Toggle sidebar

Prospect Info: Rangers Prospect Poll: #28

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Beacon

Beacon

Embrace the tank
May 28, 2007
13,676
1,454
G Brandon Halverson won round 27. G Chris Nell is added to the poll.

RULES CHANGE:

Since HF no longer functions beyond the forum, no reason to have their old rules. We do, however, need the same rules for everyone or else the rankings mean nothing.

SKATER PROSPECT: A player 24 or younger with 50 or fewer NHL games.

GOALIE PROSPECT: A player 25 or younger with 25 or fewer NHL games.

EXCEPTION 1: If a player completed the required 50/25 games, but is still not regarded as an NHL regular because he's shuffling between the NHL and the AHL, he could still be a prospect as long as he's 24 or younger and if agreed upon by most people here.

EXCEPTION 2: A player who is no older than 25 years old at the time of the vote and is a borderline NHLer could still count if agreed upon by most people here.

Please vote on who to add to the next round of polling.


TOP PROSPECTS

1. LW/RW Pavel Buchnevich
2. G Igor Shesterkin
3. C Lias Andersson
4. D Anthony DeAngelo
5. C Filip Chytil


SECOND TIER

6. D Alexei Bereglazov
7. D Ryan Graves
8. D Sean Day
9. D Neal Pionk
10. G Adam Huska
11. C/LW Cristoval "Boo" Nieves
12. LW Ryan Gropp
13. G Tyler Wall
14. G Alexandar Georgiev
15. D Sergey Zborovskiy



PROJECTS & SUSPECTS

16. RW Nicklas Jensen
17. LW Tim Gettinger
18. RW Robin Kovacs
19. D Calle Sjalin
20. C Dominik Lakatos
21. RW Ty Ronning
22. D Tarmo Reunanen
23. D Vince Pedrie
24. D Brandon Crawley
25. C Patrik Virta


LONG SHOTS

26. C Gabriel Fontaine
27. G Brandon Halverson


Brandon Halverson
Goalie -- shoots R
Born Mar 29 1996 -- Traverse City, MI
Height 6.04 -- Weight 203

2016-17 Hartford Wolf Pack AHL 26GP 9-16-0 3.45 .887

brandon-halverson-usa.jpg


AVAILABLE PROSPECTS

DEFENSEMEN

D John Gilmour


FORWARDS

RW Daniel Bernhardt
C Dabiel Catenacci
LW Malte Stromwall
RW Tyler Nanne


GRADUATED OR GONE:

1. LW Jimmy Vesey
2. D Brady Skjei
3. C/LW Marek Hrivik
4. D Troy Donnay
5. G Mackenzie Skapski
6. C Brad Morrison
7. D Tommy Hughes
8. RW Adam Chapie
9. G Mackenzie Skapski
10. D Michael Paliotta
Click to read more...
 
Nanne is zero. He was not good and then lost 2 years.

Add Gilmour because he plays in the AHL.
 
Tambo,
add Stromwall I guess, odds are he will be better
Gilmour doesn't sway me,
Nanne and Bernhardt are off-the-chart wild cards after 2 invisible seasons
and Catennacci Dabiel(sic) is just another RBourque/CThomas small AHL tweener until he proves otherwise
 
Tambo, agree to add Gilmor, Catennacci. AHL players at the least. Barron will be one to keep a close eye on in college.
 
Tambo. Should have been picked a few rounds earlier. Very Solid CHL numbers and 17 goals in the A last season that is also something pretty solid.
 
Tambo. Catenacci. Cat probably has a few more cups of coffee ahead of him. The rest are nothing guys.
 
Barron is like Nanne was a few years ago. Raw but toolsy with a chance to jump up the list.

Nanne was mediocre in the USHL then missed two years. He is the longest of long shots.
 
Pavel Buchnevich said:
What games of Nanne have you watched?
Click to expand...

1. Nobody watched any games of Nanne because he didn't play for 2 full seasons and that's exactly the point. Also at the time he was drafted, everyone around him reportedly was stunned about it.

