Post Your Post-Draft Top 10 Jets Prospects

[Mortimer Snerd]

Thanks...I'm sort of making it up as I go along... there is no time restriction... and let's assume the As and Bs will be for >200 NHL games and the C/C+s for 100 NHL games.
I just thought it would give the discussion a little more substance and be more fun to attach probabilities and ceilings....

I would expect the C+s to also get more than 200 games since your grade indicates >50% 'make it', albeit in the bottom 6. That is <4 seasons. Those who get fewer games are in the remaining <50%. I don't think setting 200 games as the bar for making it is too high. Anthony Peluso is up to 107 games and counting. Matt Halischuk has 250. I don't think of either of them as having quite made it yet. But it is your system. Set the bars wherever you like.

 

[jetkarma*]

Petan was also in a very strong draft class FWIW.

We don't have head to head competition between them. We don't have them competing against the same group of opponents. We have stats for both but we don't have a way to normalize those stats. We have scouts ratings for each but those ratings are relative to 2 different groups, not to each other and not to the same group. We are left with eye-ball tests but we don't have even those directly comparing the 2. Where is your basis for comparison?

Going to let you run with your presumptions .

Just quoted a bit of what you think to highlight where I think you are basing your position and imo , using poor reasoning and the reasons why that's wrong .

We drafted Morrissey at 13 , Petan at 43 , there's some good players in that draft but I would hardly use the term very strong draft to somehow validate your position on ranking Connor. Just doesn't work .

Get past this head to head competition , it does not matter . It simply doesn't . You would like to have all things equal when making a draft list but it absolutely isn't necessary . Stats ... you need to normalize stats to make a determination after watching 2 players over a couple of years? You can use them , but NEED them ? I mentioned Phil Housely , could you not put a value on his worth because he played HS school and in the USHL ? Sure you could , sure all teams did , sure the Sabres picked him 6th overall , sure he made the HOF . Did they need to normalize stats to know how good a player he was ? No. And again , they played the same level which you previously were saying they had not .

You know , this anti actual watching and relying on expertise and experience and talent to evaluate and to term it eye ball testing to devalue that is getting old . That again is not to say you can't use or get information from analysis , but yes ... watching different players in diiferent years in different leagues one is able to place values on players .

As I gave you information before in private that has been made public only after , I can tell you about the player the same way .

Finally , you can like or prefer anyone you want , it really does not matter to me , but when you state you can't evaluate players like these two because of the reasons you are espousing , then I have to disagree with you , because that presumption is not correct .

BTW get ready for the Young Americans , they're coming hard and will be better and better and many will be playing in the USHL .

Not dwelling on this anymore .

 

[Grind]

I've read all the rest of this thread and the arguments. Get that few have done what Connor has done in the USHL. USHL is an improving development league. OK. Now lets leave the USHL behind for a moment. Petan has excelled for 2 years longer than Connor as well as adding doing it at the WJC. Those things are worth a lot. In my list I put Connor 3rd, Petan 4th but they could just as easily have been interchanged. Both are very highly skilled centres with elite level hockey IQs. Connor has a size advantage that may help him play C at higher levels. Petan probably (not for certain though) will have to play a wing in the NHL. Petan's scoring rate has been phenomenal. Connor has not matched that so far. Apart from Connor's size advantage it is very difficult to choose between them. And the significance of that is debatable. Everything Petan has done has been done with a size disadvantage.

You were doing fine until your last 2 words. I don't believe there is any legitimate way anyone can justify a strong case for either one over the other.

The assumption people are making here that is biting them in the ass is that inferior league = easier league to score in.


Its not.

The USHL has historically been harder to score in then the CHL.

Now, this year seems to be a bit higher then usual, but at the same time, there was a lot of very good u.s. forward talent.

I stand by my saying "hands down".

43% of players like petan make the NHL. 70% of players like Connor do. That's not that close.

When you consider both " look" like phenomenal prospects, this is exactly the sort of situation I'm comfortable using these projections to "break the tie", and they are far and away in Connors favor.

 

[Mud Turtle]

The assumption people are making here that is biting them in the ass is that inferior league = easier league to score in.


Its not.

The USHL has historically been harder to score in then the CHL.

Now, this year seems to be a bit higher then usual, but at the same time, there was a lot of very good u.s. forward talent.

