What got the Avs off your ****list?David A. Rainer said:Amen brother! That's why we purposesly oppressBlues,Wild,Tampa, NCAA prospects around here. Oops! Did I just say that?
What got the Avs off your ****list?David A. Rainer said:Amen brother! That's why we purposesly oppressBlues,Wild,Tampa, NCAA prospects around here. Oops! Did I just say that?
HabOil said:Possible other players in top 25:
Jack Skille
Travis Zajac
Just a guess, but I expect Zajac to be there.
Irish Blues said:P.S. - Jeff Tambellini absolutely should have been in the top-50. I've seen the kid play three times, he's got NHL-caliber tools and I'd take him over Brad Boyes every day of the week and never think twice.
Hasbro said:What got the Avs off your ****list?
David A. Rainer said:Because we're purposefully suppressing the fact that we are oppressing Avs prospects.
Mess said:Can I ask how many people were involved in the list selection and order process ??
David A. Rainer said:7 writers on the committee from different areas of coverage, in-put provided by the entire staff of HF writers.
HabOil said:Possible other players in top 25:
Jack Skille
Travis Zajac
Just a guess, but I expect Zajac to be there.
ceber said:Has anyone kept track of the lists through the years? I think that would be interesting. Keep an eye on prospects who turn into NHLers and those who don't. Then you could actually see if there is a class of prospect who is routinely over- or under- rated (a specific team, league, whatever). You could also get a rough idea of how good the list is as a whole. If it's not evaluated down the line is it anything more than just a list of hype?
1. Boyes is 23, Tambellini is 21.reidy said:So does Boyes, and he's already doing it in the NHL.
Tell me, why single out Boyes? He certainly isn't the most conspicuous choice for forwards on that list...
4th in rookie scoring behind Ovy, Sid and Svatos, 46th in rookie ice-time.
It was stated above the Boyes ice time is 46th among rookies and is fourth among points. Is 14:33 alot of ice time? That is third line minutes!Irish Blues said:1. Boyes is 23, Tambellini is 21.
2. Boyes finally made it to the NHL with his 3rd team and after 2 full AHL seasons. (Yes, I'm throwing out 2004-05 giving the benefit of the doubt that Boyes would have been in the NHL had there not been a lockout.) Tambellini will likely make the NHL next season after 1 AHL season.
3. Stats: Tambellini will likely put up better numbers in his 1st season in the AHL than Boyes did in his 1st season in the AHL.
4. Boyes is getting so much ice time (and thus the chance to score so many points) because ... let's face it, Boston isn't exactly overflowing with depth at forward. Los Angeles has the depth at the big club to not need Tambellini to log top-6 minutes.
5. I've seen both guys play and it's the most solid comparison I have to make.
If you want to take it personally, then take it personally. I'm just saying that Tambellini should have been in the top-50, and I'd have put him over Boyes.
hawksfan50 said:How the hell can Skille be in the top 25?--he's been a big disapointment to me as a freshman at Wisconsin--I expected and should expect way betterPPG from him if he were even a 25-50 guy..so far,he doesn't merit it..rather how about Nathan Davis a soph at Miami of Ohio and having a very good year as their 1st line centre and leading scorer?...he deserves to be ranked ahead of Skille (albeit 1 year separating their classes). Is this rating based on hf staff's view of "potential",level reached,or what a guy actually is accomplishing NOW? Obviously the whole thing is subjective--but unless you state exactly why and how you derive a ranking for each prospect
based on THE SAME CRITERIA for each --I do not know how anyone can take this ranking seriously...Obviously,some HF staffers are weighing potential (as they perceive it) higher than actual accomplishment with some prospects,while weighing accomplishment and or level reached as higher determinants of rank for some other prospects..the result is a mish-mash that really tells us not very much...
Instead --a better rating would be accomplished by separaate lists:
We are comparing "prospects" already drafted by an NHL team...
There should be 3 categories:
1.Top 25 "Prospects" who have reached the NHL level --this should be limited to those with less than 82 GP in the NHL--after that they should be "graduated" off the list...
2. Top 25 "Prospects" playing in the AHL or euro pro leagues...
3. Top 25 "Prospects" playing in Jr. or University hockey...
This should take some of the level reached weighting biases out of the ranking.
There then should be 2 seaparate set of scores for each "prospect" counting 50% each:
--one set for what a player has accomplished so far in relation to other prospects in the same group or sub-group (ie. for Jrs. and University drafted players--use the stats or other criteria to evaluate in comparison to other players in their Jr. or University sub-groupings;same for sub-grouping AHl'ers and euro pro Prospects; or in comparison to other NHL rookies for that grouping).
---the 2nd set of evaluation marks for "potential" (admittedly this is where some greater biases can leak in)..
Otherwise--it like comparing apples and oranges given all the different levels the Prospects are at...
Boyes' stats in 2005-06....Newfie Bruin said:It was stated above the Boyes ice time is 46th among rookies and is fourth among points. Is 14:33 alot of ice time? That is third line minutes!
He is in the NHL and is a total beast on the puck he looks like a true power forward too me, he was a late bloomer simple as that. Not enough people have seen him play this year. how many guys 6'4 240 also have a 100 mph slap shot?David A. Rainer said:I'm sorry, I did not see the question. Lost amongst all the outrage over [favorite prospect] not getting any respect rants.
Well, I could tell you that he was in the 65-100 group and slightly appease all the Ducks fans. But then I would be lying to you. Penner was included in the over 160 prospects we looked at when compiling the list. But in the end, he did not garner enough attention to make it past the cut of 75. He's having a great year, no doubt about it, and it looks like the Ducks might have a good prospect on their hands. If he continues his level of play, he'll be in the NHL soon. But there are some reservations and he is up there in age. Top-end ceiling was likely a large factor.
Anything else, Bruins fans? I am never going to question you .Irish Blues said:Boyes' stats in 2005-06....
Before Thornton was traded
26 games, 5-9-14, average 11:09 of ice time (high of 15:38).
Average shifts per game: 15.92 (high of 22, low of 7; 20+ shifts 6 times)
# of games over 13 minutes: 10.
# of games over 15 minutes: 2.
After Thornton was traded
32 games, 11-19-30, average 17:18 of ice time (high of 23:11).
Average shifts per game: 22.875 (high of 33, low of 13; less than 20 shifts 5 times)
# of games under 13 minutes: 2.
# of games under 15 minutes: 6.
In the last 13 games, Boyes is 6-13-19 while averaging 19:09 of ice time, playing more than 20 minutes 5 times and less than 15 minutes just twice. He's averaging 25.69 shifts per game in this stretch.
I hardly consider the ice time he's been seeing since Thornton was dealt (and certainly the ice time he's had in the last 13 games) "third line minutes!"
P.S. - he may be 46th in ice time among rookies; he's 13th among forwards. If you throw out the guys who've played fewer than 10 games this season (a pretty solid assumption we can make for the sake of making an accurate comparison), he jumps to 39th overall and if you take his 17:18 ice time in the post-Thornton era, he'd be 5th behind Ovechkin, Crosby, Alexander Steen and Colby Armstrong (17:24 average in 24 games) among forwards.
he's being silly because he knows we're fans of the sillynessRussian_fanatic said:Luc Bourdon>marc Staal
Russian_fanatic said:Luc Bourdon>marc Staal