2. Between watching most Hartford and over the last 2 years also SKA (Butcher and Shesterkin) games, plus whatever hits TV from college and the Juniors, as well as Traverse and preseason, I assure you nobody here watched more of our prospects than I have.

3. 95% of people here did not watch a single prospect outside the preseason and maybe Traverse plus maybe a couple televised game.

4. There's a reason only a couple guys give actual new info about prospects that one can learn from watching (Tambellini missed a breakaway, Halverson with a big glove save, Kovacs ran into the wall, but uninjured). Almost all discussion of prospects is repeating of known scouting reports without any new info except stats. That's because claims of watching prospects is almost always a lie. If not, ask these people to name 1 thing that was in the game, but not reported in the news. Who are you kidding?!

5. Look at the differences between how people discuss the Rangers vs the prospects. When discussing the Rangers you hear if a player made a great/bad move or had a great/bad game. With prospects, we hear the repeating of scouting reports and excitement over stats if a kid has a lucky streak.

6. Nothing says that watching games makes you understand prospects more than listening to the pros or even just looking at stats and basic info. In fact, watching leads to a ton of confusion because very few people understand how big the gap is from the NHL to whatever league they watch.

7. This is why there's always excitement about career AHLers like Parlett and Gilmour when they first hit Traverse. That tournament is below ECHL level, so obviously an AHLer looks like a monster there. If you don't understand the context of that tournament, you naturally conclude, "wow, he's a monster, maybe he can play on the Rangers Top-4 this season or at least soon."

8. For most of the people here, watching a prospect warps their opinion of him much more than if they did not watch at all and stuck to scouting reports and stats.
 
Beacon said:
1. Nobody watched any games of Nanne because he didn't play for 2 full seasons and that's exactly the point. Also at the time he was drafted, everyone around him reportedly was stunned about it.

2. Between watching most Hartford and over the last 2 years also SKA (Butcher and Shesterkin) games, plus whatever hits TV from college and the Juniors, as well as Traverse and preseason, I assure you nobody here watched more of our prospects than I have.

3. 95% of people here did not watch a single prospect outside the preseason and maybe Traverse plus maybe a couple televised game.

4. There's a reason only a couple guys give actual new info about prospects that one can learn from watching (Tambellini missed a breakaway, Halverson with a big glove save, Kovacs ran into the wall, but uninjured). Almost all discussion of prospects is repeating of known scouting reports without any new info except stats. That's because claims of watching prospects is almost always a lie. If not, ask these people to name 1 thing that was in the game, but not reported in the news. Who are you kidding?!

5. Look at the differences between how people discuss the Rangers vs the prospects. When discussing the Rangers you hear if a player made a great/bad move or had a great/bad game. With prospects, we hear the repeating of scouting reports and excitement over stats if a kid has a lucky streak.

6. Nothing says that watching games makes you understand prospects more than listening to the pros or even just looking at stats and basic info. In fact, watching leads to a ton of confusion because very few people understand how big the gap is from the NHL to whatever league they watch.

7. This is why there's always excitement about career AHLers like Parlett and Gilmour when they first hit Traverse. That tournament is below ECHL level, so obviously an AHLer looks like a monster there. If you don't understand the context of that tournament, you naturally conclude, "wow, he's a monster, maybe he can play on the Rangers Top-4 this season or at least soon."

8. For most of the people here, watching a prospect warps their opinion of him much more than if they did not watch at all and stuck to scouting reports and stats.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you. The above is true for most people here.
 
Beacon said:
1. Nobody watched any games of Nanne because he didn't play for 2 full seasons and that's exactly the point. Also at the time he was drafted, everyone around him reportedly was stunned about it.

2. Between watching most Hartford and over the last 2 years also SKA (Butcher and Shesterkin) games, plus whatever hits TV from college and the Juniors, as well as Traverse and preseason, I assure you nobody here watched more of our prospects than I have.

3. 95% of people here did not watch a single prospect outside the preseason and maybe Traverse plus maybe a couple televised game.

