Hockey's Future Top 50 prospects: 1-10

Status
Not open for further replies.

Phanuthier*

Guest
Maybe I haven't been reading this board enough or something, but man this has to be one of the weirder threads I've seen.

Or in Vlad's terms, "HFmania."

I mean... there's even one post here that listed some 30 guys that should have made it. I wonder if everyone realizes its a list of top 50, and just 50.
 

SmokeyClause

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
9,999
0
Miami, FL
Visit site
Splatman Phanutier said:
Maybe I haven't been reading this board enough or something, but man this has to be one of the weirder threads I've seen.

Or in Vlad's terms, "HFmania."

I mean... there's even one post here that listed some 30 guys that should have made it. I wonder if everyone realizes its a list of top 50, and just 50.
'

You think you are having fun now, give it time and someone's going to post a list of 50+ players that should have been included but weren't.
 

CH Wizard

Guest
Tukonen and Barker are ranked too low IMO.Suter is better then Barker based on potential ??? I know Suter has the potential to become a great offensive D but Barker has more tools imo.Horton and Ouellet are ranked too high IMO.
 

Slats432

Registered User
Jun 2, 2002
14,757
2,778
hockeypedia.com
Splatman Phanutier said:
Maybe I haven't been reading this board enough or something, but man this has to be one of the weirder threads I've seen.

Or in Vlad's terms, "HFmania."

I mean... there's even one post here that listed some 30 guys that should have made it. I wonder if everyone realizes its a list of top 50, and just 50.
Yeah, but Splat, you know that as soon as the "Habs, Leafs, Rangers, Blues, defensive defenseman, small defenseman, Swedish goalie," fan finds out that "Stuart, Kronwall, Lundqvist, Senja, Perezhogin...." doesn't make the list, the bias of HF against their guy/team/particular stereotype means that HF has to get raked over the coals.

I am suprised that Japanese goalie fans aren't giving us the gears over Yutaka Fukufiji's omission.
 

Enoch

This is my boomstick
Jul 2, 2003
14,239
872
Cookeville TN
George Bachul said:
I am suprised that Japanese goalie fans aren't giving us the gears over Yutaka Fukufiji's omission.
:lol :lol :lol

I remember we had a hayday in HF chat when Fukufiji was drafted. Truly one of the great moments in the chat. I can't remember which King's fan was in there......maybe Herby, but it was downright hilarious.
 

HOCKEY_GURU

Registered User
Jun 27, 2002
661
0
Visit site
dawgbone said:
GURU, about Bergeron...

The problem is, he is a small guy, something like 5-9. He's never going to be able to play against the top players, meaning at best he's a PP specialist who sees time agaisnt the oppositions 3rd/4th lines.

well I watched him many times last year....and his defence was more than adequate, he weighs 190+ pounds... for his height u can imagine his built, apperantly hes also the strongest man on the oilers..he can benchpress more than anyone on the oilers team (according to oilers staff/coaches), as for his Ofence he was at about 40 point pace..and i thought he coulda got so many more had the bounces gone his way. (hitting posts...great set ups missed etc)...so I think he could have a better points per game..so is 50 points that inconceivable? i dont think so... i can see a Rafalski type player here.. but again thats IMHO, keep in mind chelios was about 180 lbs... some players can play bigger than mere stature...like i said before ..id rather have such players on my team than someone that has a 50% chance of being a bust ... but again thats my opnion ;)
 

NYRangers

Registered User
Aug 11, 2004
2,850
0
Flames Draft Watcher said:
You fail to see how size affects a goalie? That seems extremely hard to believe.

Typically these days when a goalie can't see a shot he butterflies to cover the bottom of the net. This tends to leave the uppermost portion of the net open. With small goalies you get a large amount of space open up there because their torso does not cover it. With a 6'4 goalie who is properly positioned you would have much less of the net open when he is in the butterfly.

It's pretty obvious if you've watched the game. A guy like a Fred Brathwaite let's in a lot of top shelf screened goals whereas guys like Turek/Luongo/Kolzig/etc tend to stop more of those because they cover more of the net. It's a concept I would think most kids would intuitively understand.

