Ottawa prospect Number 1

Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:
Your first round picks immediately jump to the top of your prospect rankings

I dunno, but sounds like he *is* making a correlation between draft order and ranking.

when a guy was JUST selected in the first round, he will jump up to the top of your rankings. It's not that hard to comprehend. These players were picked 18th and 21st for a reason.

In three-five years, that might be totally different.

McDavid breaks his leg in the off-season and can't compete this coming year. Next year the Oil drafts 7th and picks whoever. That player rises above McDavid in the org and league-wide rankings?

Your position isn't hard to comprehend, it's just silly.

No. Again you're not understanding what I'm writing. The players with the most upside and most project ability are the top prospects. McDavid would still be #1, clearly, but the other player they just picked 7th overall would most certainly become #2.

Not certainly. What if they picked someone (like Alfie) late, and then that player's ability level rose exponentially? You have a very black&white approach to this and, as is often the case with black&white thinking, it's full of problems.

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:
Your first round picks immediately jump to the top of your prospect rankings

I dunno, but sounds like he *is* making a correlation between draft order and ranking.

when a guy was JUST selected in the first round, he will jump up to the top of your rankings. It's not that hard to comprehend. These players were picked 18th and 21st for a reason.

In three-five years, that might be totally different.

Philly picked JVR second overall, but he returned to uni the next year. You think they ranked Sbisa over him a year later?

AGAIN, NO. You're putting words in my mouth. I did NOT say that player BECOMES THE #1. I said they go to the top of your prospects list and YOU RANK THEM ACCORDINGLY.

In the Sens case, Chabot and White go over average prospects like Lindberg and Prince IMMEDIATELY. Maybe they drop in three years, but as of now, they are our best prospects along with a few other guys.

Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:
Your first round picks immediately jump to the top of your prospect rankings

I dunno, but sounds like he *is* making a correlation between draft order and ranking.

when a guy was JUST selected in the first round, he will jump up to the top of your rankings. It's not that hard to comprehend. These players were picked 18th and 21st for a reason.

In three-five years, that might be totally different.

McDavid breaks his leg in the off-season and can't compete this coming year. Next year the Oil drafts 7th and picks whoever. That player rises above McDavid in the org and league-wide rankings?

Your position isn't hard to comprehend, it's just silly.

No. Again you're not understanding what I'm writing. The players with the most upside and most project ability are the top prospects. McDavid would still be #1, clearly, but the other player they just picked 7th overall would most certainly become #2.

What if the player they drafted in the second round three years prior clearly has a greater upside than the 7th overall?

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:
Your first round picks immediately jump to the top of your prospect rankings

I dunno, but sounds like he *is* making a correlation between draft order and ranking.

when a guy was JUST selected in the first round, he will jump up to the top of your rankings. It's not that hard to comprehend. These players were picked 18th and 21st for a reason.

In three-five years, that might be totally different.

McDavid breaks his leg in the off-season and can't compete this coming year. Next year the Oil drafts 7th and picks whoever. That player rises above McDavid in the org and league-wide rankings?

Your position isn't hard to comprehend, it's just silly.

No. Again you're not understanding what I'm writing. The players with the most upside and most project ability are the top prospects. McDavid would still be #1, clearly, but the other player they just picked 7th overall would most certainly become #2.

Not certainly. What if they picked someone (like Alfie) late, and then that player's ability level rose exponentially? You have a very black&white approach to this and, as is often the case with black&white thinking, it's full of problems.

AGAIN. AGAIN - if that player so happens to become an uber prospect, then they would be ranked accordingly. It doesn't change the fact that the guy they just picked 7th overall will be at the top (with other first rounders and uber prospects).

ITS A CASE BY CASE BASIS. In the Sens case THEY DON'T HAVE MANY ELITE PROSPECTS, IF ANY. In this case, WHITE AND CHABOT GO TO THE TOP OF THE RANKINGS ALONG WITH PUEMPEL.

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:
Your first round picks immediately jump to the top of your prospect rankings

I dunno, but sounds like he *is* making a correlation between draft order and ranking.

when a guy was JUST selected in the first round, he will jump up to the top of your rankings. It's not that hard to comprehend. These players were picked 18th and 21st for a reason.

In three-five years, that might be totally different.

