Seems alot of the recent draftees are really getting under-rated, not sure if it's just lack of seeing them or what. THere's a ton that I like about all of Auger, Fasching, Bartosak, and Brodzinski. The only ones I feel like I'm unsure of is Leslie. Also outside of Prokhorkin I'll just say that I nailed the top 6 so there isn't much I can complain about on this list.
Personally, a lot of it stems back to the fact that I need to see more of the prospect before I feel comfortable rating him higher or lower. The first time I see a prospect is always "the baseline." While my rankings are based on how they are compared to their peers, I also base my rankings on how their raw skills have progressed; without having a first time of seeing them, I wouldn't be able to say how much they have progressed. That's why more recent draftees almost always take a hit in my rankings.
I try to fill in the blanks based off what I read and maybe some youtube video, but I don't even like that so much, only because youtube might have HIGHLIGHTS, which is a player at his best.
Also, I'd like to add something on Hyka since I'm seeing a ton of people rolling him around the bottom of their lists and why he is higher on mine.
He's a tremendous passer and playmaker. Very shifty very very creative. Yes as an overage his numbers were worse than his previous year BUT let's really take into consideration that Gatineau was a team that wasn't very good last season. Outside of Emile Pourier (Who by all accounts was a big of a surprise)...who still only had 32 goals, Gatineau had NO one who you could consider an elite goalscoring threat at the junior level, and the Q is normally a VERY wide open league in terms of offense. It's a goalscorers league. His playmaking skills really were wasted at times, especially on the PP. Same could be said for 2011-2012 where he had 44 assists on a team that only had two other 20 goal scorers outside of himself. That's pretty impressive. Take this with a grain of salt obviously, I hate comparisons, but to me he reads like an Ales Hemsky lite, but smaller. Without a person to pass to, Hemsky looks worse than he really is. In 05-06 when Edmonton was a better team and Hemsky had Smyth, Horcoff, Stoll, Pisani and Torres (who 3 of those 5 were playing WAY above their heads) to wheel and deal to. Flash forward to the next season when Stoll, Pisani, Torres and Horcoff all had very down years and you see a dip in assists by almost 20 from Hemsky. Question is did Hemsky make them better? Or did they make Hemsky better? Now with Hyka it seems like he needs the players around him. Is it good that Hyka has to rely on others so much to bolster his value? Yea it kind of is, which is the reason why he was a 6th round pick and not a 2nd or 3rd. Still though, he possesses some dynamite offensive skills, easily one of the best playmakers in the Kings system.
He's a great player with some really great offensive skills on a very subpar offensive team. It's no surprise to me that people rate him so low on their own lists. In passing you could easily look at his numbers on a stat sheet, then look at his size, and say "well he doesn't look like that good of a player."
Those are interesting observations, insights, and opinions, and I thank you for the feedback; I haven't seen him play a lot, but when I do, he's usually driving to the net and trying to score a goal. I always likened his absolute upside to be a Daniel Briere type player, as a result. So, clearly we're seeing different games and performances, which will have a big impact on how we rank them. I don't like what little I've seen, and I didn't like much of what I saw last year, and the disappointing numbers are reflected in what little I saw.
But you bring up a good point. He did play on an average team and he might be the kind of player who needs good players to keep up with his skills.
The same could be said in regards to my statement on Roach and Miller (Which KP touched on and I forgot to respond to.) Miller doubled his points on a weak/average team which is a statement to how good he played last year. Roach tripled his points on an AWESOME Calgary Hitmen squad. Couple that with him being overaged it just makes me ponder it a little harder than Miller. Was it a fluke? Miller was a player who stepped up on the Greyhounds and led, Roach was a solid performer on a team full of outstanding performers. Not to downplay either of their performances, they both were fantastic, and they also both have a lot to prove, but Roach had a few more things weighted against him as opposed to Colin Miller.
I can understand and appreciate that. I don't entirely agree, because the way I look at Roach, he has a good set of tools, plays with grit, and for at least a season, he's added offense to an already solid foundation. Miller's mostly been an offensive defenseman, and put up better numbers doing his main role, as opposed to Roach who put up great numbers in his secondary role. There's a balance.
But in strictly answering my question as to why it's an asterisk for one but not the other, you answered it. Thank you for the time.