But if a goalie is short you obviously shoot high. And when hes tall you shoot lower. I see how it can be different to cover the net. But thats not hieght, thats also how broad your shoulders are. You can have a lot of body mass and take up a lot of the net but not be tall.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
SmokeyClause said:
:shakehead

I didn't say he was not on the list because no one knew who he has. What I said was that I think his numbers weren't rationalized with his injury (like Michalek's and Grigorenko's) because no one knew about the injury and it's severity. There was one post on the main board about Shish's injury (that I recall) and very little talk about it outside of the Nashville board. The Michalek and Grigorenko injuries are much more mainstream and rightly so given the circumstances. Some people saw their numbers and subsequent lack of production and used the injury as an excuse. I'm not saying it's wrong; I'm just saying it didn't happen in Shishkanov's place. I'm not sure Shish should even be on the list. I was merely defending my stance that Shish's being left off could be attributed to him playing injured. If he puts up 70+ points in his rookie AHL season at the age of 20, I think he might be on that list. Just my opinion.

I think it's more of a case of the two guys you mentioned being much more highly regarded than Shishkanov prior to being injured, and so injuries arn't enough to toss the off the list. Whereas Shish would be a 3-50 guy normally and so a lengthly injury is the sort of thing that would put him into the 50-75ish range.
 

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
You know what? So what Lundqvist is left off, a lot of other good prospects from other teams have been left off. Good prospects WE perceive as good. It is all a relative term.

I think Foy, Stoner, and Harding are awesome prospects. But no one gives a rip about them (except maybe Stoner)...

You get really good players in your system but you can see that in other players around the league in their system. What matters is how they differientiate from these other players.
 

Slats432

Registered User
Jun 2, 2002
14,757
2,778
hockeypedia.com
HOCKEY_GURU said:
well I watched him many times last year....and his defence was more than adequate, he weighs 190+ pounds... for his height u can imagine his built, apperantly hes also the strongest man on the oilers..he can benchpress more than anyone on the oilers team (according to oilers staff/coaches), as for his Ofence he was at about 40 point pace..and i thought he coulda got so many more had the bounces gone his way. (hitting posts...great set ups missed etc)...so I think he could have a better points per game..so is 50 points that inconceivable? i dont think so... i can see a Rafalski type player here.. but again thats IMHO, keep in mind chelios was about 180 lbs... some players can play bigger than mere stature...like i said before ..id rather have such players on my team than someone that has a 50% chance of being a bust ... but again thats my opnion ;)
Bergeron is a guy that I watched a lot. Although he came on down the stretch, the first part of his year wasn't very good causing his demotion. He is small, inconsistent in his own zone, but offensively good. That begs being one dimensional. As Mark Stuart's biggest deficiency being lack of probably got him left off the list, same with Bergeron.
 

SmokeyClause

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
9,999
0
Miami, FL
Visit site
Epsilon said:
I think it's more of a case of the two guys you mentioned being much more highly regarded than Shishkanov prior to being injured, and so injuries arn't enough to toss the off the list. Whereas Shish would be a 3-50 guy normally and so a lengthly injury is the sort of thing that would put him into the 50-75ish range.

It could very well be the case. In any event, in my opinion, neither Grigs nor Shish should be in the top 50 (right now) though Shish is making a nice case so far this year. I think Michalek is too high, but not by about 5 slots of so.
 

