the disparity...Alexander Radulov is a 7.5 C, yet is considered jsut as deadly, if not more so, then Schremp and he came into the draft with a much better attitude description/coachability. Malkin and Ovechkin were always considered to be on a different plane than the others....Parshin has 1st line potential but he is going to have a heck of a time reaching it, thus the D slot. Then we have Rob Schremp rated at a 9 (elite/HOFer/...draws comparison to Mark Messier, etc.). Are you kidding me? This is a guy that has a tremendous problem with his attitude and from all apearances is very difficult to coach. You can point to his boom/bust potential as a reason for his high ranking, but even then IF everything goes correctly - he is a first liner at best (i.e. an 8). Are you telling me that this kid who demands a trade from his team, is sat in game 7 of the playoffs for his defensive defeciences/inability to do what the coach wants, is going to be a superstar in this league? There are reasons he fell so far in the draft, and having him rated considerably higher than even those with the same skill/set as him does not make sense to me, at all.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is this - if you are giving out the numerical rating based solely on potential....then you need to either incorporate a players weaknesses in it to balance it out (i.e. what happened with Radulov - 7.5) or not at all (i.e. Schremp at 9 with the same talent set). The letter rankings should be a separate extension of that giving a relative idea on how likely a player is to succeed to the fullest. A player's potential can be hindered by his attitude, his coachability, his mental game, and other glaring holes in his game such as skating, etc. This should not be just something taken into consideration with just the letter grade, but his overall potential. After all, how can you potentially be Mark Messier if you can't skate, or are being benched in the most important part of the entire season...Game 7 of the playoffs because you can't play defense or do what the coach wants. You can't be...These guys were special b/c they were on the ice when it counted the most and were relied upon heavily, and if you have a glaring problem there...it should affect your potential rating numerically AND alphabettically....not just the latter.
For the record, I'm not a Schremp basher/lover. I didn't want the Preds to choose him simply for the fact that he has had a large problem in the defensive zone in the past, and with our coaches....his talent would be buried (much like Legwands was) until he learned to play defense. Take that into consideration with his supposed attitude problems, and that just spells trouble for a close knit, defensive oriented team that has their centers relied upon for offense last on the team behind wingers AND defensemen.
Final thing - Despite my huge speal on this rating system, it is vastly improved over what it has been in the past. However, the point of my post is to point out the inconcistencies with the ratings. They are there to give you an idea of what the player can accomplish, not as a benchmark to compare two teams. The fact of the matter is, these lists are made up by individuals, some of whom are slightly biased, each with their own preferences on how to rate a player. Things WILL be different because of this, and for that reason when you come up in a debate on who is better, etc....You need a little bit more than just "Hey mines a 9C and yours is a 7.5 C" because in some cases, they could have exactly the same potential....and the discrepancy is not due to talent, rather just the writers choice/subjectivity.