I mean, a lot of the guys ahead of him haven't proven anything at the pro level either and most are further away with their own warts. Eh, everyone weighs prospects differently, like you said.He gave his reasons why on the podcast. NHL scouts still aren’t sold on him, because of his size and lack of elite traits, and they thought he had obvious issues in his brief NHL stint.
Just because he has a different opinion on a player doesn’t cause him to lose credibility - talk about being overly sensitive! Especially when his opinion is shared by plenty of professionals, and the player has proven nothing at the pro level.
Eh, I don't really care if he has us 1 or 3 or 5. His analysis is just shallow and unimpressive. I get that he's doing essentially a "pop" version of scouting, but man there's just not a lot of substance. Maybe it's an ESL thing, but he recycles phrases and writes in cliches to the point where meaning is lost.Tough crowd.
It is a lot of prospects though. Short of a time trial of every player in the league being used, with such a large quantity of players, there will be mistakes. Do we really think he knows much about Neuchev? The rankings have to be based on projection, as that is the whole point of prospect speak: projecting. Not everyone gets faster, smarter, and more skilled though.Eh, I don't really care if he has us 1 or 3 or 5. His analysis is just shallow and unimpressive. I get that he's doing essentially a "pop" version of scouting, but man there's just not a lot of substance. Maybe it's an ESL thing, but he recycles phrases and writes in cliches to the point where meaning is lost.
I wish more people would use a baseball-style scouting rubric. Pronman may have cribbed the five tools he scores - skating, puck skills, hockey sense, compete, shot - from baseball's classic five tools - hitting, power, running, fielding, throwing. But his use of "below NHL average, above NHL average" is so bad in comparison to the classic 20-80 baseball scale (50 being average). The only reason to not use letter or number grades is to cover lack of intel with vagueness. Also, baseball uses the helpful "current grade/potential grade" format, which colors in the picture of a player's development arc. For example he has Neuchev's skating as "below NHL average." Does that mean he projects Neuchev to be a below average NHL skater in his prime? That's silly. He probably grades as a 30/50+ skater (current/potential).
Yes projection - an estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones. Stating where the prospect currently is vs. where they are projected to reach and the likelihood...is the whole point. There's a reason baseball notes "present/future," as it informs ETA and ceiling using the simple shorthand of four digits.It is a lot of prospects though. Short of a time trial of every player in the league being used, with such a large quantity of players, there will be mistakes. Do we really think he knows much about Neuchev? The rankings have to be based on projection, as that is the whole point of prospect speak: projecting. Not everyone gets faster, smarter, and more skilled though.
The format of the article, I’m assuming, is his choice. If he doesn’t have the ability to rank the top 20 prospects of each nhl team, then don’t. Is there honestly much difference in grades once you get beyond a certain point? Break it down in sub categories this bracket of teams don’t have 5 quality prospects, don’t research more than 5 guys. This bracket has 5-7 guys, research 5-7 guys. This is my top 3, have something significant to say about their pool.It is a lot of prospects though. Short of a time trial of every player in the league being used, with such a large quantity of players, there will be mistakes. Do we really think he knows much about Neuchev? The rankings have to be based on projection, as that is the whole point of prospect speak: projecting. Not everyone gets faster, smarter, and more skilled though.
Would he be who he was if he was drafted bt the Browns instead of the Patriots
That's a good question. Brady and Belichick are in the Michael Jordan / Larry Bird tier of innate competitiveness. It's interesting to debate Belichick without Brady vs. Brady without Belichick. I firmly believe either would have sold both their own, and the other's grandmother into slavery to achieve what they collectively achieved (if they haven't already done so). I think they'd sell everyone's grandmother into slavery, come to think of it.Would the Patriots have won a SB without Brady?
Its interesting to think about since Brady proved he could win without Belichik in Tampa, but would Brady have had the career he did if he came up under a different coach.That's a good question. Brady and Belichick are in the Michael Jordan / Larry Bird tier of innate competitiveness. It's interesting to debate Belichick without Brady vs. Brady without Belichick. I firmly believe either would have sold both their own, and the other's grandmother into slavery to achieve what they collectively achieved (if they haven't already done so). I think they'd sell everyone's grandmother into slavery, come to think of it.