HOCKEY_GURU

Registered User
Jun 27, 2002
661
0
Visit site
I mean... there's even one post here that listed some 30 guys that should have made it. I wonder if everyone realizes its a list of top 50, and just 50.[/QUOTE]

I think youre refering to my post lol, if so i did state some other playrs that can be Considered...and later on said of course this would be a top 75 list if all made it....ie was basically giving some suggestions on top names that didnt make it...and if another commitee made a list belive me some of these names would make it.. for instance why would you not take kaigorodov at this stage over Grigorenko? oh yeah this years stats not used well i like to use all stats if it helps make better judgment , and beyond the kronwalls and lundquists theres many names that can be debated to be here..after all this forum is for debates... so hopefully no one sees it as a knock against HF... so if someone things a smid or a ward..or pock or svatos should be on the list..i like hearing it..i learn a lot from this..i just like arguments to be intelligent, constructive..fair ..and in good spirit (unlike a lot of the battering that often occurs)... thats the beuty of when HF's top 50 comes out..creates good debates :yo:
 

Slats432

Registered User
Jun 2, 2002
14,757
2,778
hockeypedia.com
SmokeyClause said:
It could very well be the case. In any event, in my opinion, neither Grigs nor Shish should be in the top 50 (right now) though Shish is making a nice case so far this year. I think Michalek is too high, but not by about 5 slots of so.
We can all agree on one thing...if the start that Grigorenko had was taken into account he probably wouldn't make the list. I saw the reports from Russia that he wasn't very good, his stats weren't good, but the list was made not using the beginning of this year's hockey as influence. If it was, guys like Kaigorodov, Lundqvist...may have had a better shot at it. Slow starts like Vanek, Montoya (although he has picked it up recently) might have had them drop.

Most people here have been unable to separate the two.
 

HOCKEY_GURU

Registered User
Jun 27, 2002
661
0
Visit site
George Bachul said:
Bergeron is a guy that I watched a lot. Although he came on down the stretch, the first part of his year wasn't very good causing his demotion. He is small, inconsistent in his own zone, but offensively good. That begs being one dimensional. As Mark Stuart's biggest deficiency being lack of probably got him left off the list, same with Bergeron.

If thats how you see it fair enough ..I can accept that, i look at deficiencies as can they be corrected, after his demotion it seemed like he did... often top notch prospects are given a luxury of making mistakes in order to learn.. so why not him too?..its the upside I look for :)
 

Slats432

Registered User
Jun 2, 2002
14,757
2,778
hockeypedia.com
HOCKEY_GURU said:
If thats how you see it fair enough ..I can accept that, i look at deficiencies as can they be corrected, after his demotion it seemed like he did... often top notch prospects are given a luxury of making mistakes in order to learn.. so why not him too?..its the upside I look for :)
There is other comparative things that have to happen too. People on the committee have to judge players based on where they are in time. Trevor Daley who is a very similar player to Bergeron and a better overall skater in my opinion is three years younger than Bergeron and in my opinion will project to be a better player at 24 than Bergeron is right now. He is not on the list. Age is also a factor because you have to take the difference into account when making the projection.

Same with the much maligned 25 year old Peter Sejna. I would say that at the age of 24 that Christopher Higgins will be a solid NHLer. Peter Sejna was not. Tough to compare, but that is how it has to be done.
 

HOCKEY_GURU

Registered User
Jun 27, 2002
661
0
Visit site
George Bachul said:
There is other comparative things that have to happen too. People on the committee have to judge players based on where they are in time. Trevor Daley who is a very similar player to Bergeron and a better overall skater in my opinion is three years younger than Bergeron and in my opinion will project to be a better player at 24 than Bergeron is right now. He is not on the list. Age is also a factor because you have to take the difference into account when making the projection.

Same with the much maligned 25 year old Peter Sejna. I would say that at the age of 24 that Christopher Higgins will be a solid NHLer. Peter Sejna was not. Tough to compare, but that is how it has to be done.

Yes I agree age is a factor and should be factored in, but if theres defencemen out there that can come in the league at 25 and have great career and are sure bets...would / should they not make the top 50 lists? for instance if one had a crystal ball and looked into Rafalskis future when he was 25... where would he have made HF's top 50 list? i would rather take him than gamble on a Higgins for instance... and same can be said for zidlicky... i listened to mnay knowledgeable posters here about zidlicky....and drafted him (to my delight)...and if i was a betting man (and I am :D ) i would draft lundquist... over say a niitimaki... no offence to HF... but after a while you get a good feel for whats good info and whats not on these boards....and i do get a loot of good info from HF, i just dont accept everyhting they say for gospel.
 