I stand by my saying "hands down".

43% of players like petan make the NHL. 70% of players like Connor do. That's not that close.

When you consider both " look" like phenomenal prospects, this is exactly the sort of situation I'm comfortable using these projections to "break the tie", and they are far and away in Connors favor.

I agree. Connor still has a lot of room to improve. On the other hand, Petan's PPG average hasn't really improved over the past three years. It's always concerned me that he peaked early and hasn't shown another level yet, if there is one.

That being said about Petan, he certainly HAS rounded out his game a lot. Credit to him.

So, if they're both relatively close right now, I'd give it to Connor because he still has a couple years to improve before we can really compare the two.

 

[Romang67]

The assumption people are making here that is biting them in the ass is that inferior league = easier league to score in.


Its not.

The USHL has historically been harder to score in then the CHL.

Now, this year seems to be a bit higher then usual, but at the same time, there was a lot of very good u.s. forward talent.

I stand by my saying "hands down".

43% of players like petan make the NHL. 70% of players like Connor do. That's not that close.

When you consider both " look" like phenomenal prospects, this is exactly the sort of situation I'm comfortable using these projections to "break the tie", and they are far and away in Connors favor.

Indeed. Look at the number of players who, in their draft season or before, touches Connor's P/G.

In the past 10 years, 7 players have put up a P/G that is better than Connor's in a season in their draft season or earlier.

2/3 of the super line of Roslovic-Matthews-Tkachuk (combined for 119 points in 73 games)
2/3 of the super line of Milano-Eichel-Tuch (combined for 116 points in 75 games)
1/3 of the super line of Cammarata-Stepan-Kloos (combined for 258 points in 169 games)

Kyle Connor's closest teammate was 17th in the USHL in P/G. All these other players who had better P/G than Connor had 2 linemates who, at worst, were in the top 6. That's Tuch, who was 6th in P/G. Tkachuk was 4th in his season. Roslovic and Milano were 2nd in their seasons. Stepan was 3rd in his season. And Kloos was 1st.

People act as if what Connor did was easy because he played in the USHL. Fact of the matter is that no one in the past 10 years has done what Connor did without some serious help from his linemates.

No, what Petan did isn't common. Yes, he's an extremely valuable prospect. Yes, I believe him to be one of the best prospects in the world. I just think Connor has a higher ceiling and is more likely to reach it.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Going to let you run with your presumptions .

Just quoted a bit of what you think to highlight where I think you are basing your position and imo , using poor reasoning and the reasons why that's wrong .

We drafted Morrissey at 13 , Petan at 43 , there's some good players in that draft but I would hardly use the term very strong draft to somehow validate your position on ranking Connor. Just doesn't work .

Get past this head to head competition , it does not matter . It simply doesn't . You would like to have all things equal when making a draft list but it absolutely isn't necessary . Stats ... you need to normalize stats to make a determination after watching 2 players over a couple of years? You can use them , but NEED them ? I mentioned Phil Housely , could you not put a value on his worth because he played HS school and in the USHL ? Sure you could , sure all teams did , sure the Sabres picked him 6th overall , sure he made the HOF . Did they need to normalize stats to know how good a player he was ? No. And again , they played the same level which you previously were saying they had not .

You know , this anti actual watching and relying on expertise and experience and talent to evaluate and to term it eye ball testing to devalue that is getting old . That again is not to say you can't use or get information from analysis , but yes ... watching different players in diiferent years in different leagues one is able to place values on players .

As I gave you information before in private that has been made public only after , I can tell you about the player the same way .

Finally , you can like or prefer anyone you want , it really does not matter to me , but when you state you can't evaluate players like these two because of the reasons you are espousing , then I have to disagree with you , because that presumption is not correct .

BTW get ready for the Young Americans , they're coming hard and will be better and better and many will be playing in the USHL .

Not dwelling on this anymore .

I can agree to drop this but before doing that I want to correct one thing. I think you are misinterpreting my position. If we agree to disagree it should be at least knowing what we are disagreeing on.

