HF Org Rankings Released

[PhoPhan]

I don't want to sound like a whiner, but can someone please justify the Coyotes being 29th?

 

[Ajacied]

I don't want to sound like a whiner, but can someone please justify the Coyotes being 29th?

They, together with the Wild and even Stars strike to me as the most notable "weird" and questionable positions.

 

[think-blue-]

I guess that's why it says "Proud provider to FoxSports.com" on HF's front page.

What does that prove?

It doesn't mean HF had anything to do with the rankings aside from the proflies of the players being copied and pasted. Im not denying there is an affiliation between the two parties, but some gross inaccuracies make me question who did this thing.

And I would think HF would post the actual rankings on their own site before giving it to fox.

 

[evildreams]

since they listed every kings prospects, along with their nephews and cousins, how about including campbell/koivisto/globke/kreps for FLA?

IMO, FLA and MTL should be ahead of CHI

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

since they listed every kings prospects, along with their nephews and cousins, how about including campbell/koivisto/globke/kreps for FLA?

IMO, FLA and MTL should be ahead of CHI

It's just a position thing. I guess they decided to only bother listing the top 10 guys from the team they thought was number 1. I see nothing inherantly wrong with doing that in an article.

Still, the ranking sucks. The prospects listed *seem* to be in order of importance but that only highlight some gross inaccuracies. Where is Babchuk for Chicago? I could go on and on but I will just say I think these rankings aren't very good.

Then again, I'm not sure I agree with posters on WHY they aren't very good. In fact, most posters don't seem to agree with each others in this regard.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes you are a blind f'n moron since I've never said the things you claimed I did. If so, back them up with actual facts or links, or God knows how 11 year olds try that these days.

Untill then, you're still a blind f'n moron with the iq of a wet brick.

Haha, one of the most dim-witted posters here is bringing up IQ. To put it simply for you, your IQ matches my shoe size son.
As for facts? It's easy, we know what to expect from your usual posts. Of course the Stars should be ranked higher... afterall, they have a deep plethora of prospects don't they?

 

[Jovavic]

By they way nice Avatar. Expect to see some retaliation from the good side on this one

Just poking some fun at ole 7NA

 

[jfont]

relax ppl relax...lets get back to the topic...

 

[OttMorrow]

Haha, one of the most dim-witted posters here is bringing up IQ. To put it simply for you, your IQ matches my shoe size son.
As for facts? It's easy, we know what to expect from your usual posts. Of course the Stars should be ranked higher... afterall, they have a deep plethora of prospects don't they?

Hey dipsh!t! Lay off Modano=God. His original comment of the list being horrilble is quite accurate.

 

[MOOSE55]

Yes you are a blind f'n moron since I've never said the things you claimed I did. If so, back them up with actual facts or links, or God knows how 11 year olds try that these days.

Untill then, you're still a blind f'n moron with the iq of a wet brick.

Aren't you a moderator

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hey dipsh!t! Lay off Modano=God. His original comment of the list being horrilble is quite accurate.

Oh no, I have delusional Stars fans attacking me. And why would anybody in there right mind make a nut who thinks Modano Is God a moderator.
Just a few more things (along with these rankings) that leaves one scratching his head.

 

[DJ Spinoza]

I don't know enough about the other systems to comment on their rankings (for all I know, other teams really outdid even the Penguins), but the only disappointing prospects in Pittsburgh aren't even prospects by HF's definition (Beech, Kraft, whoever; although Whitney had an off-year). Meanwhile, quite a few gained a lot of attention since the last ranking (Eaves, Welch, Bartschi, Christensen, Surovy, Murley, Talbot, Bissonnette). And Abid was acquired. And that's without the high picks in the latest draft.

Quite a bit improved for the Pens, but they dropped six spots.

Neither do I, really.

I would say the Pens have dramatically improved. First, adding Marc-Andre Fleury to your system makes you a lot better quickly. The next three picks after him look like solid pick too....But really, outisde of Fleury, that draft is beside the point right now.

As you said there are many players playing a lot better since last year, which one would think improves your rating.

Maybe the question that we should pose is whether or not HF had the Pens too high last year?

 

[Gwyddbwyll]

Ziggy - so what you are really saying is that you agree totally with M=G's original post that the rankings are horrible?

Pitkanen Vandermeer Woywitka Carter Richards Sharp Ruzicka Fraser

Philly certainly has some top-end talent. But where you have put 3rd rounder role guys (Sharp, Ruzicka, Fraser) a few other teams below still have more 1st and 2nd rounders after their top 4/5.

