Hockey's Future Top 50 Prospects Fall 2005: Best of the Rest
- Thread starter Holly Gunning
- Start date
- Status
Holly Gunning said:
Where is Drew Stafford on that list? I don't think he's a top 50 overall...but he's at least a top 50 foward.
A few players I would have had in the top 50: G Josh Harding (a former WHL MVP who shined in the AHL this year, I'd list him ahead of Montoya); Ds Denis Grebeshov, Carlo Colaiacovo, Ladislav Smid, Steve Eminger and Mark Stuart (especially Stuart and Smid, I'd take them over Babchuk and Belle, even though I think very highly of Shawn Belle); and F Jiri Hudler (when he finally realizes what it takes to be an NHL forward, he's going to be dynamite.
One thing I did notice is the lack of 2005 draftees. Part of that could be attributed to the recently-adopted eligibility requirements, and the number of 2002 and 2003 players still on the list, but I think the 2005 draft was quite strong, and there should be more players from that draft in the top 50.
Still, a great list. This is what I look forward to each year more than anything else. (Especially as someone who has done an independent top 50 every year since 1996). Also good to see them list some of the players not included, and where they ranked. (I believe this is the first time for that).
One thing I did notice is the lack of 2005 draftees. Part of that could be attributed to the recently-adopted eligibility requirements, and the number of 2002 and 2003 players still on the list, but I think the 2005 draft was quite strong, and there should be more players from that draft in the top 50.
Still, a great list. This is what I look forward to each year more than anything else. (Especially as someone who has done an independent top 50 every year since 1996). Also good to see them list some of the players not included, and where they ranked. (I believe this is the first time for that).
abracanada
Registered User
- Aug 29, 2004
- 5,574
- 0
Entrancemperium
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2005
- 736
- 158
Is it me or is Daley and Belle overrated?
Whitney, Grebeshkov, Colaiacovo, Smid, Gleason, and Stuart should all be ahead of Belle in my opinion.
hockeyfan125
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2004
- 20,017
- 0
Totally agree. He has great potential as a powerfoward, but flys under the radar because he plays in the NCAA instead of the CHL.MrMastodonFarm said:
hockeyfan125
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2004
- 20,017
- 0
I would take Gleason and Stuart so easily over both of them..as well as a few others. But to each his own, I guess.19bruins19 said:
WADEugottaBELAKthat
Nikishin turning heads.
Hobey Baker
Registered User
Not me. He's going to be a great player. Same with fellow BCHL alum Travis Zajac.MrMastodonFarm said:
AlienWorkShop
No, Ben! No!
- Oct 30, 2004
- 3,461
- 350
HF puts Skille at 40th best forward prospect and Bolland isn't in the tp 45 forwards?
Are you guys nuts?
And obviously,you guys must thinks the Hawks goofed badly ---Kopitar is 26th best forward prospect and Skille "only" 40th ranked forward? That's a 14 player differential ...
Maybe it only appears that way--perhaps you should have given a "score" number and lots would be bunched between 20-45 in the forwards and ver very close...
Your ranking might be decieving if not outright deficient.
Are you guys nuts?
And obviously,you guys must thinks the Hawks goofed badly ---Kopitar is 26th best forward prospect and Skille "only" 40th ranked forward? That's a 14 player differential ...
Maybe it only appears that way--perhaps you should have given a "score" number and lots would be bunched between 20-45 in the forwards and ver very close...
Your ranking might be decieving if not outright deficient.
I realize that upside was the main criteria used for determining the top 50 rankings (aside from the recent 2005 draft class) but this was taken much too far to the extreme. Give me the choice between Kostsitsyn, Schremp, Stewart, and Belle (numbers 20, 29, 34, and 50) or Brown, Richards, Olesz, and Stuart (numbers 22, 30, 44, and nr), and I'll take the latter group 100 times out of 100. How Ryan Kesler, a top 30 prospect IMO, doesn't even make the top 45 forward prospects is beyond me. If given the choice between Kesler and Kings prospect Lauri Tukonen (number 33 on the list), I'd take Kesler without hesitation. They both have similar upsides (elite second liners) but Kesler is much further developed. Just MO and thanks again for all of the effort and work put into the list.
Last edited:
I don't think Belle is over-rated, per say. Again, I'd take Smid, Stuart and Grebeshkov over him. But Belle was fantastic at the WJC, should have been a tourney all-star, IMO. He's a brilliant skater, likely one of the fastest in the game already. His decision-making process has been questioned in the past, and for good reason, but that wasn't a problem at the WJC.
