ISS Top 10 for March

[monster_bertuzzi]

And how many times have you seen Pouliot?

You didn't answer my question.

Johnson - Never seen em'. Live or on TV.

Pouliot - Russian selects game, top prospects game. Both on TV.

 

[MrMastodonFarm*]

Johnson - Never seen em'. Live or on TV.

So how can you say this with a straight face?
He's got more potential and talent than anyone other than Crosby.
You've never seen Johnson, another top prospect for the 2005 draft, yet Brule definitly has more potential and talent then him?

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

So how can you say this with a straight face?
He's got more potential and talent than anyone other than Crosby.
You've never seen Johnson, another top prospect for the 2005 draft, yet Brule definitly has more potential and talent then him?

I'm basing this on what Redline and prospects magazine has said. Besides - once again, Johnson is a defenceman. Apples and oranges.

 

[MrMastodonFarm*]

I'm basing this on what Redline and prospects magazine has said. Besides - once again, Johnson is a defenceman. Apples and oranges.

Hey, thats all well and good, but you shouldn't be saying something as outlandish as that until you have seen them both play. I think some of us get way to caught up in the armchair scout role and what you said was pretty outlandish.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

The point I'm trying to make, is it's unfair to discredit someone's argument based on how many times they've seen a prospect play, because not even the professional scouts have seen EVERYONE. They have to go by second hand information from people around the world, who, incidentally, haven't seen every prospect play in North America.

Well scouts are typically required to cross over to other regions to get a handle on prospects outside their territory.

And each team has head amateur scouts who should be seeing all the top ranked players available regardless of the region.

At least that's how I understand it.

So your point does have some merit, there's no scout out there who's seen every single player. And yet I'd be surprised if each team didn't have a head scout who had seen all of the top 30-60 players on their list at least once. Somebody has to make the final call, has to meld the lists produced by the different regional scouts.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

The point I'm trying to make, is it's unfair to discredit someone's argument based on how many times they've seen a prospect play, because not even the professional scouts have seen EVERYONE. They have to go by second hand information from people around the world, who, incidentally, haven't seen every prospect play in North America.

I understand what you are saying. The difference is in the networking. The quality of the networking is what makes these kind of claims credible (but unfortunately, not necessarily accurate) or not.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

He's got more potential and talent than anyone other than Crosby.

In light of what you've just admitted, your statement above is one that could not possibly be made with any accuracy.

You'd actually be accurate if you said, "He's the best prospect I've seen this year outside of Crosby but I haven't seen most of the top ranked guys so I really couldn't say where he'll go."

Your tagline of "GB, the clear #2" is equally as outlandish.

I can't believe you make those types of statements.

You didn't respond to my question about whether you feel he's a Heatley/Gaborik/Nash/Marleau/Thornton type of talent. That is the calibre of forward I would be expecting with a top 3 pick. If I'm not getting that type of talent then I'd take a defensemen or a goalie or trade down. IMO Brule just doesn't fit in that group I mentioned. But perhaps it is a weak draft year and the dropoff after Crosby is cololosal.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

In light of what you've just admitted, your statement above is one that could not possibly be made with any accuracy.

You'd actually be accurate if you said, "He's the best prospect I've seen this year outside of Crosby but I haven't seen most of the top ranked guys so I really couldn't say where he'll go."

Your tagline of "GB, the clear #2" is equally as outlandish.

I can't believe you make those types of statements.

The only one I haven't seen is Johnson. To me theres absolutely no chance Pouliot goes before Brule - and the only chance Ryan goes is if a team blindly preferes size. No merrit? Both Redline and prospects magazine say Brule is the 2nd most talented player in the draft.

And let me ask you this: If Calgary had the 2nd pick - who would you want? Be honest.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

You didn't respond to my question about whether you feel he's a Heatley/Gaborik/Nash/Marleau/Thornton type of talent. That is the calibre of forward I would be expecting with a top 3 pick.

