HF Habs: 2022 HF Habs Prospect Rankings #7
- Thread starter Treb
- Start date
Everyone overvalue their prospect. I would rank it middle of the pack at the moment. Good depth but it lacks gamebreakers. No top pair D nor #1C and those are the thoughest to get/draft. Hard to consider the prospect pool of a rebuilding team "good" when it's missing those 2 things.
Things will change dramatically in 2023 hopefully.
LastWordArmy
Registered User
KevSkillz4
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2016
- 8,099
- 13,646
Slafkovsky potential to be a 1st line player.
Guhle (even top pairing potential), Mailloux, Hutson, Harris all potential to be top 4 d-man. Xhekaj and Fairbrother have potential to be great bottom D.
Farrell, Roy, Mesar, potential to be top 6 forward.
Beck, Heineman, Mysak, Ylonen, Kidney, Rohrer potential to be 3rd line//bottom 6 players, maybe more too.
Smilanic, Guindon, Bondi and more, looks not bad at all too.
Primeau, Dobes, Dichow, looks all really good.
SlafySZN
Registered User
- May 21, 2022
- 7,514
- 16,268
Despite mailloux being taller and bigger, i’d say Hutson plays ‘’bigger’’ than Mailloux. Hutson won’t be able to be physical at the higher level but he plays with better compete level.
Heineman 100% potential of a top 6 player.
Heineman is the kind of player who would fit anywhere in the line up i think. Roy is top 6 or bust.
Last edited:
One thing I learned from this forum over the years is that our board overhypes the hell out of our prospects all the time. We'd be lucky if 3 of those mentioned above pan out to be decent NHL'rs.
I think this is Mailloux's time to shine. Tools are too good to pass up, we'll see what they amount to.
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2003
- 11,128
- 12,304
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2003
- 11,128
- 12,304
One thing you should also learn is not to apply general truisms as an effective tool to compare separate groups. Why bother coming in with such generic drivel, are you going to stop at every other board to pronounce the same dystopian outlook.
Prospect pools are judged relative to other pools so why bother introducing a factor that has to be applied equally to every pool......it means absolutely nothing and has zero bearing on the relative strength of a group of prospects.
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2003
- 11,128
- 12,304
Harry Kakalovich
Like and reply
SannywithoutCompy
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2020
- 2,517
- 4,688
Harry Kakalovich
Like and reply
Great post.
One trend I've noticed with prospects is that people discount as failures any player who isn't a long-term top-6 forward or top-4 defenseman, which becomes a fairly difficult criteria by which to judge players. I mean there are only what 180 top 6 forwards a year and 120 top-4 dmen? And then because there is lots of change maybe only half or MAYBE 2/3rds of them stay at that level for at least 4 years. I would guess actually it might even be less than half, but even using the optimistic scenario that 2/3s do, that's 120 F and 80 dmen. You'd have to divide that over maybe 15 draft classes to account for different draft years. Is 15 enough I'm not even sure but whatever if we'll go with 15 you have 5 top 4 dmen and 8 top 6 forwards per draft class. So that means that out of the 225 players drafted per year, all but 14 of them are busts using that criteria. I know I haven't included goalies so let's add 1 goalie hit per year and call it 15/225 = not bust. And that includes the top 15 players selected, which are bound to have quite a lot of those 15 players. I find that way of valuing prospects (and draft classes) extremely harsh, and it's no wonder people who propose such standards are then ALWAYS underwhelmed by prospect development.
Personally I use GPs as a metric to evaluate drafts. I find it's the easiest and while not perfect, it provides quite an amazing amount of info. It allows me to view more prospects as successful, which I think is more accurate. Because late-round picks who turn into NHL regulars are actually not all that common and are pretty big success stories.
Harry Kakalovich
Like and reply
HabsSlappy
Registered User
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,059
- 13,988
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Weber is a great exception to that rule, and we all know Guhle doesnt have the generational shot Weber had.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,059
- 13,988
You could be right here. Watching Dobes he looks great, like a Price-lite.
After Mailloux, I'd love to see Dobes and Primeau go back-to-back. Primeau proved his mental fortitude last spring, something I value highly in a goalie.
That would be the best case scenario but like we know, not everyone develops the same. There is no such things as 100% in prospects as a previous poster was referring to.
The more likely scenario would be a #3 D-man.
