Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameZilla
Guys like Jooris, Bouma & Ferland are examples of why there is no 'maginot line' on these surveys. Once-promising prospects bust all the time & 'no-talent character plugs' sometimes exceed all expectations.
I like the looks of prospects 1 to 20 more than the ones listed afterwards, though there are some promising players in the later ranks.
If I had to predict who the next Jooris would be I would put my money on Garnet Hathaway or Austin Carroll. Late bloomers but they have some serious talent.
|
I think a perceived Maginot Line is important, but that isn't to say the players above it are all guaranteed. Development archs are random and any one can either stall or burst ahead at any time.
However if you look at the number year to year its a pretty important stat even if it is subjective.
Year after year at rookie camp Eric Nystrom was the only guy that stood out for a handful of years. We went through a process to rank and assess prospects but even then we knew the list wasn't very deep. You didn't have to go 17 with a hum and haw over a guy.
Looking back on those years the Maginot line was likely 3, I would guess at the time I would have called it something like 7.