HF Updated Top 20 Devils Prospects

[Daniel]

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/90911/new-jersey-devils-top-20-brimming-with-pro-ready-defensemen/

 

For those that are interested.  Not really anything that people didn't know, but worth noting that the number grade for Boucer and Severson ticked up to 7.5.  Also a few nuggets about Merrill's play in Albany beyond the basic stats.

[Derlique]

Can't take them seriously having Wedgewood at 2 and Urbom 3

[Daniel]

Can't take them seriously having Wedgewood at 2 and Urbom 3

 

Their rankings are a bit strange in that players with higher scores get ranked lower at times.  For the people that don't watch any non-NHL hockey, like me, the player summaries are worth while. 

 

I also like that they seem to be a lot less Ron Jaworski-esque in their praise for every prospect these days.

[Devils731]

Their rankings are a bit strange in that players with higher scores get ranked lower at times.  For the people that don't watch any non-NHL hockey, like me, the player summaries are worth while. 

 

I also like that they seem to be a lot less Ron Jaworski-esque in their praise for every prospect these days.

 

I've found the Devils people on HF tend to be much more restrained than the majority of HF when compiling their rankings.  Other teams always have everyone in the first 3 rounds being future all-stars.

 

I don't have any big problems with their list.  I'd probably put Wedge lower and Gelinas higher, but no huge discrepancies from my internal list.

[Derlique]

Just mind boggling that Matteau is #8 and below the likes of Wedgewood, Urbom and Boucher. Jr played in the NHL and looked competent as an 18 year old!

[Triumph]

Just mind boggling that Matteau is #8 and below the likes of Wedgewood, Urbom and Boucher. Jr played in the NHL and looked competent as an 18 year old!

 

They have no clue.  As expected.

[Devils731]

Just mind boggling that Matteau is #8 and below the likes of Wedgewood, Urbom and Boucher. Jr played in the NHL and looked competent as an 18 year old!

 

Leaving goalies as a separate issue, I'd rank Urbom and Boucher ahead of Matteau right now.  

 

Matteau probably tops out on his upside as a second line guy, which is a nice player, but he isn't far along his developmental curve yet.

 

Urbom looks like he is going to be a NHL player and has the potential to be a good second pairing defender, so I'd rank him ahead of Matteau since they have similar value upside and Urbom is further along his development path.  I'd rank Urbom higher because he is closer to achieving his potential value.

 

Boucher, because of his explosive season, may have first line potential.  He's not much further along in his development than Matteau, but his potential upside is higher.  I'd rank Boucher higher because his upside is greater.

[DJ Eco]

This is going to be one of the more exciting training camps/preseasons in recent years. I'm ecstatic to see our young D take shape.

[Derlique]

This is going to be one of the more exciting training camps/preseasons in recent years. I'm ecstatic to see our young D take shape.

You'll probably have to wait a few more years. Salvador and Volchenkov are in the way

[ATLL765]

You'll probably have to wait a few more years. Salvador and Volchenkov are in the way

I cannot imagine we go into next camp without having a slot open for one of the young guys to fight for. I don't care who is signed right now, if Urbom or Merril is looking better than Volch, they'll play. If that means Harrold cannot be re-signed, so be it, I'd rather that than see a young guy sit in the AHL or on the bench while Volch and Sal are still playing.

Plus, who says we won't trade a d-man for nothing if we can't dump one for a pick? Like Carolina did with Jokinen, I would not be opposed to eating some of Tallinder's or Volch's(would mean he waives his NTC) salary to rid ourselves of a d-man. Even if we ate half of one of their cap hits, we'd not spend more money by calling up someone in his place and I still think we'd be a better team for it. These guys have to see the NHL eventually, right?

Edited May 22, 2013 by ATLL765

[Devil Dan 56]

Just mind boggling that Matteau is #8 and below the likes of Wedgewood, Urbom and Boucher. Jr played in the NHL and looked competent as an 18 year old!

 

I'm not sure how they reason their ranking, but they seem to have put too much emphasis on Matteau's mentality after his playoffs this year. Wedge, Boucher, and Urbom could be big pieces for Albany next year, but Matteau should be on the NHL club or the first guy called up if someone gets hurt.