The famous misquote attributed to legendary Liverpool manager Bill Shankly applies here. We underestimate how insanely driven the most successful people have to be to consistently excel.That's a good question. Brady and Belichick are in the Michael Jordan / Larry Bird tier of innate competitiveness. It's interesting to debate Belichick without Brady vs. Brady without Belichick. I firmly believe either would have sold both their own, and the other's grandmother into slavery to achieve what they collectively achieved (if they haven't already done so). I think they'd sell everyone's grandmother into slavery, come to think of it.
i enjoy his write ups and articles, but they are just for entertainment. The idea that one person could have such a good understanding of every team’s U23 talent…to a degree he could rank them.
He clearly seems to have more access to NHL team scouts these days…he sure mentions it a lot lately .I just find it amusing how he seemingly is trying to make a concerted effort to veer away from his usual spinny spinny skate fast to nowhere but look good doing it prospects to more align with how NHL teams draft
I like Pronman and Wheeler. As a hockey fan who enjoys the draft and following our prospects, it is great to have the content they provide. Do I agree with them on all of their rankings? Of course not. It would be some kind of amazing if a person who covers prospects across all teams and leagues could nail the general consensus on prospect rankings that an NHL team's fanbase has. I don't think this is something to be taken too seriously. The good news is that we are loaded with good young players.
I haven't listened to his comments on the Sabres yet, so haven't heard what he said about Levi. I did, though, hear his earlier comments on Calgary's goalie prospect Dustin Wolf. He actually referenced Levi in these comments and, I'm paraphrasing, said that there are two sets of opinions on Wolf and Levi: There is the public/local-media/fan opinion that these goalies are NHL #1's in waiting, and then there is the inside the NHL opinion that there is real uncertainty about whether they are true #1 NHL goalies.
Imagine thinking that Levi had "obvious" issues in his 7 game stint. The only issue is that he wasn't a Sabre all season where we would have easily made the playoffs. This list is f***ING GARBAGE.
Scouts got something wrong but the armchair quarterbacks knew better. Said no one ever.scouts are notoriously stupid
Scouts led to the greatest athlete of all time being picked in the 6th round, 199th overall. That says everything you need to see about dumb scouts
Yeah it is, but than again isnt this his fulltime job?Yeah, it's hard to rank 800 guys.
IIRC, he used to do that 20-80 thing but walked away from it. Unless you have a calibrated measuring stick with ample, clean, objective data, precise scores are pseudoscience -- i.e., bullshit. He's truthfully displaying vagueness as vagueness.Eh, I don't really care if he has us 1 or 3 or 5. His analysis is just shallow and unimpressive. I get that he's doing essentially a "pop" version of scouting, but man there's just not a lot of substance. Maybe it's an ESL thing, but he recycles phrases and writes in cliches to the point where meaning is lost.
I wish more people would use a baseball-style scouting rubric. Pronman may have cribbed the five tools he scores - skating, puck skills, hockey sense, compete, shot - from baseball's classic five tools - hitting, power, running, fielding, throwing. But his use of "below NHL average, above NHL average" is so bad in comparison to the classic 20-80 baseball scale (50 being average). The only reason to not use letter or number grades is to cover lack of intel with vagueness. Also, baseball uses the helpful "current grade/potential grade" format, which colors in the picture of a player's development arc. For example he has Neuchev's skating as "below NHL average." Does that mean he projects Neuchev to be a below average NHL skater in his prime? That's silly. He probably grades as a 30/50+ skater (current/potential).
Yeah it is, but than again isnt this his fulltime job?
If some people around here would have their whole time dedicated to hockey I would wonder what kind of lists they would come up with, like yourself Sir!
Because you are on a discussion forum called hockeys futureWhy do people care where the sabres prospects are ranked?