Summer 2014 Prospect Ranking Poll Rd23

[Enoch Root]

Hickey, Mattson then Rafikov for me.

Looking forward to seeing Rafikov at the WJCs.

[Table 5]

I know nothing about Hickey, but I'm looking forward to seeing him play considering how high some people on this board seem to be on him.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Monahan23

Really like Gilmour but Hickey and AOM are ahead of him IMO.

How many times have you seen Hickey or Mattsson play? I haven't seen either of them. Haven't even seen highlights of them to judge whether they can do anything at any level of play. I've seen Gilmour and I've seen him be a dominant defenseman for one of the best defensive teams in college hockey. I have a real hard time believing that a kid from the AJHL or a guy that just dropped like a rock in the most recent draft are going to be vaulting ahead of players who have proven their ability to play at a high level in leagues superior to those these two were just drafted from. Don't these guys have to prove anything before we crown them better prospects than guys who have shown growth and met the organization's expectations?

[Monahan23]

I've seen Mattsson a couple times and he could've been a top 100 pick. I think right now it's a little strange to say a 210th pick is better than a 64th pick.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Monahan23

I've seen Mattsson a couple times and he could've been a top 100 pick. I think right now it's a little strange to say a 210th pick is better than a 64th pick.

People were voting for Kanzig in the first round and you find this strange?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Monahan23

I've seen Mattsson a couple times and he could've been a top 100 pick. I think right now it's a little strange to say a 210th pick is better than a 64th pick.

What I think is strange is putting guys just drafted ahead of players that have actually showed development and stepped up at the next level. For Hickey we're talking about him stepping up to the level that Gilmour is currently playing at and has become a top player for his team. Draft position isn't everything. Take our poll rankings for example. A guy selected at 104 is considered a better prospect than a guy selected at 13, in the very same draft.

You could be very right, that Hickey and Mattsson both end up being better than Gilmour, but I think they should both show some growth in their games before we say they are better than guys playing at levels above them. Like I said, I've see a couple years of Gilmour and his growth has been dramatic. If either of our recent picks show that type of growth we have a couple of studs on our hands. I just have to see that growth before declaring them that type of player.

Just curious, but how did you manage to see Mattsson play? Would love to see some feeds of him myself. If you know of some make sure you share with the rest of us hockey junkies.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by New Era

What I think is strange is putting guys just drafted ahead of players that have actually showed development and stepped up at the next level. For Hickey we're talking about him stepping up to the level that Gilmour is currently playing at and has become a top player for his team. Draft position isn't everything. Take our poll rankings for example. A guy selected at 104 is considered a better prospect than a guy selected at 13, in the very same draft.

You could be very right, that Hickey and Mattsson both end up being better than Gilmour, but I think they should both show some growth in their games before we say they are better than guys playing at levels above them. Like I said, I've see a couple years of Gilmour and his growth has been dramatic. If either of our recent picks show that type of growth we have a couple of studs on our hands. I just have to see that growth before declaring them that type of player.

Just curious, but how did you manage to see Mattsson play? Would love to see some feeds of him myself. If you know of some make sure you share with the rest of us hockey junkies.

Since this post is entirely about growth, can you please illuminate me on what grew in Gilmour's game? It sure isn't his stat line.

12/13: GP-38 G-4 A-9 P-13
13/14: GP-39 G-5 A-13 P-18

5 more points over the course of a season isn't what I would call a meteoric rise. He's a little under 0.5 PPG on a poor offensive team, which intrigues me, but I fail to see what there is to get excited about with him.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

Since this post is entirely about growth, can you please illuminate me on what grew in Gilmour's game? It sure isn't his stat line.

12/13: GP-38 G-4 A-9 P-13
13/14: GP-39 G-5 A-13 P-18

5 more points over the course of a season isn't what I would call a meteoric rise. He's a little under 0.5 PPG on a poor offensive team, which intrigues me, but I fail to see what there is to get excited about with him.

Looks like a similar increase in points compared to Jankowski from Year 1 to Year 2. I think both players will need significant production increases in the 3rd season in order to keep me believing they are future NHL players. Gilmour chances on being a NHLer is no worst than anyone else let on the list. He will probably be my next pick.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Fire

Looks like a similar increase in points compared to Jankowski from Year 1 to Year 2. I think both players will need significant production increases in the 3rd season in order to keep me believing they are future NHL players. Gilmour chances on being a NHLer is no worst than anyone else let on the list. He will probably be my next pick.

The difference being that Jankowski is 6'3" 200lbs and has shown a good 200' game and is strong in the FO circle to go along with his talent, while Gilmour is a 5'10" defenseman.

