I think Jack Quinn deserves to be on that list. He's played primarily a 4th line role. Any time he's been elevated above the 4th line, he's produced well. He'll probably roll as the #1 RW next year on Ottawa's Depth Chart. That said, he is a 17 year old so that should play a factor in his ranking so I can understand arguments regarding his status being off the list. The one argument I disagree with entirely is quality of team. The better the team and deeper the roster, the less opportunity to play. Drysdale gets 25 minutes, sure, but only because the team stinks. If the team were a top 4 Conference team, would he get those minutes and opportunities? So, really, should quality of team be even in the discussion and if it is, should it not be slanted the other way? Should a player given opportunity because his team sucks and has a lack of depth not be considered a negative instead of a positive? I think, at least, it should be a wash. To me, a rookie that steps into a massively deep roster and takes ice from veterans is far more impressive than a rookie playing first line on a team 15 games under .500 with no depth rolling out on the first PP unit. Go back to Mitch Marner on London's roster when he was a rookie. He earned that opportunity with his level of skill and determination. It wasn't handed to him quite simply because no one else was better. I am not suggesting any of these players are weak. All I am saying is look at their production. Look at what is around them and compare them to other players opportunities etc. How did they earn their spot? How many minutes are they playing compared to other veterans? How do those veterans compare to other teams veterans and where are they on the depth charts? The thing that impresses me the most about Marco Rossi is who he had to climb above to get his role. He's the #1 Centre on the #4 ranked CHL team. He plays ahead of Chmelevski and Hoelscher who are both NHL drafted players. Chmelevski played for Team USA at the WJHC. The 67's passed on players like Suzuki as centrement at the deadline quite simply because they had three quality centres already with their first round pick, Tolnai playing the 4th line centre role. Imagine a team at the deadline saying, "we don't need Suzuki because we have Rossi." How often does a team draw a line in the sand like that? How often do players impress to that level as rookies? If he didn't miss 11 games to injury, he'd probably be in that 65-70 point range right now. That puts him with guys like Matt Strome and Seron Noel. The argument is if Perreault played between Felhaber and Keating, would his numbers be similar? Maybe. But would he have even been given that opportunity? Would his skill level at training camp have put him ahead of Chmelevski and Hoelscher? Doubtful. I say he wouldn't have gotten that opportunity. To me that is where the proof lies with regards to the quality of team argument. Also, Ottawa has 226 goals. Sarnia has 214 goals. It is not like offensively the teams are vastly different to the point Perreault has nothing around him.