Prospects Poll: What do you Look For?

[NotSince67*]

Just curious but I wanted to see what people place importance on when ranking the prospects. As an observer it seems like most of the board places importance on the point totals and percieved upside first, probability of attaining that upside, and proximity to the professional and/or NHL level last.

Personally, I feel like proximity and likelihood trump upside. I wouldn't have had Bracco and Johnsson so high given one is coming out of the draft playing in the USHL and the other has yet to play on NA ice. I'm higher on Loov, Carrick and Leipsic given they've got a body of work at the professional level and have proven they can make the transition to pro and are within a reasonable distance of actualizing themselves as NHL players.

I also think probability is huge. I prefer guys like Toninato, Carrick, Dermott, Gauthier and Harrington (Loov, etc) with lower upside but have a style of game that is more translatable than a boom or bust type prospect who's further away like Bracco, Johnson, or still has significant issues to work on like Connor Brown or Granberg.

What are your thoughts as you rank the prospects?

Click to read more...

 

[Schenn]

Look for whatever you want. If you like the safer picks, then pick them. It's basically just a popularity contest.

 

[WestCoastLeafs]

Just curious but I wanted to see what people place importance on when ranking the prospects. As an observer it seems like most of the board places importance on the point totals and percieved upside first, probability of attaining that upside, and proximity to the professional and/or NHL level last.

Personally, I feel like proximity and likelihood trump upside. I wouldn't have had Bracco and Johnsson so high given one is coming out of the draft playing in the USHL and the other has yet to play on NA ice. I'm higher on Loov, Carrick and Leipsic given they've got a body of work at the professional level and have proven they can make the transition to pro and are within a reasonable distance of actualizing themselves as NHL players.

I also think probability is huge. I prefer guys like Toninato, Carrick, Dermott, Gauthier and Harrington (Loov, etc) with lower upside but have a style of game that is more translatable than a boom or bust type prospect who's further away like Bracco, Johnson, or still has significant issues to work on like Connor Brown or Granberg.

What are your thoughts as you rank the prospects?

Trade value.

I think of it as how good of a trade offer it would take to convince me to move them (if it were my job.)

 

[Duke16]

A blend of size and skill, skill more than size though

 

[Judas Tavares]

Skating, skill, heart, two-way ability.

 

[Liminality]

I think I mainly look for hockey IQ, energy, skill and speed in that order. A player who's engaged in the three zones of the ice or brings a tempo which puts them or their team in an advantageous position.

If it's not one of those things, I'm usually interested in players who have rare combinations of attributes. Players who are big and fast, small and feisty, big bodied players with great passing, etc.

 

[Neil Hamburger]

Hockeydb's a big factor for me.

Also, anyone under 6'0 takes a big hit in my eyes.

Flashy youtube highlights are a big plus.

Also, if the prospect is in any way attractive, it seems to make it easier for them to endear themselves to me for some reason. You could tell Kessel was a lazy bum just by looking at him.

That's pretty much it for me I guess...

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

Hockeydb's a big factor for me.

Also, anyone under 6'0 takes a big hit in my eyes.

Flashy youtube highlights are a big plus.

Also, if the prospect is in any way attractive, it seems to make it easier for them to endear themselves to me for some reason. You could tell Kessel was a lazy bum just by looking at him.

 

[Lauro]

Projected games they'll play for the Leafs.

 

[Neil Hamburger]

It's kind of ridiculous the way people spout opinions on here about players they've never even watched play.

I know I never watch junior hockey. I watched a few games in the Memorial Cup this year, as well as the WJC's, but that's it.

I might catch a couple London games this year if Marner's on the team when they come to Hamilton, but otherwise, I expect I'll watch basically no CHL games at all next year.

I do watch maybe ten Marlies regular season games a year though, plus all of their playoff games - so I know a bit about our guys there.

Most on here are probably similar I would guess, but still, almost everybody acts like some kind of an expert.

 

[dubey]

Hockeydb's a big factor for me.

Also, anyone under 6'0 takes a big hit in my eyes.

Flashy youtube highlights are a big plus.

Also, if the prospect is in any way attractive, it seems to make it easier for them to endear themselves to me for some reason. You could tell Kessel was a lazy bum just by looking at him.

That's pretty much it for me I guess...

Nice hair is definitely at the top of my list

 

[Daisy Jane]

Nice hair is definitely at the top of my list

yes. and now we have a Standard.

Nylander Flow..............Bracco Elvis Style............Engvall's sheer cut.

 

[Mats13]

Hockeydb's a big factor for me.

Also, anyone under 6'0 takes a big hit in my eyes.

Flashy youtube highlights are a big plus.

Also, if the prospect is in any way attractive, it seems to make it easier for them to endear themselves to me for some reason. You could tell Kessel was a lazy bum just by looking at him.

That's pretty much it for me I guess...

You just summed up the vast majority of HfBoards.

 

[Pyrophorus]

It's kind of ridiculous the way people spout opinions on here about players they've never even watched play.

I know I never watch junior hockey. I watched a few games in the Memorial Cup this year, as well as the WJC's, but that's it.

I might catch a couple London games this year if Marner's on the team when they come to Hamilton, but otherwise, I expect I'll watch basically no CHL games at all next year.

I do watch maybe ten Marlies regular season games a year though, plus all of their playoff games - so I know a bit about our guys there.

Most on here are probably similar I would guess, but still, almost everybody acts like some kind of an expert.

No I'm totally with you and like you watch about the same amount of games, at different levels.

 

[Stigma]

It's kind of ridiculous the way people spout opinions on here about players they've never even watched play.

I know I never watch junior hockey. I watched a few games in the Memorial Cup this year, as well as the WJC's, but that's it.

I might catch a couple London games this year if Marner's on the team when they come to Hamilton, but otherwise, I expect I'll watch basically no CHL games at all next year.

I do watch maybe ten Marlies regular season games a year though, plus all of their playoff games - so I know a bit about our guys there.

Most on here are probably similar I would guess, but still, almost everybody acts like some kind of an expert.

True. I find it ridiculous when people passionately argue about prospects they barely know.

What I look for:

1) Skill (for the role they play - for example, Gauthier is high for me cause of his defensive forward skills)
2) Skating (seems very predictive of success for the non-elite players)
3) Hockey IQ
4) Psycho-bio factors - (likability, team player, motivation, confidence, family/genetics,"coachability")
5) Weight/height
6) Physicality
7) Defensive awareness (if not a defensive player)

 

[SprDaVE]

There isn't a science to these things. Most fans here have barely seen most of them play.

It all comes down to scouting reports, perceived skill level, offensive output, likeability, gut feeling and bias towards a player.

 

[MR4]

Nice hair is definitely at the top of my list

Maybe we should try Justin Trudeau on the ice!

 

[Joey Hoser]

Just curious but I wanted to see what people place importance on when ranking the prospects. As an observer it seems like most of the board places importance on the point totals and percieved upside first, probability of attaining that upside, and proximity to the professional and/or NHL level last.

Personally, I feel like proximity and likelihood trump upside. I wouldn't have had Bracco and Johnsson so high given one is coming out of the draft playing in the USHL and the other has yet to play on NA ice. I'm higher on Loov, Carrick and Leipsic given they've got a body of work at the professional level and have proven they can make the transition to pro and are within a reasonable distance of actualizing themselves as NHL players.

I also think probability is huge. I prefer guys like Toninato, Carrick, Dermott, Gauthier and Harrington (Loov, etc) with lower upside but have a style of game that is more translatable than a boom or bust type prospect who's further away like Bracco, Johnson, or still has significant issues to work on like Connor Brown or Granberg.

What are your thoughts as you rank the prospects?

If proximity and likelyhood trump potential, you should have guys like Harrington and Carrick ahead of Marner, since they're more likely to make the team this fall. Similarly, if people only cared about points and potential, Gauthier wouldn't have gone nearly as high as he did.

People are way too concerned with how people vote. Its all subjective and it doesn't matter if we get it wrong. Who cares?

 

[ACC1224]

If I've seen the player, skill and work ethic.

If I know little of the Player, I go with the opposite of what a few of the experts here see.

 

[Diamond Joe Quimby]

If I've seen the player, skill and work ethic.

If I know little of the Player, I go with the opposite of what a few of the experts here see.

This pretty much sums me up.

 

[Stigma]

There isn't a science to these things. Most fans here have barely seen most of them play.

It all comes down to scouting reports, perceived skill level, offensive output, likeability, gut feeling and bias towards a player.

Well, if we're all being completely honest here, the latter two are indeed pretty huge factors that influence our decisions. We get invested in a player, for one reason or another (often psychological reasons we're not even consciously aware of), and then use empirical data and deductive reasoning to support our bias. I did it with Provorov. I'm doing it right now with Bracco.

 

[egd27]

Hockeydb's a big factor for me.

Also, anyone under 6'0 takes a big hit in my eyes.

Flashy youtube highlights are a big plus.

Also, if the prospect is in any way attractive, it seems to make it easier for them to endear themselves to me for some reason. You could tell Kessel was a lazy bum just by looking at him.

That's pretty much it for me I guess...

Nice

Maybe we should try Justin Trudeau on the ice!

He's just not ready.

 

[Primary Assist]

I look for threads with polls

 

[Nithoniniel]

Well, if we're all being completely honest here, the latter two are indeed pretty huge factors that influence our decisions. We get invested in a player, for one reason or another (often psychological reasons we're not even consciously aware of), and then use empirical data and deductive reasoning to support our bias. I did it with Provorov. I'm doing it right now with Bracco.

Some more than others. This board seemed like it had translated from "HfBoards Forums" to "Verbal Arena for Families of Draft-eligible Prospects" for a while there.

I don't really have it in me to get very attached to prospects. The only times I really feel adamant about things are when you get reputations that are flat out wrong, like with Nylander for example. I was pretty neutral at that draft, I remember that I questioned how he'd translate to NHL, but I really didn't like the primadonna rep he got as I found it to be baseless and lazy.

As for what I look for, it depends a lot on the pick range of the prospect. I look at different things at the lower picks than I do at higher ones. But main parts are for sure skill and intelligence, I also like high-end skating but isn't terribly deterred by bad skating. Not as into size as the consensus, and especially not grit.

 

[hfdshdh]

Good body. Can't have an ugly girlfriend. The kind of guy who walks into a room and his **** has already been there for two minutes.