|
|
Post by blaise on Feb 11, 2004 18:31:30 GMT -5
The latest issue of the Hockey News (17 February) provides a less glowing report than we've been hearing. According to THN, a panel of 15 head scouts and directors of player personnel contributed to their Future Watch. It placed the Canadiens at #11 with a grade of B. The first 10 were Florida, Columbus, Minnesota, Washington, Nashville, Anaheim, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Los Angeles. The Top 50 list included 4 Habs: Kastsitsyn (15), Komisarek (20), Higgins (28), and Perezhogin (39). Well out of the Top 50 and trailing these 4 are, in order, Hossa, Hainsey, Urquhart, Lambert, Lapierre, and Balej. In case you're curious, Toronto was #17 with a grade of C+.
The top 10 were Kari Lehtonen, Dion Phaneuf, Ryan Miller, Thomas Vaek, Zach Parise, Ryan Suter, Jeff Carter, Milan Michalek, Braydon Coburn, and Ryan Getzlaf.
A number of rookies from the 2003 draft who are already playing in the NHL were omitted from the list because they're considered solid NHLers already (Staal, Lupul, Zherdev, and Ruutu). For some reason Fleury was overlooked in both categories.
|
|
|
|
Post by FormerLurker on Feb 11, 2004 19:05:56 GMT -5
The top 10 were Kari Lehtonen, Dion Phaneuf, Ryan Miller, Thomas Vaek, Zach Parise, Ryan Suter, Jeff Carter, Milan Michalek, Braydon Coburn, and Ryan Getzlaf. I have a hard time believing that eight of the current ten best prospects were drafted in 2003. What about Koivu, Leclaire, Blackburn, Whitney, Upshall, Bouchard... I'd rather have any of these guys than Getzlaf, who's a Kilger waiting to happen (even drafted by the same team). Based on this list, it really seems as though the writers/editors favour players drafted in 2003. So I'm not too worried about our ranking, as only one of our top eight prospects was drafted last year. Of course I'm biased, but I wouldn't be surprised if two or more of our guys have a better career than some of the players on that top ten list. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Feb 11, 2004 19:14:17 GMT -5
Hmmm, since there are 30 teams one should assume an average placement of 0.6 players in the top 50 per team (30/50=0.6). By placing 4 prospects in the top 50 the Habs had 6.7 times more than average in that group. Yet they are ranked 11th? Something is askew (aside from myself).
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Feb 11, 2004 19:38:56 GMT -5
Hmmm, since there are 30 teams one should assume an average placement of 0.6 players in the top 50 per team (30/50=0.6). By placing 4 prospects in the top 50 the Habs had 6.7 times more than average in that group. Yet they are ranked 11th? Something is askew (aside from myself). It should be 1.67 (50/30, not 30/50). I'd reduce the number of Habs to 3 because the list includes Komisarek. IMO he's no longer a prospect but a rookie. In general, I found much to disagree with. I reported it because I thought the folks on HabsRus might find it interesting. In years past they had Chouinard and Matt Higgins among the Habs' elite. There were a few surprises. Hossa and Hainsey were 4th and 5th among the Habs and Balej was 10th, while Plekanec wasn't mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by AH on Feb 11, 2004 19:43:35 GMT -5
We should do an average of all rankings and the lowest numbers win.
Habs - 1 + 11 = 12 / 2 = 6
Flyers - 22 + 9 = 31 / 2 = 15.5
and so on ...
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Feb 11, 2004 19:55:00 GMT -5
What are you averaging, two different polls? The problem is the absence of weighting in both polls. IMO, the number of prospects with a much better than average chance of starring in the NHL is the most important thing. Having two of them could be a lot better than having 10 in the lower half of the Top 50.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Feb 11, 2004 20:01:22 GMT -5
It should be 1.67 (50/30, not 30/50). I'd reduce the number of Habs to 3 because the list includes Komisarek. IMO he's no longer a prospect but a rookie. In general, I found much to disagree with. I reported it because I thought the folks on HabsRus might find it interesting. In years past they had Chouinard and Matt Higgins among the Habs' elite. There were a few surprises. Hossa and Hainsey were 4th and 5th among the Habs and Balej was 10th, while Plekanec wasn't mentioned. Quite right on the calculations. An exquisite channa roti (no potato) made me dribble my arithmetic. I had recently posted a link to a summary of past THN Habs' prospect reviews conducted in their draft years. These reports are interesting, but obviously should be taken with a large grain of salt (unlike HabsRus members' opinions, which we know are as good as gold). |
|
|
|
Post by FormerLurker on Feb 11, 2004 20:03:53 GMT -5
There were a few surprises. Hossa and Hainsey were 4th and 5th among the Habs and Balej was 10th, while Plekanec wasn't mentioned. Ptscht! Opens another Caffrey's. The low ranking of Balej and Pleks suggests that the reviewers just aren't paying attention; either that or they compiled their list before the start of the season. Regardless, their bias towards the 2003 draft is clearly shown: they've got Urquart and Lapierre ahead of Balej and Pleks. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Feb 11, 2004 21:04:49 GMT -5
Ptscht! Opens another Caffrey's. Now that is a delectable beverage. When Michel, Brian, Joe and myself had our once a month pool tourneys at the Corner Pocket here in the Big Smoke over a number of years, dear sweet Audrey was always on call with Caffrey's on tap...but I digress... Joe Balej (Won't You Please Come Home) and the indomitable Pleky will get a chance to crack the Habs before Robin Masters and Perogyhoser do. |
|
