- Sep 1, 2010
- 10,037
- 8,008
... because Shesty has dominated at KHL, AHL, and NHL levels?If they're including Alexis Lafreniere then how is he not #1?
It doesnt insult Laf's performance to qualify it as mostly being in the Q to-date
... because Shesty has dominated at KHL, AHL, and NHL levels?If they're including Alexis Lafreniere then how is he not #1?
NCAA is strict. You can't even get a stipend in the major juniors and still be eligible. I don't know the precise answer to the question though- guys like Hagelin and Kjellberg only played "J20" before coming to the NCAA- I can't imagine that, for example, the Allsvenskan where he would likely be playing would let him return to the NCAA.
He's a strong kid, decent skater. He can play 200 feet but the offense never really developed. His production was basically the same every year. Maybe he can eventually make it as a fourth line PK type.Hey does anyone know anything about Cam Morrisson? An Avs Prospect from Notre Dame who they didnt' sign by the deadline. 6'2" with power forward size. But I don't know anything about him really. Anyone with any insight here?
Some headscratchers in there
- Shestyorkin ahead of Lafreniere
- Lundkvist only at 5
- Ragnarsson is in this but not Edström
I would flip Lundkvist and Miller.
She wants to have a Zoom call with me on Sunday to discuss my comments on her ranking haha. I think the Lundkvist vs Miller debate will take up most of our time
She wants to have a Zoom call with me on Sunday to discuss my comments on her ranking haha. I think the Lundkvist vs Miller debate will take up most of our time
She wants to have a Zoom call with me on Sunday to discuss my comments on her ranking haha. I think the Lundkvist vs Miller debate will take up most of our time
She wants to have a Zoom call with me on Sunday to discuss my comments on her ranking haha. I think the Lundkvist vs Miller debate will take up most of our time
Will it be cordial or is she mad you disagreed?
I have to ask Rangers fans about Lundkvist. I see highlights that look like he has an excellent shot but all the scouting reports I’ve read seem to indicate his shot is the weakest part of his game. Am I wrong with seeing it looks pretty damn good? Oh, and can you trade him to Boston?!?!? Haha
I have to ask Rangers fans about Lundkvist. I see highlights that look like he has an excellent shot but all the scouting reports I’ve read seem to indicate his shot is the weakest part of his game. Am I wrong with seeing it looks pretty damn good? Oh, and can you trade him to Boston?!?!? Haha
Lundkvist has a sneaky release that catches goalies off guard. It reminds me a bit of Duncan Keith's half slap-shot, where he doesn't wind up fully. Lundkvist's shot isn't the hardest, but it's more about precision rather than velocity. I would say his offense is probably one of his weaker assets but that's only because he is so good defensively and in transition.
This is very accurate. I would almost compare Lundkvist’s shot to a baseball pitcher who can throw a ball with a lot of movement. It’s not so much the velocity, so much as it can be really hard to get a read on what’s coming.
I'm not expecting his new-found offense to translate at all, and despite that still consider him neck and neck with K'Andre.
I can definitely understand how people are so excited for him if they are of the opinion that he will consistently be a 30+ point guy.
I don't think it's really new found offense, it's just continued to develop.
Looking back at the 2018 scouting reports, none of this is completely out of left field. His offensive abilities were mentioned, they were just seen as not as developed or polished as someone like Boqvist.
Having said that, I wouldn't expect amazing offensive numbers from Lundkvist. But I think 40+ points isn't unrealistic.
40+ points from a dman is extremely good, it puts you top 25-30 in the league I think. Especially if you are also good defensively...
I'd take a dman that scores 45, is good defensively and can play in all situations over a purely offensive guy that scores 60. We have potentially one of those guys in fox. Sign me up for nils being #2
I agree. Your typical fans still see players like Kakko and Fox as "prospects", even though they no longer qualify to most writers. Basically, any young player to them is a prospect. Even myself, about 2-3 weeks ago I was reading an article or watching a youtube video about organization prospect rankings. Rangers were lower than I expected and there was no mention of Kakko, Lindgren, Fox. At first I was thinking the creator just missed them and then realized, "oh wait, they have probably 'graduated' from 'prospect' status."Would like to see a list of players with 160 games or less.
I feel like we have a lot of young talent on the roster that probably qualifies as being closer to prospects than established players at this point.
I agree. Your typical fan still see players like Kakko and Fox as "prospects", even though they no longer qualify to most writers. Basically, any young player to them is a prospect. Even myself, about 2-3 weeks ago I was reading an article or watching a youtube video about organization prospect rankings. Rangers were lower than I expected and there was no mention of Kakko, Lindgren, Fox. At first I was thinking the creator just missed them and then realized, "oh wait, they have probably 'graduated' from 'prospect' status."