Responding to a post from the previous topic.
I agree that outside of TT and Schmaltz, and maybe Hartman, most of our forward prospects are more likely bottom 6 guys than top 6 guys, but I was just pointing out that the fact that Rockford missed the playoffs isn't the greatest indicator of the strength of the prospect pool.
As to your second point, I think that is part of the drafting philosophy; for example, take a look at our 2011 draft. #18 McNeill, #26 Danault, #35 Clendening, and #43 Saad; the two first rounders seem more like safe picks, guys who are more likely to play in the NHL at all, and the two second rounders seem like more boom or bust types, higher upside than the first rounders, but less likely to stick because of Clendening's defensive deficiencies and Saad's "effort problems." Obviously, with hindsight, we can see that Saad's effort problems were majorly overblown as he has already won a cup as a regular roster player, but that was the reason he dropped so low.
When someone says that the Hawks are stacked with prospects, it's not too far off considering that the first 7 prospects so far could all realistically have careers longer than just a cup of coffee, and then there are certainly going to be a couple of surprises among the rest just like every other team. However, I doubt that most teams have more than a handful of prospects that they confidently project as being legitimate NHLers in the future even if their guys do have higher upside.
Ultimately though, the fascination with prospects is excessive. I get that prospects represent whats going to come in the future, but by using prospects, we unnecessarily exclude players like MacKinnon just because he was good enough to play in the NHL immediately while at the same time blowing our load over how great a guy like Drouin is going to be.