Gilmour is going to have to show above average NHL offensive talent if he is to have any chance of making it - something he simply hasn't shown yet.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

Since this post is entirely about growth, can you please illuminate me on what grew in Gilmour's game? It sure isn't his stat line.

12/13: GP-38 G-4 A-9 P-13
13/14: GP-39 G-5 A-13 P-18

5 more points over the course of a season isn't what I would call a meteoric rise. He's a little under 0.5 PPG on a poor offensive team, which intrigues me, but I fail to see what there is to get excited about with him.

His game has improved dramatically. His positioning and decision making is greatly improved. Gone are the many brain farts that affect freshmen. He shows so much more confidence while he is on the ice. His point production doesn't show much, but points don't mean much when evaluating how well a player actually executes his defensive responsibilities or the improvement in skill areas. Gilmour was a completely different player to the one the Flames drafted. He was much like Giordano in they way he was able to control the play at both ends of the ice.

[rollie619]

Voting Hickey here

[Vulcan]

Size is one reason I won't be voting for Gilmore. At 5' 10" or 11" and 180 lbs. he has to show some exceptional talent to make the NHL.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Hanowski is underrated by CP though.

Guy had a decent first AHL season and got some good NHL games last year but doesn't seem to get any credit.

Or maybe he's not that underrated or not underrated at all and his ranking is more a reflection of our tremendous prospect depth at the moment.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by New Era

His game has improved dramatically. His positioning and decision making is greatly improved. Gone are the many brain farts that affect freshmen. He shows so much more confidence while he is on the ice. His point production doesn't show much, but points don't mean much when evaluating how well a player actually executes his defensive responsibilities or the improvement in skill areas. Gilmour was a completely different player to the one the Flames drafted. He was much like Giordano in they way he was able to control the play at both ends of the ice.

Great! I'll take your word for it as I've barely seen him play. The improvement in the small areas of the game is all well and good, but I still have doubts he will ever make the NHL. I need to see him be the best defenseman on his team, leading them both offensively and defensively. Even the prospects that do that in junior or college still have to work very hard to make the NHL. Not that I care too much about size, but Gilmour is definitely undersized for the NHL and will either need to pack on at least 20 more pounds, or be nearly perfect at anticipating the play and making smart decisions…both are a tough road.

[FBI]

So when can we quote New Era that Gilmour is going to be the next Giordano ?
(That would be awesome btw)

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by New Era

His game has improved dramatically. His positioning and decision making is greatly improved. Gone are the many brain farts that affect freshmen. He shows so much more confidence while he is on the ice. His point production doesn't show much, but points don't mean much when evaluating how well a player actually executes his defensive responsibilities or the improvement in skill areas. Gilmour was a completely different player to the one the Flames drafted. He was much like Giordano in they way he was able to control the play at both ends of the ice.

I have seen him play a couple of times (on TV) and I have never walked away all that impressed. But good info. Thanks for it.

But in terms of his rating it is pretty easy to see why Flames fans are ranking players like Hickey and Mattsson over him. Gilmour was a the 14 last player drafted a season ago. I am pretty certain if he entered the draft this season he wouldn't have been picked ahead of either of those guys.

Hickey was a 3 round pick and Mattsson was projected to go much higher (and still went higher than Gilmour). Personally I have both of those guys, Roy, Cundari, Rafikov, Van Brabant, and Hanowski ahead of him.

[Scoreface]

Ah snap. I took Mattson forgetting Hickey is still there. Oh well. They're the next top two to me, though I know little of each. Hickey seems to be a nice PMD while Matt is bigger and a stay at home guy who hits more. All in all, I'm fine with my choice.

[Monahan23]

Originally Posted by New Era

Just curious, but how did you manage to see Mattsson play? Would love to see some feeds of him myself. If you know of some make sure you share with the rest of us hockey junkies.

I went to Sweden to see Family and saw him live

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by New Era

What I think is strange is putting guys just drafted ahead of players that have actually showed development and stepped up at the next level. For Hickey we're talking about him stepping up to the level that Gilmour is currently playing at and has become a top player for his team. Draft position isn't everything. Take our poll rankings for example. A guy selected at 104 is considered a better prospect than a guy selected at 13, in the very same draft.

You could be very right, that Hickey and Mattsson both end up being better than Gilmour, but I think they should both show some growth in their games before we say they are better than guys playing at levels above them. Like I said, I've see a couple years of Gilmour and his growth has been dramatic. If either of our recent picks show that type of growth we have a couple of studs on our hands. I just have to see that growth before declaring them that type of player.

Just curious, but how did you manage to see Mattsson play? Would love to see some feeds of him myself. If you know of some make sure you share with the rest of us hockey junkies.