He isn't as big as Nash, Thornton, and Heatley. He isn't as smooth a skater as Marleau, and he isn't as flashy as Gaborik. But at age 17 he was better or just as good as all of these guys you mentioned.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

The one I haven't seen is Johnson. To me theres absolutely no chance Pouliot goes before Brule - and the only chance Ryan goes is if a team blindly preferes size. No merrit? Both Redline and prospects magazine say Brule is the 2nd most talented player in the draft.

And let me ask you this: If Calgary had the 2nd pick - who would you want? Be honest.

Probably Johnson (or perhaps even Staal, haven't seen enough of them to say) or one of the goalies. Or I would trade down. Unless there is a franchise forward available, I wouldn't take a forward in the top 3. I may be wrong but in my limited viewing of Brule he didn't look like a franchise forward at all. He'd be a guy I'd love to take a few spots lower but he just doesn't look like a typical top 3 pick to me.

Even if Brule is the most "talented" that still does not mean I take him. Bouchard and Chistov were arguably a couple of the most talented players in their draft years but neither was a worthy top 3 pick. You can't ignore size and the role it plays in today's NHL. Steve Kariya is more talented than a lot of guys in the NHL today, you could argue he's more talented than that big oaf Bertuzzi. Who would you rather have? I take Bertuzzi every day of the week. Size and strength are positive attributes. It's not just about skill. Skill is only one factor in the equation.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

He isn't as big as Nash, Thornton, and Heatley. He isn't as smooth a skater as Marleau, and he isn't as flashy as Gaborik. But at age 17 he was better or just as good as all of these guys you mentioned.

The question is not about who was better at age 17. If it was then scouting would be a heck of a lot easier.

The question is who will be more successful in the NHL in 5-6 years. The players who are best at age 17 don't necessarily become the best NHLers. Some guys peak early and then don't improve. Some guys are late bloomers. Some guys go through growth spurts and then look a little awkward until their coordination catches back up. Some guys won't have their offensive skill translate into NHL production because they are easily neutralized due to a lack of size, speed or strength.

 

[Riggins]

I can't believe you make those types of statements.

How about making statements about Brule after seeing him play two bad games at the end of long roadtrips? On the subject of this "how many times have you seen him play?" trash... how many times have you seen Pouliot play to think he deserves to be above Brule?

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Probably Johnson (or perhaps even Staal, haven't seen enough of them to say) or one of the goalies. Or I would trade down. Unless there is a franchise forward available, I wouldn't take a forward in the top 3. I may be wrong but in my limited viewing of Brule he didn't look like a franchise forward at all. He'd be a guy I'd love to take a few spots lower but he just doesn't look like a typical top 3 pick to me.

Even if Brule is the most "talented" that still does not mean I take him. Bouchard and Chistov were arguably a couple of the most talented players in their draft years but neither was a worthy top 3 pick. You can't ignore size and the role it plays in today's NHL. Steve Kariya is more talented than a lot of guys in the NHL today, you could argue he's more talented than that big oaf Bertuzzi. Who would you rather have? I take Bertuzzi every day of the week. Size and strength are positive attributes. It's not just about skill. Skill is only one factor in the equation.

This must be a real ****y draft class then. Worst of all time.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

How about making statements about Brule after seeing him play two bad games at the end of long roadtrips? On the subject of this "how many times have you seen him play?" trash... how many times have you seen Pouliot play to think he deserves to be above Brule?

I've never seen Pouliot play. Nor have I ever argued he should be ahead of Brule. I've been arguing against this perception that Brule is the clearcut #2. Several scouting services disagree for example. I can't argue that any of the other top 10 guys are ahead of Gilbert because I have not seen them live. However I have seen Gilbert and therefore am qualified to speak about him.

