Discussion in 'NHL Draft - Prospects' started by Hunter Gathers, Sep 11, 2005.
...but how in God's name is he a 7.5B???
your avatar is....strange...
Frazee will succeed Brodeur in NJ. In like... five years. Or six.
that avatar kicks ***...Lundqvist painted gold after winning the SEL championship, that's awesome
And now Ryan Stoa is an 8B.
Are these editors on crack?
How in the hell is Stoa a guaranteed (almost) second liner?
More like 8C.
Look. I love Frazee and I've watched him play a lot. That rating is way too high for him right now. And that's comming from someone who loves the kid and wants him to play in the NHL. No way is he as good as Corey Schnieder.
Blame the Swedes.
Yeah, Kopitar is an 8C even.
If they used +'s and -'s, I'd rate Stoa a 8C- or a 7.5C.
The kid has so many question marks about his work ethic it's not even funny.
Other than that, the Avs' writer did a decent job. Just seems like some of the new draftees are ridiculously overrated.
Parise an 8A! Phaneuf a 9A! the worst he can be is a Stevens/Lidstrom?
The grades are inherently flawed from the outset.
The A-F addition must have seemed like a good idea at the time, because all they do is muddy the waters. Based on the the description of the criteria, I'd say that anything like 10A, 10B or 9A are not achievable. I just cannot fathom a 18-21 year old being 'all but guaranteed' to be of the same level as Mario Lemieux, Dominik Hasek or Joe Sakic.
But in all honesty, I don't see why grades are even necessary. What purpose do they serve?
Yea, Schnieder looked so good vs Belerus and University of North Dakota in his two biggest games of the year. Atleast Frazee won his biggest game of the year at the under 18. I am not supporting the ratings because I think most of them are out of whack just Schnieder over Frazee at the moment when neither is proven at all.
Because HF staff graded prospects differently. Kevin Wey for the Sharks gave prospects a "most likely" potential to reach, meaning that projects didn't get fair rankings while the Washington Capital's writer gave a maximum potential ranking for his players, making it look as if almost every prospect would make the NHL.
Still, I agree that it is still a bit murky. What if a forward is a a "7A" but has shown a few flashes of brilliance that hint at a higher ceiling. Since it is unlikely the prospect will make that ceiling, the writer might rate the prospect 8D, meaning the prospect has a very slim chance of becoming a first line player. But according to HF rankings, the D means that the prospect would have a bottom ceiling of AHL player, even though what the writer really wanted to say was that the player was a sure-fire second liner with a very small chance at being a first liner. Ideally, rankings would be something like (worst case-bestcasegrade) but I guess that is too complicated.
Wow, because U18s and WJCs/College games are so comparable.
Schnieder is a better goalie as of today than Frazee is. Sorry.
Yes, Frazee is also a year younger then Schnieder, broke all USA under 18 goaltender records (which are played verses college teams). I am not saying Frazee is better now but next year when the NCAA playoffs come around we will see who is more important to his team. Also since both will be on the USA WJC team (IMO) we will also see who ends up playing the best. Interesting comparison though.
yea well i also loooove how hensick is a 7.0D when the thing clearly states he has it all besides a phyiscal package... IMHO that was a poor decision, the kid is easily a C maybe even a B, anyone whos seen him on a basis would say hes a B-C... a D is a shot to the ***
And in both of your examples, the defense in front of him totally broke down-as in non-existant! I don't care what kind of goalie you are Roy, Broduer etc if your teams defense loses all of it's battles in the defensive zone, the goalie is going to let those shots in.
BTW, I notice that you didn't mention his stellar performance in the Hockey East tournament. You know the one where Brian Boyle won tourney MVP, but it probably would have gone to Schneider if he had played all of the games?
I don't disagree with you necessarily, but Hensicks size and unwillingness to play in traffic make him a riskier pick to even make it to the NHL than some others. If it were based on pure talent alone....
The question still stands. What purpose do gradings serve?
IMO, prospects should just be given an analysis and writeup. I just don't see the point of giving out arbitrary numbers.
It gives a perceived depth of each position for the benefit of those who can't follow every prospect of every team. After all, just reading some summaries of prospects can get tedious/boring, plus some prospects have certain assets... but there's no way to compare them to prospects of similar assets.
When the defense breaks down the goaltender should be able to a least keep the team n the game....he didn't do that at all.
Aren't you the guy who thinks Rask is the best goalie to come out of the last draft? Yet he was brutal at the World Juniors against Sweden, and when his team's defence wasn't great against Canada he did absolutely nothing to give his team a chance. He did enter the game when it was already lopsided - but he showed how much more lopsided it would have been if he'd started. He played his way onto the bench for good.
Forgive me if you aren't the guy who always praises Rask, but if you are - why a double standard for Devil prospects?
I think Rask's raw potential was by far the best in the draft....he had poor tourneys but with that sort of goaltender success won't come for a long time. They need to develop.
Lundqvist is also a 7.5B
We're not just talking on collapse. We're talking the whole time he was on the ice.
Separate names with a comma.