Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
@Calgary4life
All those things you said about Valimaki were also said about Anderson the year he was drafted. Remember how excited we were when he scored 64 points in 67 games and was 4th in team scoring. Seriously, go check it out for yourself.
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p...php?pid=165972
All of these kids have talent, but all of them have holes in their games. They all have things they have to work on to become professionals. Continuing down the Andersson example, his conditioning and dedication to the game were in question, and it took a couple years to turn that around. Only after that was addressed did we start to see a player that has actual NHL potential. Valimaki will fall in the same boat. There are things he will have to work on before the team thinks he's ready to challenge for a position, and that should always be remembered. |
So, what holes specifically do you see in Valamaki's game?
We have been doing this long enough by now that you should honestly know better: every poster who participates in this exercise will employ her/his own criteria when ranking prospects. Some will weigh potential very heavily; others will weigh development; most will try to carefully consider these factors together. That is why most of us disagree all the time about how they all ought to be ranked.
It is beyond condescending for you to lecture other posters about what they should or should not be doing when compiling their own rankings of the team's prospects. I don't really care where Valamaki was drafted, nor how supposedly thick or thin the 2017 draft class is—he is a very impressive young player, and it does not appear remotely unlikely that he could round out to be the best Flames defense prospect. That is why I voted for him in this first round of the rankings, but am completely aware that with Jankowski, Parsons, and probably Andersson there is some lively debate about who belongs at the top.
There is more than one way to do this. Get over yourself.