First bold is where I think you are misunderstanding my position. The statement is just not correct. I value both the stats and the eye-ball tests of trained eyes. You have referenced people you know who are very familiar with Connor. Those people have told you very good things about him. Many others have said very good things about him. I don't disagree. Not with you. Not with any of them. Have your USHL sources also watched Petan and told you that Connor is significantly better? You have not stated that if it is the case. AFAIK, taking your statements at full value Connor rates very, very highly. I am not doubting you or your eye-ball tests or those of your contacts.

Second bold: It is done all the time. It is necessary to compile a team's draft list. They do the best they can with imperfect observations because, one way or another it has to be done. They have no choice. They are continually trying to refine their methods of comparison. The analytics people are developing tools to improve the results.

Third bold: Agree. It is coming. When I was a young man there were very few Americans in the NHL. Most of them were sons of Canadian hockey players who were born in the US because their fathers played hockey there. Almost all NHL players came through the CHL. It was considered unusual for any NCAA player to make it although it did happen occasionally. Canadian kids who were barely junior B players could get full scholarships. The very first Euro players were just showing up. It has changed a great deal since then obviously.

Look at the Jets draft this year. Mostly Americans. It is not a pro US bias from Chevy. He was drafting BPA. Look at the top ten picks this year, 3 Canadians, 3 American and 4 Euros. I haven't counted them all up but over the last 3-4 years the numbers of Canadians and Americans have been pretty close. It used to be that more of the Americans came later in the draft but that is no longer the case.

If you hadn't noticed before you would have had to see the handwriting on the wall when we started getting NHL players from Texas, California and Florida. Internationally it is no longer Russia and Sweden who are our chief rivals. It is the US. It is getting progressively harder for us to stay ahead of them.

And yes, many will play in the USHL before going on to the NCAA.

 

[Whileee]

My list, based mostly on a guess about future potential / ceiling and likelihood or reaching it, rather than how close they are to the NHL....

1. Ehlers
2. Connor
3. Morrissey
4. Petan
5. Hellebuyck
6. Copp
7. Armia
8. Roslovic
9. Harkins
10. Kostalek

HM: Lemieux, Comrie, Kosmachuk, Kraskovsky

 

[jetsforever]

Just realised I forgot Glover - wasn't he a decent prospect, especially as he is a defenceman

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

The assumption people are making here that is biting them in the ass is that inferior league = easier league to score in.


Its not.

The USHL has historically been harder to score in then the CHL.

Now, this year seems to be a bit higher then usual, but at the same time, there was a lot of very good u.s. forward talent.

I stand by my saying "hands down".

43% of players like petan make the NHL. 70% of players like Connor do. That's not that close.

When you consider both " look" like phenomenal prospects, this is exactly the sort of situation I'm comfortable using these projections to "break the tie", and they are far and away in Connors favor.

What you are saying is that the USHL is a lower scoring league. OK, that accounts for some of the difference in their ppg. It doesn't take away from the fact that one has done what he has done against weaker competition.

I am breaking the tie based on scouting reports crediting Connor with a higher probability of elite level achievement. But that is all it is, a tie breaker. When you have to break a tie the gap can't be too wide.

Edit (sort of):After writing the stuff below I am looking at the bold above. I'm trying to get my head around why it doesn't support your conclusion but I can't do it. I can claim that Petan might outperform Connor or that they might achieve at exactly the same level. That would be true. Those are among the possibilities. But I can't say that those are the most probable results or more probable than Connor outperforming Petan.

I have asked a couple of questions that might affect the conclusion. If your data for the 2 is equal, that is issues of cohort size, comparing USHL to CHL etc, then I have to concede the significance of 43<70.

Something about it doesn't feel right. It 'feels' like I am missing something. If I visualize a box full of the data on Connor and a box full of the data on Petan, scoring stats, scouting reports, etc they look very close to me. I can't see anything in those boxes to account for a strong preference for either. But I can't offer a proof to counter your cohort data. I can see that the difference between the 2 cohorts is height and height doesn't matter. Except it does matter to the tune of 43:70.
-------------- end 'edit' insertion ---------------

I don't disagree with your result. It is the width of separation I take issue with. Petan's group or 'cohort' is made up of smaller players. The size issue likely accounts for the lower success rate. I don't know the size of the 2 cohorts. The smaller cohorts will be more subject to error. Assuming that Petan is in the 43% who make the NHL and that Connor is in the 70 % that make it can you still differentiate between the 2 based on probability of playing 200 games?

