Hockey's Future Top 50 Prospects Fall 2005: 11-25

[Slats432]

Hey if you want to 'publish' an online magazine, be prepared for criticism just like any other normal writer.

Hey, if you want to complain about a body of work, forget where your hometown is and the critique would be reasonable and fair.

My comments about Perry being too low and not a fan of Pouliot have no bearing that I cheer for Edmonton and Montreal. It is easier to refrain from being a homer if you leave your bias at the door.

 

[JayRice66]

So you expect them to put Price ahead of all of those prospects on potential. They are rated higher because they are playing well where there at. All of them have proven themselves in the minors. I'm not bashing Price. But expecting him to be rated high with all of the great goaltenders that already populated the list is insane.

 

[JayRice66]

Hey, if you want to complain about a body of work, forget where your hometown is and the critique would be reasonable and fair.

My comments about Perry being too low and not a fan of Pouliot have no bearing that I cheer for Edmonton and Montreal. It is easier to refrain from being a homer if you leave your bias at the door.

I couldn't agree more. People need to keep a open mind when talking about this list.

 

[Vinland]

more uspide maybe, but proven skill, i don't think so

By that thought process Every high scoring AHLer should top the list. The have scored at a higher level.

 

[WADEugottaBELAKthat]

I'm no Corey Perry fan per se; but aren't his numbers just too disgusting to justify omitting him from the top 20?

 

[HFNHL Canadiens]

By that thought process Every high scoring AHLer should top the list. The have scored at a higher level.

How does proven skill mean statitsics

 

[Randall Graves*]

Hey, if you want to complain about a body of work, forget where your hometown is and the critique would be reasonable and fair.

My comments about Perry being too low and not a fan of Pouliot have no bearing that I cheer for Edmonton and Montreal. It is easier to refrain from being a homer if you leave your bias at the door.

I'm not being a homer, I personally think Perry should be lower and if you guys want to pass yourselves as legitimate you should also be willing to take criticism. Defend your positions, but don't whine when people question lists.

I have no bias here.

 

[Sam]

There's a post over on the Kings forum that explained the process and what criteria the writers were looking for in the top 50 list.

It is actually a process over about 2 months. It begins with a committee of 7 writers, all from different back-grounds, different areas of NA and covering different prospects (so that one area isn't more represented than others). Each submits a preliminary list of 100 prospects to be considered. If you don't make any of the preliminary lists of 100, there is no way in hell you would ever make any Top 50 list so it is rather useless to cry over who was or wasn't included from the very beginning. Once the lists are combined, it will yield about 140-160 prospects. One by one, over the span of a couple of days on instant messaging, we pile over all 160 (well, actually, the top 40 from the combined lists make it past the first round by default so we don't bother talking about them). At that point, we narrow down the 160 prospects to about 75. From those 75, we each submit a final list of our Top 50. When combining the lists, the highest vote and lowest vote for each prospect is thrown out to ensure that someone who might champion or unfairly punish a particular prospect for personal reasons does not infect the list. The list is then submitted to the rest of the staff for review. This allows specific area writers like Johan or Pekka to provide their input. Everyone provides their feedback and we take their arguments under consideration. Some tinkering is done based upon the considerations. After that, the final product is completed. In fact, the 2005 draftees were added to the list before they were even drafted so no one knew the Kings would end up with 4 on the list (it just happened that way when Kopitar landed in their laps).



Not in the least. Although the Kings Top 20 prospects still needs to be re-ranked. There are two different sets of criteria going on. The Top 50 list is based almost purely on potential (thus Schremp being high to others dismay) first then looking at likelihood of reaching their potential. The Kings Top 20 is a mixture of potential, likelihood of reaching potential, and a smidgeon of nearness to the NHL. As a result, Gleason would be higher on the Kings Top 20 rankings even though I left him off completely from my Top 50 list.

 

[Aaron Vickers]

So where the hell's Max Gordichuk?

In Vancouver gearing up for the Giants camp??

 

[Doomsday Device]

Price is a mid 1st rounder at best, but the Habs picked him 5th overall. There are plenty of goalies that are better than him and deserve to be on the list more than he does. Leneveau, Leclaire, Ouellet, Harding are all prime examples

Price was considered a consensus top ten pick. Exaggeration doesn't improve your argument.

Regardless of that, I don't see any problem in leaving him off the list as the writers seemed to value the NHL-readiness of the older prospects more.

 

[JayRice66]

So far so good for me when it comes to the list. I like how the top picks in the draft aren't rated extremely high just because they were high picks. I like the list so far. And I think they nailed Pouliot on the head. I think this guy could be a huge player in the NHL.

 

[USC Trojans]

I'm not being a homer, I personally think Perry should be lower and if you guys want to pass yourselves as legitimate you should also be willing to take criticism. Defend your positions, but don't whine when people question lists.

I have no bias here.

