I wouldn't be so quick to pile it on. Look at Craig Buttons rankings. If I just watched all the games and didn't have access to the popular lists I'm sure mine would differ drastically as well. (And only partly due to being an amateur-you get the point)
Craigs lists don't look as bad looking back either. Some of the picks he was ridiculed for look alright (like Virtanen)
I always think back to my buddy Brock Otten ranking Fabbri over MDC. He was the only one to due so, one just finished 18-19-37 in 72 GP in NHL the other got cut from WCJ. Different people see different things. With that said it does seem a little over the top.
Last edited by druetetective; 04-11-2016 at 12:25 AM.
IMO Nylander has a better shot than Puljujarvi. Laine and Nylander both have amazing shots. I'd say Laine's one time slapshot is one of the heaviest and fastest I've ever seen at his age.
Yup, Nylander has a great shot, but Laine is clearly a notch above. Some people are calling him the best goalscoring prospect since Ovetchkin.
You gotta wonder if McKeen's went for the shocker picks to drive website traffic.
Or maybe they just have a different take on the players? You're always agreeing that there is no hard and fast list, yet you always seem to fight to conform to said "list." It is possible to have a different opinion, see players differently, like one player over an another and believe they will have greater potential at the next level. The only player on McKeens list that surprises me is Laine at #1, but after the year he's had, especially his playoff push, I can see him getting the top slot. A player of his size and skill is something every team in the NHL wants, so I understand the ranking. Not sure I agree, but I can understand them making that call.
Or maybe they just have a different take on the players? You're always agreeing that there is no hard and fast list, yet you always seem to fight to conform to said "list." It is possible to have a different opinion, see players differently, like one player over an another and believe they will have greater potential at the next level. The only player on McKeens list that surprises me is Laine at #1, but after the year he's had, especially his playoff push, I can see him getting the top slot. A player of his size and skill is something every team in the NHL wants, so I understand the ranking. Not sure I agree, but I can understand them making that call.
Laine at #1 doesn't surprise me. But having a guy that reputable scouts and scouting services don't have in their top 10 at #3? That's not just having your own opinion, that's trying to make a point by using hyperbole. If he had McLeod at #5, I can buy that. But to put a guy in the top tier that people don't have in the top two tiers? Yikes. I understand liking McLeod a LOT. But to put him ahead of Puljujarvi is more than a little crazy to me.
I think there could be teams out there that have Laine #1. I don't think there's any team that has McLeod top 3. Just my opinion.
I dunno, I'm all for different lists and not parroting the consensus as you rightfully point out. But this list is hard to buy into simply because I think having McLeod in the top 3 is a joke to me.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Chatting at work regarding the Flames 5th position and whether or not it would make sense to use assests to move up in this years draft for one of the big 3 if we are not graced with a lottery ball.
Would you guys trade the 5th-8th pick (pending lottery loss) for 1 of Laine or Puljujarvi?
I would assume it would take one or multiple of the following:
1st RD - 2017
2nd RD - 2016/2017
Young prospect with high potential (Kylington, Shinkaruk, Poirier)
Laine at #1 doesn't surprise me. But having a guy that reputable scouts and scouting services don't have in their top 10 at #3? That's not just having your own opinion, that's trying to make a point by using hyperbole. If he had McLeod at #5, I can buy that. But to put a guy in the top tier that people don't have in the top two tiers? Yikes. I understand liking McLeod a LOT. But to put him ahead of Puljujarvi is more than a little crazy to me.
I think there could be teams out there that have Laine #1. I don't think there's any team that has McLeod top 3. Just my opinion.
I dunno, I'm all for different lists and not parroting the consensus as you rightfully point out. But this list is hard to buy into simply because I think having McLeod in the top 3 is a joke to me.
That's your opinion. Maybe they came away just as impressed by McLeod as I did? Seriously, McLeod was just awesome everytime I saw him. He was the player on the ice that impressed in every single shift he was out there. I went to be impressed by Nylander and came away amazed with McLeod. You want guys with good motors on your team. That guy is McLeod. Best motor I have seen from any player in this draft class. Add to that above average skills and elite level speed and he is a kid you get excited about. I don't think he is in the top tier of three, and I still believe the top tier is three deep, but he is in that next one and the player that excites me the most. I can understand why they have a chub for this kid.
Chatting at work regarding the Flames 5th position and whether or not it would make sense to use assests to move up in this years draft for one of the big 3 if we are not graced with a lottery ball.
Would you guys trade the 5th-8th pick (pending lottery loss) for 1 of Laine or Puljujarvi?
I would assume it would take one or multiple of the following:
1st RD - 2017
2nd RD - 2016/2017
Young prospect with high potential (Kylington, Shinkaruk, Poirier)
It's hard to say what it would cost. I would make a Our first +2nd + Poirier for Laine tho.
It's hard to say what it would cost. I would make a Our first +2nd + Poirier for Laine tho.
Just flip that around though. If we win the 2nd spot, would you take that package from a team to move down to 5/6/7? I sure as hell don't.
My guess is it would cost a good, reasonably young roster player (like a Backlund), next year's 1st, and a 2nd. That's why you don't see these moves happen -- they're prohibitively expensive.
The Following User Says Thank You to Five-hole For This Useful Post:
If the Flames get dropped down to 7/8th, McLeod may look good there. The thing with this draft though is that outside the top 3, it seems to be pretty level through the next 7-10 picks. It may come down more to how teams assess the players or team needs.
I like Dubois, who would be my first choice after the big 3, but all of these players have great attributes but also question marks, which is why they are not in that top 3.
Just flip that around though. If we win the 2nd spot, would you take that package from a team to move down to 5/6/7? I sure as hell don't.
My guess is it would cost a good, reasonably young roster player (like a Backlund), next year's 1st, and a 2nd. That's why you don't see these moves happen -- they're prohibitively expensive.
My guess is it would cost a good, reasonably young roster player (like a Backlund), next year's 1st, and a 2nd. That's why you don't see these moves happen -- they're prohibitively expensive.
I'd be willing to overpay for Laine. I would offer this years 1st, next years 1st, and this year's Dallas pick if it turned into a 1st. So yes, three 1sts. Overkill just to move up a few picks? Perhaps...but I think he's one of those guys that checks off so many needs that you need to step up and get him. I also don't see this team being Top 5 for quite a while after this year, so the chances to draft up these types of dynamic talents will be considerably harder after this year.
Having said that, these types of trades are pretty rare, as teams never went to give up this type of quality. But considering where they are in their rebuild, a team like Toronto may value the quantity of picks over the quality (Not unlike us in 2013).
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