If he can consistently make the right plays, I think the kid has top pairing defenceman written all over him.
Babchuk, IMO, is the one who's way over-rated. I think he'll be a nice, No. 3 defenceman, but I don't think he's a top-pairing guy. Certainly he shouldn't be on the list ahead of guys I mentioned above. (Or four or five other defencemen - Eminger, Colaiacovo, Erhoff, etc.) He did not play well in the AHL when he could have made real gains with a good season. (Contrast that with guys like Kronwall and Hamhuis). I love Babchuk's size and shot, but I don't think the overall package is there for a top-pairing defenceman.
If he can consistently make the right plays, I think the kid has top pairing defenceman written all over him.
Babchuk, IMO, is the one who's way over-rated. I think he'll be a nice, No. 3 defenceman, but I don't think he's a top-pairing guy. Certainly he shouldn't be on the list ahead of guys I mentioned above. (Or four or five other defencemen - Eminger, Colaiacovo, Erhoff, etc.) He did not play well in the AHL when he could have made real gains with a good season. (Contrast that with guys like Kronwall and Hamhuis). I love Babchuk's size and shot, but I don't think the overall package is there for a top-pairing defenceman.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
AJ Thelen, Mike Egener, Matt Carle, and Boris Valabik over Marc Staal? That's laughable at best.
That's actually pretty bad, if you ask me. Staal is definately better than said players and I'm not even a huge Staal fan (read my posts in the NYR forum).
That's actually pretty bad, if you ask me. Staal is definately better than said players and I'm not even a huge Staal fan (read my posts in the NYR forum).
Entrancemperium
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2005
- 736
- 158
hockeyfan125
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2004
- 20,017
- 0
Yea its suprising, but not a huge deal. We know they deserve to be there, so thats good enough I suppose.Zack Attack said:
(Kesler anyways).
19bruins19 said:
Good point man. Having seen Daley play for the Hamilton Bulldogs for about 10 to 12 regular season games in 2004-05 and as a fan that follows closely the team's activities, I would say that Trevor is definetely not the league's #16 prospect on defence, far from that. Yes, he's really an awesome skater... can't take that away from him. However, I don't think he has a good understanding of the game. He is a one-dimensional player who often has brain cramps when trying to get the puck out of his zone. Also, he may be good at controlling the puck and getting it from end to end, but on the other hand, he's an average passer at best.
As for Belle, I won't comment, but I agree that Grebeshkov, Colaiacovo and perhaps to a lesser extent Whitney are better prospects than him.
The list overall is pretty good, although it includes quite a few contradictions. It was said that the list is compiled according to potential and the likelihood of reaching that potential. The fact that Fleury is 7th (a big surprise for me considering everything that happened after he was drafted) is explained by the notion that he has tons of potential, and that gives him that 7th spot, but if potential is taken into account more than the likelihood of reaching it (Fleury is showing to be a boom or bust prospect, at least IMO), then why isn't Kopitar the highest ranked player among the recent draft crop? It is widely agreen on that he has the most potential behind SC in this draft, and the only knack on him is his birth place (which I find unfair) and some skating issues, and yet Brule, Ryan, Johnson and Pouliot are rated ahead of him. Sure Fleury might be a top notch keeper one day, but recent play should somewhat be taken into consideration. From what I see, the players listed weren't looked at with the same grading criteria, with Fleury being a top 10 based on potential, and yet some players with a ceiling of a second line player (Tukonen, Stewart) were ranked ahead of first line potential players (Ryan, Kopitar). On a side note, Montoya should not be in the top 50, and Harding is a notch above Emery and maybe Schwarz, although again that is potential vs. likeliness of reaching it.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
I went back to look at the defensive list and I will say right now that it is one of the worst things that I have ever seen on this site, if not the worst. Did the writers even bother to think about this ranking or was it just something thrown together in 5 minutes?
freakazoid said:
If Kopitar really is a better prospect than Brule, Ryan, Johnson, Pouliot and Price, then why did he get picked only at #11? You better not come up with the Slovenia excuse, because that's BS... many teams, including Anaheim and Montreal, have a "draft the BPA" philosophy. They considered Ryan and Price respectively as the BPA - the player with the highest potential and the most likely to bring a solid contribution in the NHL, and it seems like that player wasn't Kopitar. So don't ask yourself why he's behind the three you mentionned (and to a lesser extent, Carey Price).
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
I definately don't think that Kopitar has more potential than Johnson and a lot of people don't agree. So why would you think it's so widely agreed upon?
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
UFC 301 - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Paul Craig vs Caio BorralhoWagers: 2Staked: $29,273.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-