Then, would you mind explaining why you think Smid and Perry should be ranked higher? I think if you're critiquing someone's work, its only fair if you at least explain why you'd think differently.

 

[Slats432]

I'm not being a homer, I personally think Perry should be lower and if you guys want to pass yourselves as legitimate you should also be willing to take criticism. Defend your positions, but don't whine when people question lists.

I have no bias here.

Says the Ducks fan when speaking about Smid and Perry. Like I said, if you wanted to talk about how you think that Semin is soft, or that Tyutin is overrated I will listen.(Of course I agree with neither.) But anything you say about Ducks prospects most won't heed because of the tendency to pump one's own prospects. Really it is a phenomenom that is rampant because people tend to view things close to them with rose coloured glasses.

I should know, I do it with my own children every day....they are the best.

 

[hockeyfan125]

Cam Barker would not crack my top 25, but I guess he gets that rating because he was such a high pick. Ryan Kesler would be around #30-40 for me, and Kostitsyn is too high as well. I like the rest of the list mostly besides Olesz and Meszaros being too low as well.

Can't wait for the top 10.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Colaiacovo gets no respect at all.

And who should he be higher on this top 50 list? Hahaha...

 

[Liquidrage*]

Kostitsyn being in this list shows how much people keep dear to where someone was drafted as if what they did between 16-18 and much much more important then what they do between 18-20.

There's about 10 players listed right behind him I'd be willing to be every GM would take ovre him. Kostitsyn like 8 spots ahead of Richards? Yeah ok.

 

[AnThGrt]

Something i found funny Grebeshkov goes from being our #1 prospect to not even on the list? He only was second in pts in the AHL and still has all to potential in the world. Oh well i'm happy i guess we have most prospects on the top 50 interesting to see where we rank team wise

 

[Fighter]

I would argue about Pouliot so high, one good year coming from no where and he's top 25???
Jack Johnson is also way too high: I love him, top 25 material for sure, but 16th is a bit generous for him.
Horton is too low and so is Tyutin.

 

[clefty]

Seems to me like the list has been compiled to try and encompass as many teams as possible.

And it seems odd to me that players like Grebeshkov and Whitney who both scored 40+ points in the AHL (Whitney as a rookie) drop from the list.

I'd like to hear some reasoning from the people who made the list for the oversights of Grebeshkov and Whitney. IMO, they're among the most improved defensemen prospects of the past 12 months.

 

[HFNHL Canadiens]

Kostitsyn being in this list shows how much people keep dear to where someone was drafted as if what they did between 16-18 and much much more important then what they do between 18-20.

There's about 10 players listed right behind him I'd be willing to be every GM would take ovre him. Kostitsyn like 8 spots ahead of Richards? Yeah ok.

Have you seen Kostitsyn play? because if you have then you wouldn't typed what you just typed, He has potential and skill comming out of his ears. Sure his stats aren't impressive but he was a 19 y/o kid that couldn't speak any english and was adapting to the North American style of hockey. He also didn't get much icetime because half of Dallas's AHL affiliate was merged in with Hamilton. Also alot of there players on there team were supposed to be in the NHL, like Ward, Ott, Komisarek and Daley.

 

[Jeffrey]

Kostitsyn being in this list shows how much people keep dear to where someone was drafted as if what they did between 16-18 and much much more important then what they do between 18-20.

There's about 10 players listed right behind him I'd be willing to be every GM would take ovre him. Kostitsyn like 8 spots ahead of Richards? Yeah ok.

I know I wouldn't trade kostitsyn for richards straight up ..

 

[Spooky371*]

WoW Kostitsyn on top 15 ..

 

[orcatown]

Kesler

1. Made the AHL All star team last year

2. Will definitely play for the nucks this year. the guy burke wanted to move down in the draft

3. Score 30 goals playing pro hockey last year. Not Junior or college

4. Matched defensively against every teams top player last year

5. Was the player Burke was willing to take from the Canucks to move to his second over

I don't know - everytime you question HF list you get jumped and usually a threat to get the boot - but I think the case is pretty strong for including Kesler in the top 50 - guess time will tell

 

[Liquidrage*]

I know I wouldn't trade kostitsyn for richards straight up ..

Yeah, because you have some bias obviously.

In the two years since being drafted he's basically done nothing.
He got drafted high in a good draft. That's the best thing he's done in the last 2½ years.

You may think he has some very high ceiling or something. But please, it's just bias and overvaluing where someone was picked in their draft class that has him that high. I severly doubt any GM would take him over Richards.

Yeah, we'll just argue it and it's opinion vs opinion.
But 66 12 11 23 24 look better at Play 4 lotto numbers then his year in the AHL.
Yeah, they mention it in their article here. They talk about him as if he were a 5th Rnd pick, then they shove him at #20. OMG, what great progression, they eventually even gave him some minutes on the PK. How awesome for him!

 

[hockeyfan125]

Yeah, because you have some bias obviously.
!

umm...
yea