 

I think Matteau's role in the NHL next year is directly related to what happens with Zubrus.

[thefiestygoat]

I noticed Jared didn't write this or the last Devils article for HF. I suppose he's moved on.

I'm a huge believer in Wedgewood but no way would I rank him #2. I'd move Matteau up because of what he's already shown and how likely he is to be able to contribute for NJ in coming years even if his potential is 2nd/3rd line. Probably move Clermont in 19/20 territory.

[Daniel]

Just mind boggling that Matteau is #8 and below the likes of Wedgewood, Urbom and Boucher. Jr played in the NHL and looked competent as an 18 year old!

I'm not sure how they reason their ranking, but they seem to have put too much emphasis on Matteau's mentality after his playoffs this year. Wedge, Boucher, and Urbom could be big pieces for Albany next year, but Matteau should be on the NHL club or the first guy called up if someone gets hurt.

I think Matteau's role in the NHL next year is directly related to what happens with Zubrus.

I think part of it might be that Matteau might have hit his peak physically, so there isn't going to be a lot more potential than what we've already seen. It's not a completely unreasonable view of the world.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Derlique]

I think part of it might be that Matteau might have hit his peak physically, so there isn't going to be a lot more potential than what we've already seen. It's not a completely unreasonable view of the world.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

How many 18 year olds you know peaked physically? I aint buying it

[Daniel]

How many 18 year olds you know peaked physically? I aint buying it

Some do, some don't, or more precisely aren't going to get that much bigger.

More importantly, just because a player got playing time at 18, it does not follow that he'll be better than someone who didn't make it to the NHL until age 21 or 22. Somehow, I don't think anyone would take Matteau for Kreider or Ryan Strome.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Derlique]

Some do, some don't, or more precisely aren't going to get that much bigger. More importantly, just because a player got playing time at 18, it does not follow that he'll be better than someone who didn't make it to the NHL until age 21 or 22. Somehow, I don't think anyone would take Matteau for Kreider or Ryan Strome.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Kreider hasn't done anything in the NHL besides have a fluky playoff run. He had mediocre college numbers and was bad in the ahl, so id probably take Matteau over him.

Strome was a top 5 pick.

Even if he doesn't get "bigger" (though odds say he will) he'll get better at skating, stick handing and shooting just by practicing and getting experience

[Daniel]

Some do, some don't, or more precisely aren't going to get that much bigger. More importantly, just because a player got playing time at 18, it does not follow that he'll be better than someone who didn't make it to the NHL until age 21 or 22. Somehow, I don't think anyone would take Matteau for Kreider or Ryan Strome.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Kreider hasn't done anything in the NHL besides have a fluky playoff run. He had mediocre college numbers and was bad in the ahl, so id probably take Matteau over him.

Strome was a top 5 pick.

Even if he doesn't get "bigger" (though odds say he will) he'll get better at skating, stick handing and shooting just by practicing and getting experience

If you're going in numbers alone, Scarlett and Severson (both ranked ahead of Matteau) put up better offensive numbers at junior as defensemen. Also, it's much harder for a defensemen to crack an NHL lineup, which is why it's not that strange that Urbom and Gelinas get higher grades than Matteau.

As people have noted, the big head scratcher is Wedgewood being number 2. I suppose you could give Matteau a B instead of a C, but you can't really expect him to be anything more than a third liner on an average team.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[DH26]

I noticed Jared didn't write this or the last Devils article for HF. I suppose he's moved on.

I'm a huge believer in Wedgewood but no way would I rank him #2. I'd move Matteau up because of what he's already shown and how likely he is to be able to contribute for NJ in coming years even if his potential is 2nd/3rd line. Probably move Clermont in 19/20 territory.