I would like some confirmation from HF they had a lot of input into this list. It doesnt seem like it to me and doesnt seem consistant with previous lists. This list is not even on their own website yet. David Leneveu is not even mentioned in the Coyotes capsule as well as 3 other first rounders (Knyazev, Eager, Koreis) and the guys at HF do know about them. Calgary over Ottawa with Taratukhin and Krahn as their no.4 and no5 best prospects? Ri-ight. This list reads like it was made by someone who only really knows the most hyped 30 prospects and not much else.

Final thought. The Coyotes, ranked #29 have just beat the top ranked #1 LA Kings in their own backyard to win the Pacific rookie tourney. As well as Anaheim and San Jose who are both in the top half of this ranking. Its not usually in my nature to complain about lists but you gotta scratch your head on that one.

 

[Hiishawk]

Many, even most, of you guys are way too critical of this and other prospect articles. OK, so the writer leaves one guy off your team`s list who you think should be on it- so shoot him. Some of you list 3 or 4 other unmentioned prospects for your team and say things like "what about these guys??". The fact is that the writer chose only 5 prospects for each team. Naturally, a few will be disputable but I see no glaring nonsense on the list.

If you knew your own team's actual prospect rankings OR how other NHL teams view your team`s prospects you would undoubtedly find many stranger lists. Same thing with the draft. So many armchair writers here say things like, "Why isn't ----- in the top 10? He`s great!" without saying who should be removed/replaced from that top 10. And most of you would be calling top NHL scouts and GMs morons and idiots if you saw their draft lists. I get tired of this stuff- you rate a guy a little higher than a writer, scout or GM and suddenly that writer/scout/whatever is a scumsucking moron unworthy to pick Osama bin Laden's nose.

Same thing happens with any other hockey publication or writer. A guy you like doesn't get on the list, or is ranked lower than you expect, and- bam!- the publication is crap, the writer know f-all about hockey etc. etc. Back off a bit, eh?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ziggy - so what you are really saying is that you agree totally with M=G's original post that the rankings are horrible?

The rankings aren't horrible... I'd like to see some of you rank the teams in detail by listing each teams top prospects and an analysis of their talents and what warrants them to be ranked in their respective positions. Of course, I don't expect that to happen.
But I disagree with a few of their rankings.
Obviously we all know why Modano=God would disagree with it, because his Stars are always "underrated" ... he doesn't have to say it, he is just that predictable.

Philly certainly has some top-end talent. But where you have put 3rd rounder role guys (Sharp, Ruzicka, Fraser) a few other teams below still have more 1st and 2nd rounders after their top 4/5.

I would like some confirmation from HF they had a lot of input into this list. It doesnt seem like it to me and doesnt seem consistant with previous lists. This list is not even on their own website yet. David Leneveu is not even mentioned in the Coyotes capsule as well as 3 other first rounders (Knyazev, Eager, Koreis) and the guys at HF do know about them. Calgary over Ottawa with Taratukhin and Krahn as their no.4 and no5 best prospects? Ri-ight. This list reads like it was made by someone who only really knows the most hyped 30 prospects and not much else.

Final thought. The Coyotes, ranked #29 have just beat the top ranked #1 LA Kings in their own backyard to win the Pacific rookie tourney. As well as Anaheim and San Jose who are both in the top half of this ranking. Its not usually in my nature to complain about lists but you gotta scratch your head on that one.

So an exhibition game in which not all of the prospects listed participated in now determines who has better prospects?

 

[Dr GLU]

There are lots of teams I disagree with, including the one of the Stars, where they didn't even include the Stars current top prospect. Their system continues to get no respect what so ever, but I'm fine with it as long as we consistantly prove them wrong (Turco, Morrow, Kapanen, Ott, Miettinen).

Yes, they did. At the time it appears this was written, the Stars Top 5 on HF were in this order: Ott, Miettinen, Bacashihua, Daley, Lundqvist, which is exactly how they have them listed (except Miettinen's name is freaking mangled).

Just because you think someone else is the Stars current top prospect doesn't mean I agree, and essentially it was my opinion that put them there.

 

[willie]

Final thought. The Coyotes, ranked #29 have just beat the top ranked #1 LA Kings in their own backyard to win the Pacific rookie tourney. As well as Anaheim and San Jose who are both in the top half of this ranking. Its not usually in my nature to complain about lists but you gotta scratch your head on that one.