All I've said in that in my two viewings of him he did not look like a top 3 worthy pick. I think that's a fair statement. I've already warned others that my opinion is only based on two games (unlike Monster_Bertuzzi). I don't think I'm claiming anything outlandish. None of the statements I've made are as questionable as claiming that Brule is the most talented and highest potential prospect after Crosby when I haven't seen most of the other highly ranked players in person.

Do you feel I've been unfair?

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

This must be a real ****y draft class then. Worst of all time.

How does that address any of the points I've made? I take it you are giving up on the argument?

 

[Riggins]

Even if Brule is the most "talented" that still does not mean I take him. Bouchard and Chistov were arguably a couple of the most talented players in their draft years but neither was a worthy top 3 pick. You can't ignore size and the role it plays in today's NHL. Steve Kariya is more talented than a lot of guys in the NHL today, you could argue he's more talented than that big oaf Bertuzzi. Who would you rather have? I take Bertuzzi every day of the week. Size and strength are positive attributes. It's not just about skill. Skill is only one factor in the equation.

Come on now, when you talk about the size issue you can't bring up softies like Chistov and Bouchard. Or Steve Kariya. Brule is not the biggest guy no doubt, but he is fiesty and a fierce competitor. Combine that with the skills he has and that separates him from the likes Chistov and Bouchard. Size is still in issue in the NHL, but not as much as so when the player is gritty and determined.

edit: I actually agree with you that Brule is not a clearcut number 2. However I think you are putting far too much stock into those two games you saw. To me Brule is clearly top 3 in this draft after Crosby and either before or after Johnson.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Do you feel I've been unfair?

TBH, I think since Brule resides from Vancouver and plays for a Vancouver based team, you have some sort of grudge against the kid.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

TBH, I think since Brule resides from Vancouver and plays for a Vancouver based team, you have some sort of grudge against the kid.

Well I can't stop you from thinking that. But that thought process certainly did not factor into the equation at all for me. If I thought Brule looked like a franchise forward, I would have said so.

To be honest I think that your belief that I'd be biased against a Vancouver based prospect is preposterous. He has no ties to the Canucks so I really don't see how you are making that kind of connection.

Why would I be biased against somebody from Vancouver? Why would I be biased against a Giant? I can tell you right now that I'm not really a big Hitmen "fan", I go watch WHL games with the specific intent of scouting prospects. I am not biased against any WHL team or any city.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Well I can't stop you from thinking that. But that thought process certainly did not factor into the equation at all for me. If I thought Brule looked like a franchise forward, I would have said so.

To be honest I think that your belief that I'd be biased against a Vancouver based prospect is preposterous. He has no ties to the Canucks so I really don't see how you are making that kind of connection.

Why would I be biased against somebody from Vancouver? Why would I be biased against a Giant? I can tell you right now that I'm not really a big Hitmen "fan", I go watch WHL games with the specific intent of scouting prospects. I am not biased against any WHL team or any city.

Just a notion that I get. I've never seen anyone so angry with a talented bonified top 5 pick before.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Come on now, when you talk about the size issue you can't bring up softies like Chistov and Bouchard. Or Steve Kariya. Brule is not the biggest guy no doubt, but he is fiesty and a fierce competitor. Combine that with the skills he has and that separates him from the likes Chistov and Bouchard. Size is still in issue in the NHL, but not as much as so when the player is gritty and determined.

edit: I actually agree with you that Brule is not a clearcut number 2. However I think you are putting far too much stock into those two games you saw. To me Brule is clearly top 3 in this draft after Crosby and either before or after Johnson.

I brought up guys at the extreme end in order to illustrate my point. And my point was that size does matter. Some people love to believe it doesn't (not saying anyone in this discussion is that disillusioned.)

In Crosby's case I think his strength, skating and out of this world skill level negates any size disadvantage he has. In Brule's case I don't think the size disadvantage is negated to the same extent.

He's certainly grittier than Bouchard or Chistov. But one could argue that both those two are more highly skilled than Gilbert. In the games I saw Brule let off a couple laser shots but didn't display the stickhandling or vision to be considered in the same calibre as some of the guys we are talking about. He looks like a good sniper to me, but an averaged size or undersized one.