4. There's a reason only a couple guys give actual new info about prospects that one can learn from watching (Tambellini missed a breakaway, Halverson with a big glove save, Kovacs ran into the wall, but uninjured). Almost all discussion of prospects is repeating of known scouting reports without any new info except stats. That's because claims of watching prospects is almost always a lie. If not, ask these people to name 1 thing that was in the game, but not reported in the news. Who are you kidding?!

5. Look at the differences between how people discuss the Rangers vs the prospects. When discussing the Rangers you hear if a player made a great/bad move or had a great/bad game. With prospects, we hear the repeating of scouting reports and excitement over stats if a kid has a lucky streak.

6. Nothing says that watching games makes you understand prospects more than listening to the pros or even just looking at stats and basic info. In fact, watching leads to a ton of confusion because very few people understand how big the gap is from the NHL to whatever league they watch.

7. This is why there's always excitement about career AHLers like Parlett and Gilmour when they first hit Traverse. That tournament is below ECHL level, so obviously an AHLer looks like a monster there. If you don't understand the context of that tournament, you naturally conclude, "wow, he's a monster, maybe he can play on the Rangers Top-4 this season or at least soon."

8. For most of the people here, watching a prospect warps their opinion of him much more than if they did not watch at all and stuck to scouting reports and stats.
Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons I've pulled back on debating people over the years. Prospects started to become a topic like religion or politics for me. I couldn't have discussions with people who didn't truly understand what it was we were discussing.
 
nyr2k2 said:
I actually agree with you. The above is true for most people here.
Click to expand...

It is easy to see when a poster watched a particular prospect. With minor exceptions this community is honest in this regard so most references are coming from tweets of others who do actually watch. The breakdown is probably 80/20 tweets vs watch. Nothing wrong with that. The biggest pitfall as Beacon noted is a context that many (especially the younger folk) don't understand or care to understand, especially when it comes to comparing prospects playing in different leagues (CHL vs college vs various pro leagues)
 
Most of that is correct, but the way Beacon phrases it is really obnoxious.

And i'd guess i watch atleast close to as much of NYR prospects as you do.
 
Beacon said:
1. Nobody watched any games of Nanne because he didn't play for 2 full seasons and that's exactly the point. Also at the time he was drafted, everyone around him reportedly was stunned about it.

2. Between watching most Hartford and over the last 2 years also SKA (Butcher and Shesterkin) games, plus whatever hits TV from college and the Juniors, as well as Traverse and preseason, I assure you nobody here watched more of our prospects than I have.

3. 95% of people here did not watch a single prospect outside the preseason and maybe Traverse plus maybe a couple televised game.

4. There's a reason only a couple guys give actual new info about prospects that one can learn from watching (Tambellini missed a breakaway, Halverson with a big glove save, Kovacs ran into the wall, but uninjured). Almost all discussion of prospects is repeating of known scouting reports without any new info except stats. That's because claims of watching prospects is almost always a lie. If not, ask these people to name 1 thing that was in the game, but not reported in the news. Who are you kidding?!

5. Look at the differences between how people discuss the Rangers vs the prospects. When discussing the Rangers you hear if a player made a great/bad move or had a great/bad game. With prospects, we hear the repeating of scouting reports and excitement over stats if a kid has a lucky streak.

6. Nothing says that watching games makes you understand prospects more than listening to the pros or even just looking at stats and basic info. In fact, watching leads to a ton of confusion because very few people understand how big the gap is from the NHL to whatever league they watch.

7. This is why there's always excitement about career AHLers like Parlett and Gilmour when they first hit Traverse. That tournament is below ECHL level, so obviously an AHLer looks like a monster there. If you don't understand the context of that tournament, you naturally conclude, "wow, he's a monster, maybe he can play on the Rangers Top-4 this season or at least soon."

8. For most of the people here, watching a prospect warps their opinion of him much more than if they did not watch at all and stuck to scouting reports and stats.
Click to expand...

I'm not criticizing you, I was joking.

Nanne has not played in two years. Its unlikely he'll even be an AHL level player, but at this point, I'll vote to add the unknown over the known bad player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom