Predict the top 10!

[Gardebut30]

Who cares, this list is ugly! It reaks of bias... the criteria of being a prospect IMO is way off... Weber all the way down at 50 while Coburn is on the top 25? If you watched these two play vs. each all year ( I have both in Milwaukee and Chicago) you will see Weber is furthur now and has more upside...and I love Coburn..nothing against him.

It rips on Michalek for only having 23 points yet it says Parise is a super star despite having less points.... If you're only going to base a ranking on draft quotes and stats without looking at the player, at least do it with some consistancy.

Why is Seabrook so low?

Semin at 13th? Wha? Why is Suter so high? I'm just confused..... I'm convinced half of the list makers only watched 25% of the players and just used a dart board to rank the rest of them..

THN did a much better job despite being quite comical at times..

Agreed. The Michalek and Parise rankings have me confused as well.

 

[TK79]

Look at the list, they're are plenty of players that are around the same age as Henrik. It's all a result of the lockout year, as many of the older guys would have been playing in the NHL last year and wouldn't have qualified for this year's list. I wouldn't worry about it that much, the list's average age will drop signifigantly in the fall when upwards of 20 guys graduate.

Personally, if i was doing my own list I would not include Henrik on it, just beacause I no longer have any serious doubts about his ability to perform on the NHL level. At this point I view him as an NHL regular, rather than a prospect. However, the arguments over this list get heated enough without including a discussion of who should be considered a prospect. For a project of this size you have to have a set numerical definition of who qualifies and who doesn't, otherwise it would just get too complicated. Presently Lundqvist qualifies, thus he must be on the list.

Not too many 82 born prospects on the list. Henke is at least very close to the cut-off age..

 

[ReLyT]

1) Ovechkin
2) Crosby
3) Phaneuf
4) Malkin
5) Lehtonen
6) Lundqvist
7) Vanek
8) Carter
9) Johnson
10) Suter

GO BUY A LOTTERY TICKET!!!! Switch Carter and Johnson you'd've had the list...

 

[Hfbk2006]

1. Ovechkin
2. Crosby
3. Lundqvist
4. Phaneuf
5. Malkin
6. Lehtonen
7. Carter
8. Vanek
9. Suter
10. Johnson

Yup, thats a good list. I agree with this one much more than the one they came up with. Apparently being dominant in the AHL (Lehtonen) is more important than Lundqvist being dominant in the NHL (and before that in Sweden for several years). Who knew prospects are seen for their potential at the AHL level, not NHL...

 

[Hfbk2006]

6. Lundqvist (he's had his boosters, sure, but NYR are in 1st place)
QUOTE]

And Lundqvist is the primary reason they are in first place. Compare NYR record with Weekes in the net v. Lundqvist in the net. And Weekes hasn't been bad. He is just an avg goalie. And NYR is not a playoff team with Weekes in the net. With Lundqvist in the net, they are the best team in the league (based on the percentage of games Lundqvist wins v. percentage of games won by other teams)

 

[JohnnyRyall]

6. Lundqvist (he's had his boosters, sure, but NYR are in 1st place)
QUOTE]

And Lundqvist is the primary reason they are in first place. Compare NYR record with Weekes in the net v. Lundqvist in the net. And Weekes hasn't been bad. He is just an avg goalie. And NYR is not a playoff team with Weekes in the net. With Lundqvist in the net, they are the best team in the league (based on the percentage of games Lundqvist wins v. percentage of games won by other teams)

I think I agree, but I'm a big fan of Lundqvist, so I tried to temper my expectations ... but yeah, if performance in the NHL has any bearing on determining one's potential, I could see a case for Lundqvist being as high as 4th on this list ...