I don't think it is strange. If you are voting based on NHL-readiness, then yes, Gilmour playing at a higher level and being closer to the NHL should get picked ahead of guys like Hickey (who is going to enter his first NCAA season in this case) makes 100% sense.

Bingo didn't provide guidelines, rules or any methodologies that we should be considering while making our selections. There is no wrong answers - except the ones that deviate from your own personal line of thinking.

For instance, my personal methodology would be something like this:

Potential (ceiling) = 60%
+
Likelihood of achievement (floor maybe?)= 35%
+
NHL readiness = 5%

A guy like Hanowski is low on my list. Low impact, not really a prospect you can see as being a 'game changer', but has great intangibles and I think will be an NHL'er as a 3rd liner (maybe) but probably as a 4th liner/energy guy. A guy like Smith who is further away, has a higher ceiling because he has more potential to be a game changer (also, in my opinion).

This is an extreme rationale to explain my methodology (and I don't mean to use it to disparage how you are selecting), but should the Flames trade Bennett (who has never played in the NHL, and is probably another season -or two - from making it for a guy like Hanowski who has already played in the NHL and who has much more pro experience? Well, nobody is going to say 'yes' to that unless you hate the Flames of course. This exaggeration is just to illustrate how I am personally ranking the prospects.

I am sure you didn't go down the list and base your rankings solely out of "Games played in the NHL". However, your argument is that you are choosing with a higher weight on NHL-readiness (since Gilmour is playing in a higher league and doing well, he is closer to the NHL).

My methodology ranks Hickey higher because I see him as a good-sized defencemen, with excellent skating ability, and a high IQ (a bit more tools than Gilmour to start with) and is starting his NCAA season this upcoming year (as oppossed to Gilmour, who is starting his third - and therefore ahead of Hickey). I project (which is all we can do at this point) that Hickey will go on to have the better career and become the more important player for Calgary.

Time may prove you right and Gilmour becomes the vastly superior player, or time may prove me right and Hickey becomes the vastly superior player. The only wrong answer here is to deviate from our own methodologies while choosing, in my opinion.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I don't think it is strange. If you are voting based on NHL-readiness, then yes, Gilmour playing at a higher level and being closer to the NHL should get picked ahead of guys like Hickey (who is going to enter his first NCAA season in this case) makes 100% sense.

Bingo didn't provide guidelines, rules or any methodologies that we should be considering while making our selections. There is no wrong answers - except the ones that deviate from your own personal line of thinking.

For instance, my personal methodology would be something like this:

Potential (ceiling) = 60%
+
Likelihood of achievement (floor maybe?)= 35%
+
NHL readiness = 5%

A guy like Hanowski is low on my list. Low impact, not really a prospect you can see as being a 'game changer', but has great intangibles and I think will be an NHL'er as a 3rd liner (maybe) but probably as a 4th liner/energy guy. A guy like Smith who is further away, has a higher ceiling because he has more potential to be a game changer (also, in my opinion).

This is an extreme rationale to explain my methodology (and I don't mean to use it to disparage how you are selecting), but should the Flames trade Bennett (who has never played in the NHL, and is probably another season -or two - from making it for a guy like Hanowski who has already played in the NHL and who has much more pro experience? Well, nobody is going to say 'yes' to that unless you hate the Flames of course. This exaggeration is just to illustrate how I am personally ranking the prospects.

I am sure you didn't go down the list and base your rankings solely out of "Games played in the NHL". However, your argument is that you are choosing with a higher weight on NHL-readiness (since Gilmour is playing in a higher league and doing well, he is closer to the NHL).

My methodology ranks Hickey higher because I see him as a good-sized defencemen, with excellent skating ability, and a high IQ (a bit more tools than Gilmour to start with) and is starting his NCAA season this upcoming year (as oppossed to Gilmour, who is starting his third - and therefore ahead of Hickey). I project (which is all we can do at this point) that Hickey will go on to have the better career and become the more important player for Calgary.

Time may prove you right and Gilmour becomes the vastly superior player, or time may prove me right and Hickey becomes the vastly superior player. The only wrong answer here is to deviate from our own methodologies while choosing, in my opinion.

A problem with your approach,

Hankowski was drafted #64 0verall in 2009

Of the 51 guys drafted #50-100 8 guys have 100+ NHL games, another 3 have 40+ NHL games and then there is a group of 11 also-rans that have 16-37 NHL games. 4 guys have less than 6 NHL games and other 25 have 0 NHL games.


Right now, just based on the fact that Hickey was just drafted in the 50-100 calculated long-shot range likely to turn pro there is a greater than 50% chance that Hickey will not make it to the point that Hankowski has made it.


Using your system out of the 60% allocated to potential Hickey along with Hunter Smith (and no further development since he was drafted) , based on draft position should get say only 15 out of 60...