All I can do is evaluate a prospect on the games I saw of them. Frankly Brule was pretty much invisible in both games I saw. I expect more from a supposed franchise forward, doesn't matter what excuse you want to offer up. If I had a larger sample size, I would be more confident in my opinion on him. There's certainly a chance I'm wrong on him. Put whatever caveat on my opinion you want to make it palatable. I do find it kind of funny that I'm being persecuted for forming an opinion on watching a guy for two live games when people on this board are constantly offering up opinions on prospects they've NEVER seen live. Monster_Bertuzzi did it in this same thread when he said Brule is more talented and has a higher potential than anybody outside of Crosby.

Is my opinion (questioning whether he's worthy of a top 3 pick) really that outlandish when CSS has him 6th in North America? Obviously they don't see him as a top 3 pick either and they scout for a living.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Just a notion that I get. I've never seen anyone so angry with a talented bonified top 5 pick before.

Angry? Obviously you have trouble interpreting tone over the internet.

But if that's what you have to believe to make you feel better. Obviously you can't take criticism of Brule without writing it off with whatever foggy notion crosses your brain.

Does Brule make CSS "angry"? Do they have a hatred of Vancouver based players? Do they hate Giants players? What's your conspiracy theory for why they have him obviously outside the top 3 at this point in time?

If you said, "frustrated" instead of angry then you might have had a point. It's frustrating trying to argue with someone when they accuse you of bias for no good reason. I think a far more substantial case could be made that you are biased towards Brule being based in Vancouver yourself.

Are you now backing off your statement that he's the clearcut #2? Now you're calling him a bonafide top 5 pick...

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Angry? Obviously you have trouble interpreting tone over the internet.

But if that's what you have to believe to make you feel better. Obviously you can't take criticism of Brule without writing it off for whatever foggy notion crosses your brain.

Does Brule make CSS "angry"? Do they have a hatred of Vancouver based players? Do they hate Giants players? What's your conspiracy theory for why they have him obviously outside the top 3 at this point in time?

Those weren't CSS' final rankings.

You still ignore the fact that both times you have caught Brule live were the tail end of 5 games in 6 nights. How about at his best? Did you watch the prospects game?

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Are you now backing off your statement that he's the clearcut #2? Now you're calling him a bonafide top 5 pick...

I'm a gambling man, and I would bet all my money that he goes top 3. I've said all along I would understand Columbus taking Johnson 2nd...

 

[Old Hickory]

TBH, I think since Brule resides from Vancouver and plays for a Vancouver based team, you have some sort of grudge against the kid.

Conversely, do you think you are biased towards Brule? You admit you haven't even seen Johnson play live or on TV.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Those weren't CSS' final rankings.

You still ignore the fact that both times you have caught Brule live were the tail end of 5 games in 6 nights. How about at his best? Did you watch the prospects game?

No, didn't catch it. If somebody wants to send me the tape, I'd love to watch it. But I certainly read about his performance and it's something I take into consideration when forming my opinion of him. I also take his overall year into consideration and his impressive stats in the WHL this year.

If I was basing my opinion of him solely on those games I saw then he wouldn't even be a top 15 pick. Both McArdle and Setoguchi have shown more in live games I've seen. My opinion of him is based on what I've read and what I've seen. I realize I didn't see him at his best. However you can't write off his poor performances as if they don't mean anything.

And like it or not, the size factor is an issue. I'm not convinced he'll be as successful with his style of game against guys like Regehr, Foote, Ohlund, etc. Speed and skill can offset size differences but Brule certainly didn't wow me with any single facet of his game other than his shot.

Again, just to reiterate, I'm not saying he's garbage, I just question whether he's in the elite tier of this draft.

I guess we'll have to wait and see where CSS sticks Brule in the end. But would that change your opinion at all or will you just call them biased and angry?