What I am not seeing is a basis for claiming the gap is wide.

Is the placing of USHL players in cohorts and comparing them to CHL and NCAA players even reliable? Do you have the data to support that? The system for using scoring + height data is still in development. Is it a reliable tool for supporting that "hands down" statement? I think it might be interesting to see how well it performs comparing 2 cohorts where height is the same but scoring different vs 2 cohorts where scoring is similar but height is different.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Indeed. Look at the number of players who, in their draft season or before, touches Connor's P/G.

In the past 10 years, 7 players have put up a P/G that is better than Connor's in a season in their draft season or earlier.

2/3 of the super line of Roslovic-Matthews-Tkachuk (combined for 119 points in 73 games)
2/3 of the super line of Milano-Eichel-Tuch (combined for 116 points in 75 games)
1/3 of the super line of Cammarata-Stepan-Kloos (combined for 258 points in 169 games)

Kyle Connor's closest teammate was 17th in the USHL in P/G. All these other players who had better P/G than Connor had 2 linemates who, at worst, were in the top 6. That's Tuch, who was 6th in P/G. Tkachuk was 4th in his season. Roslovic and Milano were 2nd in their seasons. Stepan was 3rd in his season. And Kloos was 1st.

People act as if what Connor did was easy because he played in the USHL. Fact of the matter is that no one in the past 10 years has done what Connor did without some serious help from his linemates.

No, what Petan did isn't common. Yes, he's an extremely valuable prospect. Yes, I believe him to be one of the best prospects in the world. I just think Connor has a higher ceiling and is more likely to reach it.

I for one, never said that. He lead his league in scoring, by a pretty wide margin and played fewer games than the guy who was second. Petan did very nearly the same thing in the WHL in his draft year. He tied for the lead. The margin over 3rd was pretty wide. The player he tied with had slightly fewer games. Close. Petan did it in a league with more top level players to overcome.

The fact that no one else has done what Connor did doesn't carry a lot of weight though. It being the weaker league but the one that is rising makes someone doing that something that should be expected. The USHL has historically produced fewer outstanding players so of course the probability of someone having done that before was low.

A point of comparison between the CHL and USHL that I haven't seen mentioned is that most of the best 18 YO USHL players move on to the NCAA. Most of the best 18 YO CHL players are drafted and returned for their 19 & 20 YO seasons.

The second bold is something I never questioned.

 

[Romang67]

I for one, never said that. He lead his league in scoring, by a pretty wide margin and played fewer games than the guy who was second. Petan did very nearly the same thing in the WHL in his draft year. He tied for the lead. The margin over 3rd was pretty wide. The player he tied with had slightly fewer games. Close. Petan did it in a league with more top level players to overcome.

The fact that no one else has done what Connor did doesn't carry a lot of weight though. It being the weaker league but the one that is rising makes someone doing that something that should be expected. The USHL has historically produced fewer outstanding players so of course the probability of someone having done that before was low.

A point of comparison between the CHL and USHL that I haven't seen mentioned is that most of the best 18 YO USHL players move on to the NCAA. Most of the best 18 YO CHL players are drafted and returned for their 19 & 20 YO seasons.

The second bold is something I never questioned.

Re the bolded (since you don't actually disagree with my other points):

While it's true that it has been a weaker league, especially historially, there are still a decent amount of very good players who have been drafted out of the USHL, or played there at some point after they were drafted. These are also players that didn't manage to do what Connor did. That's what makes it so impressive. ESPECIALLY since he did it two years in a row.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_USHL_players_drafted_by_NHL_teams

There is a list of players from the USHL who were drafted by NHL teams. Extremely few of those players did what Connor has done.

While, yes, he didn't have as strong competition as Petan, you have to compare him to other players who could have done what he did, but didn't.

 

[lanky]

1. Ehlers
2. Connor
3. Hellebuyck
4. Armia
5. Morrissey
6. Harkins
7. Roslovic
8. Petan
9. Chiarot
10. Kostalek

 

[Whileee]

One thing to keep in mind is that a well-stocked prospect pool isn't only to feed the NHL roster. Good prospects are excellent assets to include in trades for top-end talent, when the time and opportunities are right. The Jets' overall asset pool is quite deep.

