Wow...

Status
Not open for further replies.

NewHabsEra*

Guest
Lehtonen32 said:
Looks like someone is listening (thank you HollyG!), he just got dropped to a 9B.

I think its a bit too early to say Fleury is 'without a doubt one of the most skilled goaltenders ever' too, but thats all opinion of course.

Fleury and Lehtonen are two of the most skilled goaltender ever IMO... The difference between them is between the ears...

I would personnally rate Lehtonen 9A since I think he is the next big thing in the net coming from Europe since Hasek... He just has everything to dominate the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NYRangers

Registered User
Aug 11, 2004
2,850
0
Seven_Nation_Army said:
Is Lidstrom a generational talent or elite player?

Let me ask you this, If I asked you to name the top 10 players ever whod it be?

It wouldnt include Lidstrom (not taking away anything from him).

However, he is one of the best in the game at this time. Therefore he is an elite player IMHO.
 

salty justice

Registered User
May 25, 2004
7,194
0
Los Angeles
I have a slight problem with the new rating system, but overall I think its better.

Take a guy like MA Fleury and say he has a 50/50 chance of being a great goalie with a 9 rating, or a good goalie with an 8 rating. Now if his chances of being great compared to good are 50%, then shouldnt that make him a 9F. But with this system, a 9F would mean he could only reach half of his potential? :dunno: :help:

I think a good system would be were a player has 3 rating numbers. His "peak" number, his "probable" number, and his "low" number. Therefore I think a guy like Fleury could have a rating like 9.5-8.5-7.5. That way it would be like saying...he could be an elite HOFer, but most likely just a really good say top 5 guy in the league, and at the very least he would be just a good #1 guy who is maybe #15 in the NHL.

That way even a guy like Schremp could be a 9-7.5-3. Saying he has potential to be elite, but will most likely just be a good 2nd liner, or possibly not even an NHLer at all. Otherwise, under the new system, if he has a 9F rating, that means he is either going to be elite or a complete bust with no middle ground.

And then sure fire guys like Zherdev would be a 9-8.5-8. And lower end (but good) prospects like Colin Fraser could be a 6-5-5.

Am I making any sense or just making things more confusing?
 

degroat*

Guest
theBob said:
I have a slight problem with the new rating system, but overall I think its better.

Take a guy like MA Fleury and say he has a 50/50 chance of being a great goalie with a 9 rating, or a good goalie with an 8 rating. Now if his chances of being great compared to good are 50%, then shouldnt that make him a 9F. But with this system, a 9F would mean he could only reach half of his potential? :dunno: :help:

I think a good system would be were a player has 3 rating numbers. His "peak" number, his "probable" number, and his "low" number. Therefore I think a guy like Fleury could have a rating like 9.5-8.5-7.5. That way it would be like saying...he could be an elite HOFer, but most likely just a really good say top 5 guy in the league, and at the very least he would be just a good #1 guy who is maybe #15 in the NHL.

That way even a guy like Schremp could be a 9-7.5-3. Saying he has potential to be elite, but will most likely just be a good 2nd liner, or possibly not even an NHLer at all. Otherwise, under the new system, if he has a 9F rating, that means he is either going to be elite or a complete bust with no middle ground.

And then sure fire guys like Zherdev would be a 9-8.5-8. And lower end (but good) prospects like Colin Fraser could be a 6-5-5.

Am I making any sense or just making things more confusing?


A 9F would just mean that there's a low likelyhood of him reaching his full potential.. meaning that he could end up reaching it... or he could come just short of it... or he could be a bust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->