McDavid breaks his leg in the off-season and can't compete this coming year. Next year the Oil drafts 7th and picks whoever. That player rises above McDavid in the org and league-wide rankings?

Your position isn't hard to comprehend, it's just silly.

No. Again you're not understanding what I'm writing. The players with the most upside and most project ability are the top prospects. McDavid would still be #1, clearly, but the other player they just picked 7th overall would most certainly become #2.

What if the player they drafted in the second round three years prior clearly has a greater upside than the 7th overall?

THEN THEY WOULD BE RANKED BELOW THAT PLAYER. in the Sens case, WE DONT HAVE ANYBODY with greater upside than White or Chabot.

Simple concept guys - your first round picks immediately become part of your 1st tier of prospects. That simple.

Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:
Your first round picks immediately jump to the top of your prospect rankings

I dunno, but sounds like he *is* making a correlation between draft order and ranking.

when a guy was JUST selected in the first round, he will jump up to the top of your rankings. It's not that hard to comprehend. These players were picked 18th and 21st for a reason.

In three-five years, that might be totally different.

McDavid breaks his leg in the off-season and can't compete this coming year. Next year the Oil drafts 7th and picks whoever. That player rises above McDavid in the org and league-wide rankings?

Your position isn't hard to comprehend, it's just silly.

No. Again you're not understanding what I'm writing. The players with the most upside and most project ability are the top prospects. McDavid would still be #1, clearly, but the other player they just picked 7th overall would most certainly become #2.

Not certainly. What if they picked someone (like Alfie) late, and then that player's ability level rose exponentially? You have a very black&white approach to this and, as is often the case with black&white thinking, it's full of problems.

AGAIN. AGAIN - if that player so happens to become an uber prospect, then they would be ranked accordingly. It doesn't change the fact that the guy they just picked 7th overall will be at the top (with other first rounders and uber prospects).

ITS A CASE BY CASE BASIS. In the Sens case THEY DON'T HAVE MANY ELITE PROSPECTS, IF ANY. In this case, WHITE AND CHABOT GO TO THE TOP OF THE RANKINGS ALONG WITH PUEMPEL.

So whoever picked Lazar for this poll would be wrong because Stone looks a LOT better, right?

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:
Your first round picks immediately jump to the top of your prospect rankings

I dunno, but sounds like he *is* making a correlation between draft order and ranking.

when a guy was JUST selected in the first round, he will jump up to the top of your rankings. It's not that hard to comprehend. These players were picked 18th and 21st for a reason.

In three-five years, that might be totally different.

McDavid breaks his leg in the off-season and can't compete this coming year. Next year the Oil drafts 7th and picks whoever. That player rises above McDavid in the org and league-wide rankings?

Your position isn't hard to comprehend, it's just silly.

No. Again you're not understanding what I'm writing. The players with the most upside and most project ability are the top prospects. McDavid would still be #1, clearly, but the other player they just picked 7th overall would most certainly become #2.

Not certainly. What if they picked someone (like Alfie) late, and then that player's ability level rose exponentially? You have a very black&white approach to this and, as is often the case with black&white thinking, it's full of problems.

AGAIN. AGAIN - if that player so happens to become an uber prospect, then they would be ranked accordingly. It doesn't change the fact that the guy they just picked 7th overall will be at the top (with other first rounders and uber prospects).

ITS A CASE BY CASE BASIS. In the Sens case THEY DON'T HAVE MANY ELITE PROSPECTS, IF ANY. In this case, WHITE AND CHABOT GO TO THE TOP OF THE RANKINGS ALONG WITH PUEMPEL.

So whoever picked Lazar for this poll would be wrong because Stone looks a LOT better, right?

Wrong.

I'm confused. In the example above we have three players the 2nd rounder (2nd highest upside based on development and the player's ability, which isn't always reflected in draft position), McDavid, and this years 7th.

I rank them McDavid, 2nd rounder, 7th overall.

I believe (at this point) that you rank them McDavid, 7th overall, 2nd rounder.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ev wrote:Simple concept guys - your first round picks immediately become part of your 1st tier of prospects. That simple.

So what's the point of a poll?

Ev wrote:Simple concept guys - your first round picks immediately become part of your 1st tier of prospects. That simple.

My problem, I hope, is with your earlier phrasing. When you said this year's 1st rounder goes to the top of the prospect list with the rest of your top prospects, I understood that to mean the new 1st rounder is the #1 prospect and the other top prospects are ranked under them. That's what "he goes to the top of the list" means.