 

[Grind]

1.Connor
2.Ehlers
3.Morrissey
4.Petan
5.Hellebuyck
6.Armia
7.Roslovic
8.Harkins
9. Spacek
10. Copp

I did this quick, basing off our projections and making adjustments for where were weak.

I penalized hellebuyck because I don't trust goalies. The best goalie prospect in the league would still be rated at five on this list because there's just no way to know if hell actually be successful until he is.

I think copps ceiling is low but he's already got a game and still seems to be the heir apparent t for 4th line C this season so that's worth something.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

My List would be

1. Ehlers
2. Connor
3. Morrissey
4. Hellebuyck
5. Petan
6. Armia
7. Roslovic
8. Lemieux
9. Harkins
10. Comrie

 

[Hank Chinaski]

1. Ehlers
2. Petan
3. Morrissey
4. Connor
5. Hellebuyck
6. Armia
7. Comrie
8. Harkins
9. Roslovic
10. Kosmachuk

EDIT: If we're counting Chiarot as a prospect, I'd probably have him in between Roslovic and Kosmachuk.

 

[mcpw]

1 Ehlers
2 Hellebuyck
3 Connor
4 Morrissey
5 Petan
6 Roslovic
(7 Chiarot)
8 Armia
9 Copp
10 Harkins
11 Kosmachuk

 

[Sixty Minute Man]

1.Ehlers
2.Connor
3.Morrissey
4.Petan
5.Hellebuyck
6.Roslovic
7.Harkins
8.Armia
9.Copp
10.Chiarot

11.Comrie
12.Kostalek
13.Spacek
14.Kosmachuk
15.Lemieux
16.De Leo

 

[garret9]

If I'd have to make a guess...


1) Ehlers
2) Connor
3) Hellebuyck
4) Petan
5) Morrissey
***
6) Armia
7) Harkins
8) Roslovic
9) Spacek
10) Comrie

HM: Copp, Kostalek, Lodge, Kichton, De Leo, Kosmachuk

*** Where I would put Burmistrov if you are that type of person


Yes, I am that high on this draft, and no, I do not believe myself to be falling for new toy syndrome.

Ask me again tomorrow and this will be vastly different.

Hey look. I already changed my order from then. heh.

Today I'd probably say:
1) Ehlers
2) Connor
3) Hellebuyck
4) Petan
5) Morrissey
6) Armia
7) Roslovic
8) Harkins
9) Comrie
10) Spacek

11) Copp
12) Kichton
13) Kostalek
14) Niku
15) Lipon
16) De Leo
17) Kosmachuk
18) Lemieux
19) Lodge
20) Glover
21) Kraskovsky
22) Poolman
23) Olsen
24) Blomqvist
25) Foley
26) Brassard
27) Gennaro
28) Franklin
29) Karlstrom
30) Appleton
31) Ustaski
32) Lane

Ask me again tomorrow, and this list will be different.

 

[KingBogo]

My List:

1. Ehlers
2. Hellebuyck
3. Morrissey
4. Connor
5. Petan
6. Armia
7. Lemieux
8. Roslovic
9. Harkins
10. Copp

Not counting Chairot. A 24 yo on a 1-way contract is only a prospect by an arbitrary technicality.

 

[Sweech]

Wow. People are much lower on Foley than I thought. Even if they didn't like his perceived play style I still thought his production would get some kudos...guess not.

 

[mcpw]

(...)
Ask me again tomorrow, and this list will be different.

Because tomorrow you will remember that Jamie Phillips is a prospect?

 

[PhilJets]

Ehlers
Hellybuck
MOrrissey
Petan , Connor
Armia
Harkins
Roslovicz
Kostalek
Comrie


Connor Petan Ehlers
X Roslovicz Armia
X. Harkins. X
X. X. X

Morrissey. X
Kostalek. X
X. X


Hellybuck. comrie

 

[garret9]

Because tomorrow you will remember that Jamie Phillips is a prospect?

Whoopsies

 

[Jets4Life]

1. Ehlers (2014)
2. Hellebuyck (2012)
3. Morrissey (2013)
4. Connor (2015)
5. Petan (2013)
6. Copp (2013)
7. Kostalek (2013)
8. Roslovic (2015)
9. Armia (2011)
10. Comire (2013)

*I do not count Chiarot as a prospect, as he has played a full season with the Jets.