Prospect Info: Rangers Prospect Poll: #10

[Edge]

I'd agree but he played in more than 21 games since the Rangers drafted him two years ago. Are you thinking of Wall?

Meant against a higher level of competition, aka collegiate.

 

[Zil]

Nieves, add Gettinger

 

[Mikos87]

Pionk should be a lot higher imo. He plays a modern game, very much like one Brandon Montour. Still can't believe ANA gave up Theodore to Vegas.

Much like Skjei, these are your counter transition defesement. Pionk grew into a man's body this past year and his game took off. 20+ teams were after him.

I think he plays 40 games in the AHL, and gets some games in after ADA loses AV's trust.

I like Gropp a lot more than most here, and think he's got Chimera like upside. Which is great if he can play a two way game.

IMO, and this gets overlooked... Gropp had the best calendar 2017 outside of all prospects not named Shesty.

He'll surprise and get some NHL games next year imo. But I think his upside is limited as a very solid bottom sixer. Gropp's size & speed quotient is a very nice mix.

He also does something that you have to pull Kreider's teeth to do.... he'll chase pucks north south at full speed. Chris did that for the first 30 games last year, and the final period before the elimination game.

Gropp doesn't have the shot, and that 7th gear Kredier likes to show when he's up against soft competition... but Gropp will go at guys full speed.

 

[Edge]

Gropp's game to me is pretty well suited to the pro game, because it doesn't rely on a dizzying amount of flashy moves or skills that some kinda in junior come to depend on, but then can't replicate against bigger, stronger and faster competition.

Gropp is at his best, in a support role, by just getting into position.

The challenge is that he's not the guy you want carrying the puck and creating the play. So if there isn't someone there to play that role, it diminishes his strengths. And outside of Barzal, Seattle was very weak in that position.

 

[Joey Bones]

Huska add Kovacs

 

[nyr2k2]

Gropp's game to me is pretty well suited to the pro game, because it doesn't rely on a dizzying amount of flashy moves or skills that some kinda in junior come to depend on, but then can't replicate against bigger, stronger and faster competition.

Gropp is at his best, in a support role, by just getting into position.

The challenge is that he's not the guy you want carrying the puck and creating the play. So if there isn't someone there to play that role, it diminishes his strengths. And outside of Barzal, Seattle was very weak in that position.

Gropp has no problem finding space in junior hockey--can he do it against pros, where everyone is bigger, stronger, covers more area and moves much faster? He's not a great puck handler, so if he struggles to find space in the pros then he doesn't really bring anything else to the table. He's kind of one-dimensional in that respect. I like him but I need to see him do it at a higher level before I can really get behind him.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Gropp has "talent" but he hasn't really put up the kind of stats you'd expect. Even as an overager, his stats were not that good. You can say that he had a bad start, then really picked it up, but the guy was an overager. You'd expect him to dominate the WHL last season, the whole season, if he was a legit top 6 prospect, not stretches of the season, and then laying an egg in other stretches.

I recognize Gropp has some tools, but I'm not sure that I trust that he'll utilize those tools well enough to stick in an NHL role.

 

[Matz03]

Pionk should be a lot higher imo. He plays a modern game, very much like one Brandon Montour. Still can't believe ANA gave up Theodore to Vegas.

Much like Skjei, these are your counter transition defesement. Pionk grew into a man's body this past year and his game took off. 20+ teams were after him.

I think he plays 40 games in the AHL, and gets some games in after ADA loses AV's trust.

I like Gropp a lot more than most here, and think he's got Chimera like upside. Which is great if he can play a two way game.

IMO, and this gets overlooked... Gropp had the best calendar 2017 outside of all prospects not named Shesty.

He'll surprise and get some NHL games next year imo. But I think his upside is limited as a very solid bottom sixer. Gropp's size & speed quotient is a very nice mix.

He also does something that you have to pull Kreider's teeth to do.... he'll chase pucks north south at full speed. Chris did that for the first 30 games last year, and the final period before the elimination game.

Gropp doesn't have the shot, and that 7th gear Kredier likes to show when he's up against soft competition... but Gropp will go at guys full speed.

Pionk can rally climb the rankings after a good start in Hartford, he has the tools and also young for a college ufa. No need to rush him at all. Unless there are major injuries he's should spend full year in Hartford.

Regarding Gropp, I totally disagree here and I'm high on his potential. First off, he has the NHL shot he just needs to round out his game in Hartford. Hoping he has a good scoring year in Hartford, maybe two before we see him up. I can't imagine he'd have such a turn around this offseason to be close to NHL ready. I just hope in Hartford he gets top 9 and pp minutes.

 

[Savant]

Huska add Gettinger

 

[Edge]

Gropp has no problem finding space in junior hockey--can he do it against pros, where everyone is bigger, stronger, covers more area and moves much faster? He's not a great puck handler, so if he struggles to find space in the pros then he doesn't really bring anything else to the table. He's kind of one-dimensional in that respect. I like him but I need to see him do it at a higher level before I can really get behind him.

Without a doubt he has his question marks, but more then some of these other guys we're mentioning? At worst, his flaws and question marks are no bigger, while his upside is higher.

 

[Edge]

Gropp has "talent" but he hasn't really put up the kind of stats you'd expect. Even as an overager, his stats were not that good. You can say that he had a bad start, then really picked it up, but the guy was an overager. You'd expect him to dominate the WHL last season, the whole season, if he was a legit top 6 prospect, not stretches of the season, and then laying an egg in other stretches.

I recognize Gropp has some tools, but I'm not sure that I trust that he'll utilize those tools well enough to stick in an NHL role.

The guy was 20 years old, because he missed a cut-off by one day. He lead his team in goals, and finished second in points behind Barzal.

There are a lot of guys who didn't dominate their competition who are playing in the NHL? Why? Because their game translates better.

But even beyond that, why didn't some of these other guys dominate, even when they were older than their competition? If that's the standard, why aren't we applying it evenly? Why is the expectation for Gropp to "dominate" and for a guy like Nieves it was clearly because of "his assigned role" when he was coming out of college?

If we're going to talk about being older, wouldn't that apply to a defenseman who was a freshmen--- at age 20?

Again, my issue isn't that Gropp is the second coming. My issue is that we're acting like Gropp was a top 10 pick. Even reading this thread, I'm seeing words sneak in that lead me to believe we're grading him on a very different scale.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

The guy was 20 years old, because he missed a cut-off by one day. He lead his team in goals, and finished second in points behind Barzal.

There are a lot of guys who didn't dominate their competition who are playing in the NHL? Why? Because their game translates better.

But even beyond that, why didn't some of these other guys dominate, even when they were older than their competition? If that's the standard, why aren't we applying it evenly? Why is the expectation for Gropp to "dominate" and for a guy like Nieves it was clearly because of "his assigned role" when he was coming out of college?

If we're going to talk about being older, wouldn't that apply to a defenseman who was a freshmen--- at age 20?

Again, my issue isn't that Gropp is the second coming. My issue is that we're acting like Gropp was a top 10 pick. Even reading this thread, I'm seeing words sneak in that lead me to believe we're grading him on a very different scale.

I apologize, but I don't really understand the point here.

I don't have him below Nieves or Jensen or any of these fringe guys who are playing in the AHL, and might project for very small NHL roles. I'm simply making the point that I don't have him above guys like Graves, Huska, Wall, Zborovskiy who don't have such a big strike mark against them that Gropp has with being sent back to junior hockey after most thought he'd start in the AHL.