SuperAlmeida
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2010
- 1,130
- 52
Hockey Prospectus - LA Kings Top 10
- Thread starter SuperAlmeida
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Not agreeing AT ALL with the 27th overall organization ranking. While the names aren't there at the top maybe (and we have a few more standouts than people give us credit for), we have a tremendous mid-level group wtih a lot of potential. Off the top of my head I would put our system well ahead of Washington, Vancouver, Philly, San Jose, New Jersey, Colorado, and Winnipeg no doubt in my mind.
etherialone
dialed in your mom
I agree completely.
The thing is that most people who arrange those sort of reviews seem to over value the one or two "elite" talents that an org will have and way undervalue the "high probability low impact" types entirely.
We have a majority of prospects who should make the NHL and a system that has steadily built a reputation for developing very solid young knowledgable hard working players. If we are among the worst in the league in this department then why is that our castaways always end up being taken by the rest of the league and always end up being impact players for their new teams?
This like most reviews of its type are simply just to chock full of nonsense to be taken seriously.
Send em your write up as a reply Jason, that would stand as solid imo.
kingsfan
President of the Todd McLellan fan club by default
I 100% agree as well. I say we should be middle of the pack (anywhere from 10th to 18th). We aren't the best by any stretch, but those are some damn fine NHL caliber prospects. We are far better than 27th.
Regarding the list though, I think Fasching is way to high. Kid has good ability and I think he has an amazing work ethic and heart, but there's a reason he fell as far as he did. He just didn't do anything offensively compared to what he should have. He needs a strong year to earn a top 10 spot.
Other than that, I'm ok with the list. it will be nice when 'experts' stop ranking Forbort ahead of Gravel though. Former 1st round picks get way to much credit for their draft ranking on these things.
ScoreZeGoals
Boooorrrrriiiinnnnng
- Jun 29, 2010
- 17,663
- 7,682
Rorschach
Who the f*** is Trevor Moore?
Switch Deslauriers with Gravel?
We might not have the best prospect class but our system graduates them like a champ.
Other teams take from our waivers, we don't take from theirs.
We might not have the best prospect class but our system graduates them like a champ.
Other teams take from our waivers, we don't take from theirs.
i love that..................
for decades we have been 2nd ranking and didn't make the playoff.
If we win the cup on a constant base i am fine with being ranked 30th
Wasn't Igor Larionov 35 when coming to Detroit as rookie ???
Who cares about youth, give Toffoli 17 years of experience in the minors before he joins as rookie
for decades we have been 2nd ranking and didn't make the playoff.
If we win the cup on a constant base i am fine with being ranked 30th
Wasn't Igor Larionov 35 when coming to Detroit as rookie ???
Who cares about youth, give Toffoli 17 years of experience in the minors before he joins as rookie
kingsfan
President of the Todd McLellan fan club by default
Larionov first came to Vancouver in 1989 as a 29 year old.
He also wouldn't have factored onto a list like this. Usually no one over 25 gets on these lists.
Actually a decent list besides the two glaring errors. As pointed out, lol at Forbort over Gravel. It truly is laughable. But besides that, how am I the ONLY one to point out Fasching being way too high? I really love Fasching, both as a human being and as a player, but he's a huge boom or bust prospect. And his boom isn't really enough to warrant being in the top 10.
I've never understood the Forbort "disappointment" To each their own though.
I just see 21 years old and coming off a stellar college career...that's great.
The Gravel/Forbort argument...Gravel does ONE thing. He does it very very well. Forbort has a multi-faceted game which overall adds tremendous value. Gravel will not be an offensive contributor, he will not be a powerplay guy, he will not start offense from his own zone. Forbort can do all of those things and kill penalties. Adds to his value. Can he do it as well as Gravel? No probably not, but he has other factors in his game.
I just see 21 years old and coming off a stellar college career...that's great.
The Gravel/Forbort argument...Gravel does ONE thing. He does it very very well. Forbort has a multi-faceted game which overall adds tremendous value. Gravel will not be an offensive contributor, he will not be a powerplay guy, he will not start offense from his own zone. Forbort can do all of those things and kill penalties. Adds to his value. Can he do it as well as Gravel? No probably not, but he has other factors in his game.
Forbort's offensive game did nothing to progress in 3 years. I'm sorry but I wouldn't call that a stellar college career. He MAY make it as a defensive guy but in no way, shape, or form do I see Forbort doing anything offensively at the NHL level. Forbort may have a better breakout pass but he's not someone who I see actually starting any offense. So then, that means he's going to have to be a defensive guy. And I just don't know about that with him. Whereas yes, Gravel does one thing well - defend. The guy is Scuderi lite. The reason I rate Gravel so highly as a prospect is because he's a guy I think will be on one of our top two pairs for a very long time and I think he's got a good shot at it. Forbort COULD turn out to what you think of him but I think the odds of that are very low. Again, everything is a matter of opinion and I certainly respect yours in a lot of cases. But we'll just have to agree to disagree on Forbort.
I'll be seeing a lot of him this year. A lot. So hopefully he can do something to change my mind. But my hopes aren't high...
kingsfan
President of the Todd McLellan fan club by default
Beat you to it
A) You seem to have a loose defiition of 'stellar'
B) Gravel, at least to me, projects to be a more physical version of Rob Scuderi. Forbort does a lot of things, but he doesn't do any one thing very well. Gravel will be the shutdown type who logs 22 minutes a game in all situations. Forbort will be Jake Muzzin 2.0 Nothing wrong with that, but a Scuderi is more valuable than a Muzzin.
I'd gladly be wrong on that, and it's not a knock against Muzzin. I just see Forbort as a #4-#6 D-man, while Gravel in my opinion is a #4 at least, maybe a #3 or even top pairing guy like Scuderi or Mitchell have been.
As you said though, D-men take longer to develop, so Forbort could prove me wrong. I just think he was drafted more for the physical tools he has, and he hasn't thus far shown he has the toolbox to match. Gravel is just a very smart player.
Yea it's fair to agree to disagree at this point. I think he was hyped to be a lot more than what he will end up being. Still has the tools to be an NHL caliber defenseman in my eyes which is good.
And don't get me wrong, I am a HUGE Gravel fan. Probably the best NCAA shutdown Dman out there.
