Proof HF is out to lunch on prospect grading

[Bjindaho]

The OP does realize that Tanev is going into his 22 year-old season and his poise was dumping the puck off the boards onto opponents sticks (in the NHL, it doesn`t count as a turnover in most arenas if it hits the boards or the glass first).

He is a no hit, defensive defenseman. He might develop into more, but it isn`t probable. Also, keep in mind that he was an injury fill-in (don`t lie and claim that he was above Ballard, Hamhuis, Edler, Alberts, Rome, Ehrhoff, or Salo last year).

 

[Hunter Gathers]

It's a FREE SERVICE. The only time to complain is when something truly outlandish is done. Nothing outlandish was done. So stop complaining.

 

[SupremefartMachine]

This is proof of nothing.

 

[squidz*]

Oh noes, the prospects on a team with little prospect depth were ranked poorly, let's call the internet police!

There are a lot of things to criticize about HF's rankings (such as the Wild writer admittedly not watching any Wild or Wild prospect games). The things you're whining about are not real problems. Maybe Tanev should have been given a 7.0C (actually a lower ranking than he got) but that's a tiny difference for a guy who is likely little more than a depth defenseman. I don't mind that the writer didn't do 10 seconds of "re-seach" because that would have taken away from any time he spent researching the prospects.

 

[mja]

This is proof of nothing.

Incorrect.

It is proof that many HF posters are just plain out to lunch.

 

[Ol' Jase]

Canuck fan whining about something petty and trivial, and then throwing out some insults just to make it that much more silly?

That can only mean hockey's back!!!

 

[Offseason Champs]

As someone who genuinely enjoys lunch, I fail to see the issue here.

 

[Schalkenullvier*]

I'd say when the proof that a site is out to lunch are the #18-20 prospects of the Vancouver Canucks, the site is pretty good.

 

[madmike77]

People here aren't professional scouts. I don't really put any stock into the individual rankings - it's hard to expect any consistency given that the rankings are compiled by different people who in many cases have never even seen the players they're rating play a shift. That's not a criticism of the site - it's just reality.

I like the organizational prospect rankings and the writeups and I'll comment on those, but there's really no point in reading too much into the ratings.

 

[gifted88]

I blame the government

I blame society as a whole.