[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

A 2.5 is basically means that the specific tool is okay, not something that'll make them stick by itself. If you have all 2.5's you're going to be a guy that has a hard time sticking in the NHL but could have several cups of coffee or be a journeyman like Mark Smith or David Van Der Gulik or...... just an okay depth guy. Usually players have different aspects where they are significantly better than average in and that makes them stick in the NHL even though they might be average in lots of areas. Mikael Backlund for example would probably score a 2.5-2.75 with his shot, but would get a 4 for his hockey sense. A potential 1st liner would/should have mostly 4's.

It's also not so much about the raw tools, but how they are applied that'll determine whether they will become an NHL talent. I'm going to use an extreme example here, but Anders Eriksson as a prospect back when he was with Detroit would've scored 4's in a lot of categories except one. The area that he would've got close to a 1 in was hockey sense, and that limited his overall ability. He should've been a star player if it wasn't for that. Because of his higher end skills, he was traded 1 for 1 for Chris Chelios when Chelios was still good. Chicago thought he'd be able to put everything together, but that one deficiency made him nothing more than a bubble guy on a bunch of teams.

Gaudreau is another potential example of this. He has all the talent in the world, but his height could limit him, either by getting injured or not being able to navigate through the NHL players.

Also, the Flames have a large amount of players that could make the NHL in some aspect. I know it seems like my ratings are all sunshine and roses, but in my rankings last year, I tore several guys apart because of holes in their game (Ryan Howse being the most notable, but I also ragged on Ortio for having a really bad attitude in not giving the camp any effort whatsoever). None of the returning players I watched took a step backwards from where they were last year. That's more of a shock to me than anything. There's usually one guy that just falls off the face of the planet, but not this time. Culkin and Roy didn't improve as much as the rest, but they did improve.

Thanks, I was also confused. If 2.5 is the 'baseline' for each skill then I would expect the true average NHLer to average out around 3-3.5? Otherwise your ratings seem too optimistic.