Ottawa Senators Top 10 Prospects - as voted on by GMH members!

We started this in the summer - and we're done the Top 10 Ottawa Senators prospects. There will be differing opinions from month to month, but we should probably only do this once a year - once every six months at the most. So, here we are - and the Sens have 3 D-men running 1, 2 and 3, then a potential franchise netminder and a defensively sound projected 2nd line center. Z.Smith, Caporusso, Petersson, Silfverberg and especially now O'Brien are all question marks. While most thing Zach will play NHL hockey sooner rather than later, the only other prospect in the Top 10 with a stellar chance of making it is Silfverberg.


1.Erik Karlsson
2.Jared Cowen
3.Patrick Wiercioch
4.Robin Lehner
5.Peter Regin
6.Z.Smith
7.Louie Caporusso
8.Jim O'Brien
9.Andre "3000" Petersson
10.Jakob Silfverberg


So, how would you rank and describe these guys?

Use a number system to rate the prospect out of 10 and talk about what kind of player you think they will be. For example:

Zach Smith - prospect rating 7 out of 10 - Will be a nice physical addition to the Senators. Likes to drive the net and score 'dirty' goals and is just as adept at playing defensive hockey - delivering hits, breaking up passes. Will soon be a more skilled version of Chris Kelly and make his presence shown on the Sens.

Comparible: Sam Pahlsson.

Any reason you keep spelling it caulkner? Its carkner.

Mine, I guess, at this point are:

1) Karlsson (9)
2) Lehner (9)
3) Cowen (9)
4) Regin (8.5)
5) Wiercioch (8.5)
6) Silfverberg (8)
7) Smith (7.5)
8) Petersen (7)
9) Hoffman (7)
10) Zubov (7)

Although, in about a month, I'm guessing the list will have to be updated, as Karlsson and Regin will have likely jumped from "prospect" to legit.

How is Carkner even a prospect at this point? He'll be turning 29 in November.

What kind of framework are we looking at with these numbers?What is a 10 out of 10? If we go by HF's ratings, it's Crosby. Ovechkin was a 9.0A.

asq2 wrote:What kind of framework are we looking at with these numbers?What is a 10 out of 10? If we go by HF's ratings, it's Crosby. Ovechkin was a 9.0A.

That's a good question, I would say a 7 will be a guy that will make the NHL and have a successful - if perhaps modest career. 8 would be a star. 9 would be a superstar. 10 would be a franchise player a la Crosby. Right?

SpezDispenser wrote:

asq2 wrote:What kind of framework are we looking at with these numbers?What is a 10 out of 10? If we go by HF's ratings, it's Crosby. Ovechkin was a 9.0A.

That's a good question, I would say a 7 will be a guy that will make the NHL and have a successful - if perhaps modest career. 8 would be a star. 9 would be a superstar. 10 would be a franchise player a la Crosby. Right?

Seems like a pretty big jump from 7 to 8.

asq2 wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

asq2 wrote:What kind of framework are we looking at with these numbers?What is a 10 out of 10? If we go by HF's ratings, it's Crosby. Ovechkin was a 9.0A.

That's a good question, I would say a 7 will be a guy that will make the NHL and have a successful - if perhaps modest career. 8 would be a star. 9 would be a superstar. 10 would be a franchise player a la Crosby. Right?

Seems like a pretty big jump from 7 to 8.

Yeah it does. I would say 10 is just unreachable. For a prospect to get a 10 in my books, he'd literally have to be good enough to outright win games on his own. In this game, no matter what you say about goalies doing that or w/e, there is just no one who is that good. No one gets a 10 in my books.

9 is the rating for a likely star. Someone who gets league wide recognition and is seen as one of the best in the game at his position.
-Top-30 player, Top-10 for goalie

8 is for a player who is likely to see 500+ games in the NHL and is likely to have a positive impact on the teams he plays for. Maybe not league wide recognition, but good enough that avid fans know what he is good for and what he can do.
-Top-100 player, Top-25 goalie (starter)

7 is a player who can and should compete in the NHL at some point in their career. They have the skill at their respective position/strength to compete and be a factor on many nights. These players should all be capable of playing a minimum of 200 games in the NHL.
- NHL calibre player/goalie (if only for a few seasons)

Below 7 are your longshots and the hopeless.

Still seems like a pretty wide gap between the numbers. Do we even need 10 numbers? What's the difference between a 2 and a 3?

asq2 wrote:Still seems like a pretty wide gap between the numbers. Do we even need 10 numbers? What's the difference between a 2 and a 3?

Hence the .5's

The whole system is arbitrary. I don't think its all that important. I feel like those prospects listed are our 10 best for a variety of reasons. That being said, I'm not about to defend their placement with lengthy descriptions and explanations....so I use numbers intsead

CCgotITcovered wrote:

asq2 wrote:Still seems like a pretty wide gap between the numbers. Do we even need 10 numbers? What's the difference between a 2 and a 3?

Hence the .5's

The whole system is arbitrary. I don't think its all that important. I feel like those prospects listed are our 10 best for a variety of reasons. That being said, I'm not about to defend their placement with lengthy descriptions and explanations....so I use numbers intsead

Yeah, I think it was you and I who were talking about getting people to comment on prospects and rate them with comparable players etc. It would be neat to see how everyone feels about them.

Well, you can add Lee to that list because he is obviously still a prospect.

It might be easier to give them a rating out of five.

1.Erik Karlsson - 4 1/2 stars out of 5

Pros: can outlet the puck better than most NHLers at the age of 19, knows when to pinch, knows how to draw defenders away from him and thread a pass to an open man. Two of his best attributes are his hockey IQ/sense. He can read a play magnificently sometimes waiting for the clog of bodies in the neutral zone to dissipate before outletting. The other attribute would be that shot - a laser beam that, like his more established peer, seems to find its way to the net most of the time.

Cons: he's not the biggest guy in the world, but he doesn't really need to be. He likes to try to out think opponents in the defensive zone - and that can lead to pucks being smacked back into dangerous areas. Possibly lacks that explosive speed that makes guys like Campbell and to a lesser extent Corvo have.

Comparibles: Dan Boyle, Nicklas Kronwall.

Talent floor: A PP specialist that will be able to transition the play well.

Talent ceiling: An all-round D-man, complete with the tools to be effective in his own zone as well as commanding a PP. Points-wise, the sky's the limit. 60 won't be out of reach in 5 years.

SpezDispenser wrote:1.Erik Karlsson - 4 1/2 stars out of 5

Pros: can outlet the puck better than most NHLers at the age of 19, knows when to pinch, knows how to draw defenders away from him and thread a pass to an open man. ...

Is that a Jedi mind trick?

More seriously, though, I am not sure I would say at this point that he knows when to pinch. He's gotten caught a couple of times and it will happen more when the regular season starts with *real* lineups. It would be fair to say that he *likes* to pinch, and is quick enough on his skates to do that. But he will get caught, probably quite a bit.