Simple concept, Ev, say what you mean, and say it well so people don't misunderstand. The fault isn't always going to be with the reader, if you get my drift.

spader wrote:I'm confused. In the example above we have three players the 2nd rounder (2nd highest upside based on development and the player's ability, which isn't always reflected in draft position), McDavid, and this years 7th.

I rank them McDavid, 2nd rounder, 7th overall.

I believe (at this point) that you rank them McDavid, 7th overall, 2nd rounder.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I said I would rank them McDavid followed by whoever has the most upside/talent/project ability to the NHL. It's like the Sens when we picked Zibanejad. he immediately became our #1 prospect.

its a case by case basis. The Sens, who we are discussing, had a pretty average crop of prospects, so White and Chabot should definitely be at the top somewhere.

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:Simple concept guys - your first round picks immediately become part of your 1st tier of prospects. That simple.

My problem, I hope, is with your earlier phrasing. When you said this year's 1st rounder goes to the top of the prospect list with the rest of your top prospects, I understood that to mean the new 1st rounder is the #1 prospect and the other top prospects are ranked under them. That's what "he goes to the top of the list" means.

Simple concept, Ev, say what you mean, and say it well so people don't misunderstand. The fault isn't always going to be with the reader, if you get my drift.

You're nitpicking every single thing I say and kind of trolling, to be honest.

Let's end this here and be clear that I didn't mean the 1st rounder immediately becomes the #1 prospect.

Ev wrote:

spader wrote:I'm confused. In the example above we have three players the 2nd rounder (2nd highest upside based on development and the player's ability, which isn't always reflected in draft position), McDavid, and this years 7th.

I rank them McDavid, 2nd rounder, 7th overall.

I believe (at this point) that you rank them McDavid, 7th overall, 2nd rounder.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I said I would rank them McDavid followed by whoever has the most upside/talent/project ability to the NHL. It's like the Sens when we picked Zibanejad. he immediately became our #1 prospect.

its a case by case basis. The Sens, who we are discussing, had a pretty average crop of prospects, so White and Chabot should definitely be at the top somewhere.

Now you're making sense. This is so much better than the way you made your point earlier.

Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

Ev wrote:Simple concept guys - your first round picks immediately become part of your 1st tier of prospects. That simple.

My problem, I hope, is with your earlier phrasing. When you said this year's 1st rounder goes to the top of the prospect list with the rest of your top prospects, I understood that to mean the new 1st rounder is the #1 prospect and the other top prospects are ranked under them. That's what "he goes to the top of the list" means.

Simple concept, Ev, say what you mean, and say it well so people don't misunderstand. The fault isn't always going to be with the reader, if you get my drift.

You're nitpicking every single thing I say and kind of trolling, to be honest.

Let's end this here and be clear that I didn't mean the 1st rounder immediately becomes the #1 prospect.

Not trolling at all. I'm trying to make sense of your "simple concept." I haven't nitpicked at all. I've been trying to figure out what you meant by the one comment that I've asked for clarification on several times.

This is me right now

Can't believe you guys are discussing this over dozens of posts.

Personnally, I got Ev's point the 1st time he mentionned it. Usually the most recent 1st rounder is usually one of if not the top prospect in the organization, no matter what Mark Stone does prior to his NHL stints.
No matter how good a late rounder looks in the AHL, there will always be doubts until he breaks out at the NHL level. Bigger doubts than the recent first round pick. That's how it is and always will be.

LeCaptain wrote:Can't believe you guys are discussing this on dozens of posts.

Personnally, I got Ev's point the 1st time he mentionned it. Usually the most recent 1st rounder is usually one of if not the top prospect in the organization, no matter what Mark Stone does prior to his NHL stints.
No matter how good a late rounder looks in the AHL, there will always be doubts until he breaks out at the NHL level. Bigger doubts than the recent first round pick. That's how it is and always will be.

We could have avoided a lot of this if he'd said it like that. "One of the top prospects" makes sense to me. "The top pick moves to the top of the list" says something else.

Whatever. I have Paul as the Sens top prospect right now, followed by Puempel. The other guys fight it out for the rest of the list. Chabot and White are definitely in the top 5 or so, but I was arguing that they don't go to the top of the list by virtue of their draft position.