While I agree that Phoenix should be rated higher, an exhibition game such as that does not even REMOTELY indicate the strength/weaknesses of a teams prospects core.

 

[Missionhockey]

Hey Ziggy, lay off M=G and stop being so biased. M=G has a point anyway. The Stars have decent depth, especially on LW. They deserve around 15th. I think we all agree that this list is horrible but unless you write one yourself and it gets published there is nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[Gwyddbwyll]

Ziggy I did not say it 100% determines who has the better prospects. My point was that its just rather surprising that the #1 team, the #12 team and the #15 team should all lose to the unheralded #29 team dont you think? Maybe that #29 team isnt quite that weak.

I agree though.. that is why I usually wouldnt criticize them heavily.. its easier to do that than to make your own. But frankly this list deserves it.

While I agree that Phoenix should be rated higher, an exhibition game such as that does not even REMOTELY indicate the strength/weaknesses of a teams prospects core.

Hey I agree its not a cast-iron representation. Never said it was. However to say it does not REMOTELY indicate the strength/weakness is pushing it. I do think it is a good indication.. that is why it is called a prospect/rookie tournament after all!

 

[KingPurpleDinosaur]

would be a closer indication if we had our top prospects playing in the last game. i believe by then we lost 3 to injury (cammalleri grebeshkov and aulin) and our russian prospects were all in russia. prior to the last game, we dominated everyone, but then, just like w/ the kings, injuries got us in the end...

 

[V for Voodoo]

One that sticks out to me as being strange is Ottawa. If Spezza wasn't counted, then I think 11 would be pretty fair. But 11 with Spezza included seems low. It just struck me as peculiar.

Not necessarily. After Spezza, the only player in the system i would describe as a sure-fire blue chipper is Ray Emery. The Sens do have a pretty decent crop with quite a bit of nhl talent, and based on their prior record we shouldnt be surprised to see another sleeper emerge, but i don't see any top line/pairing potential from any of these guys.

Vermette, Laich, Platil, Kaygorodov, Mirnov are good prospects, but they are not outstanding. Most teams have their own Laichs and Kaygorodovs IMO.

 

[psycho_dad*]

Oh no, I have delusional Stars fans attacking me. And why would anybody in there right mind make a nut who thinks Modano Is God a moderator.
Just a few more things (along with these rankings) that leaves one scratching his head.

From what I read, he asked you to show where he had said the things you claimed he had said. If you cant provide proof to your claims, why are you still talking? If you were talking out of your ass, you should be ashamed and vanish...and hope that people dont remember that you are one who throws out accusations without backup.

I don't know either of you, have seen you both posting few times and never really on issues I care about that much, but I absolutely hate people who first accuse and then fail to provide evidence. If you have no proof, shut up and apologize.

 

[Dave is a killer]

First, calling Stone and Carcillo solid picks is ridiculous. They are grinders who can't skate. Both looked very poor in camp.

Second. the Pens to prospects by any rational definition were Beech, Kraft, and Sivek. All bombed. Meanwhile, LA, Philly and some other teams did great at the draft. They have no top forward prospects at all. Guys like Bartaschi, Eaves and Christensen are very unlikely ever to see the NHL. They are too small and/or too soft.

The top defensive prospect, Whitney, had a bad year, possibly because of injury, but it was still a bad year.The Only people who talk up Welch are the Pens staff. No else thinks that he is that great. There are no other good defensive prospects.

All in all, it is not a great group. Take awy Fleury and they would be average at best.

That other team ... Nashville who by everyone here said they had the best draft top to bottom ... with Suter, Glazachev, Klein, Weber, Stehlik, Brown, Sulzer, Shafigulin, Lassilla (2nd in the FNL behind Lehtonen, with as not as strong a team as Lehtonen) and yet we move up 1 spot...good call guys

 

[Enoch]

Haha, one of the most dim-witted posters here is bringing up IQ. To put it simply for you, your IQ matches my shoe size son.

Are you going to throw out a your mom joke at us next?

As has been said, these lists do not even list the best prospects from each team. Why should I buy into a ranking that cannot even list the top 5 prospects on each team correctly???

 

[Enoch]

Just a few more things (along with these rankings) that leaves one scratching his head.

If you agreed with M=G to begin with *that these rankings were bad* then why did you attack him personally?