Flames Draft Watcher

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,793
0
Calgary
Visit site
NYRangers said:
But if a goalie is short you obviously shoot high. And when hes tall you shoot lower. I see how it can be different to cover the net. But thats not hieght, thats also how broad your shoulders are. You can have a lot of body mass and take up a lot of the net but not be tall.

I don't see why you would shoot low on a tall goalie these days at the NHL level. You might shoot low on a stand up style goalie but most tall goalies coming into the league play the butterfly and are very strong at blocking anything near the bottom of the net.

How broad your shoulders are does not typically come into play with the pads the way they are these days. Do you know how skinny Thibeault and Giguere actually are vs how much of the net they end up taking up in their equipment?

Why don't you give in and acknowledge the obvious. Shorter goalies take up less of the net. It's a simple concept.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
SmokeyClause said:
'

You think you are having fun now, give it time and someone's going to post a list of 50+ players that should have been included but weren't.
Maybe they should call it:

"Hockey's Future Top 50 i Prospects"

so you can say the ommitted ones are imaginary!

Bwahahaha... oh god, I'm such a nerd.

So, should I be waiting around for somebody's Top 84 prospect list?
 

SmokeyClause

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
9,999
0
Miami, FL
Visit site
Splatman Phanutier said:
Maybe they should call it:

"Hockey's Future Top 50 i Prospects"

so you can say the ommitted ones are imaginary!

Bwahahaha... oh god, I'm such a nerd.

So, should I be waiting around for somebody's Top 84 prospect list?

I laughed, so I guess that makes me a nerd too :dunce:
 

Bacchus

Registered User
Nov 11, 2002
2,444
0
Dickes B
Visit site
I still don't get this "Lundqvist plays SEL, NA is different" argument. Using this logic: Why is Ovechkin on this list? Never played in NA. Why is this goalie called Marek Schwarz on this list? Every player not playing in NA shlould be cut off then. :dunno:
 

V for Voodoo

Registered User
Nov 7, 2002
5,005
0
Boom Shaka-Laka.
Visit site
Franz said:
I still don't get this "Lundqvist plays SEL, NA is different" argument. Using this logic: Why is Ovechkin on this list? Never played in NA. Why is this goalie called Marek Schwarz on this list? Every player not playing in NA shlould be cut off then. :dunno:
Marek Schwarz is not playing in Asia.
I know it's easy to get that one mixed up, but Vancouver is indeed in North America.
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
SmokeyClause said:
Why is Horton not priveledged along the lines of Staal or Chistov? That's the crux of my argument. What is the big difference between them? Does the 65 figure really adequately represent a cutoff?

Well, there's not much difference. That's usually the problem with all hard numbers, even on much more important issues like becoming a legal adult. I don't like this cutoff date particularly either, to tell you the truth. But it's a quick and dirty system.

One way to fix this might be to drop players from prospect status if they don't play enough games due to injuries but you open up a can of worms because at one point, you risk encountering prospects where it isn't clear whether they would have stayed with the team or not without the injury. And it adds more work.

So I guess we're back to a fixed cutoff date. Now, you have to look at a number that is satisfying. Nobody is going to agree on the hard number. Would 11 games be it? That would filter prospects who get the 10 game tryout (without the contract kicking in) but never had a chance to stay up. Or we could go the other way and say a full NHL season of 82 games? Less? More?

I don't know, but whatever number you choose, there will always be a guy who *barely* played too much or too little and it will always make no sense. Just like it makes no sense that you can't drink alcohol one day and the next you can get ****faced for your 18th (or 21st) birthday.

I agree with you that the system is flawed but I don't think you can really fix it to make total sense in all situations. Or rather you could with a page of rules and guidelines that overcomplicate the process.

SmokeyClause said:
Oh and while you are at it, tell me why the Stanley Cup is more important than being ranked #1 in HF organizational rankings? I'm just dying to know.

Because of the champagne and the ring, of course ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->