 

They had a job listing for a Devils prospect writer on there so Jared leaving's a pretty safe bet 

[thefiestygoat]

They had a job listing for a Devils prospect writer on there so Jared leaving's a pretty safe bet 

Yeah, I asked him on twitter about it and he mentioned he enjoyed his time there but wanted to move on. He's still going to be following the prospects and Devils, just not writing about them. If anyone wants they can follow him on twitter: @CalDevil3219

[Triumph]

Some do, some don't, or more precisely aren't going to get that much bigger. More importantly, just because a player got playing time at 18, it does not follow that he'll be better than someone who didn't make it to the NHL until age 21 or 22. Somehow, I don't think anyone would take Matteau for Kreider or Ryan Strome. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

The difference is that players who make the NHL at 18 are almost unilaterally NHL players.  There are 31 players who've made the NHL at 18 and played 10 or more games since 95-96 (aka the modern era) - 3 of them (Fata, A. Berg, Fritsche) were not successful NHLers.  

 

Most players who make the NHL at 22 or later are fringe NHLers.  There are some that aren't, and certainly there are also late-bloomers who come over from Europe like Damian Brunner, but drafted players who take that long?  I don't expect much from them.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Triumph

[Daniel]

The difference is that players who make the NHL at 18 are almost unilaterally NHL players.  There are 31 players who've made the NHL at 18 and played 10 or more games since 95-96 (aka the modern era) - 3 of them (Fata, A. Berg, Fritsche) were not successful NHLers.  

 

Most players who make the NHL at 22 or later are fringe NHLers.  There are some that aren't, and certainly there are also late-bloomers who come over from Europe like Damian Brunner, but drafted players who take that long?  I don't expect much from them.

 

This is one of those arguments that doesn't really have any meaning without any context.  Sort of like the idea that drafting a defenseman is a more risky proposition than drafting a forward, and thus it should inform your draft strategy.  It matters precisely who you are talking about, and not just saying a player got playing time at 18 and will thus have a good career since that's what usually happens, or you ought to be hesitant to draft Adam Larsson over Courturier since the bust potential for a defenseman is  greater.  Obviously, the vast majority of 18 year old NHLers are top 10 or even top 5 picks in drafts of varying quality. Not to mention the fact that it's the bad teams that are drafting that high in the first place.

 

Matteau was maybe the only forward that wasn't named Tim Sestito that you could plausibly call up for a significant period of time, especially when you had a shortened season with virtually no training camp which made things a little quirky this year.  Under most circumstances and with most teams his arrival time would have been about the same as any bottom first rounder in a so-so draft. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I think he'll be a useful if not good player.  It just doesn't have much to do wtih the fact that he got some playing time this past year. 

Edited May 23, 2013 by Daniel

[Derlique]

This is one of those arguments that doesn't really have any meaning without any context. Sort of like the idea that drafting a defenseman is a more risky proposition than drafting a forward, and thus it should inform your draft strategy. It matters precisely who you are talking about, and not just saying a player got playing time at 18 and will thus have a good career since that's what usually happens, or you ought to be hesitant to draft Adam Larsson over Courturier since the bust potential for a defenseman is greater. Obviously, the vast majority of 18 year old NHLers are top 10 or even top 5 picks in drafts of varying quality. Not to mention the fact that it's the bad teams that are drafting that high in the first place.

Matteau was maybe the only forward that wasn't named Tim Sestito that you could plausibly call up for a significant period of time, especially when you had a shortened season with virtually no training camp which made things a little quirky this year. Under most circumstances and with most teams his arrival time would have been about the same as any bottom first rounder in a so-so draft.

Don't get me wrong, I think he'll be a useful if not good player. It just doesn't have much to do wtih the fact that he got some playing time this past year.

Not sure i understand your premise. You're trying to argue that Matteau held his own against men as an 18 year old doesnt hold any water? I think it's pretty damn impressive he averaged over a shot a game with limited ice time. Just wait till he gets bigger and stronger and I believe you'll see a 20-20 player

[Daniel]

Not sure i understand your premise. You're trying to argue that Matteau held his own against men as an 18 year old doesnt hold any water? I think it's pretty damn impressive he averaged over a shot a game with limited ice time. Just wait till he gets bigger and stronger and I believe you'll see a 20-20 player

 

Maybe you're right about what he'll become.  I saw him play, and am not as high on him as some people, but that's just me.  Josefson made the team as a 19 (maybe early 20?) year old, but has regressed a little bit.  Tedenby dramatically so.

 

Really, it started out with the objection about how Matteau could be ranked so low as compared to a bunch of other players that are 21 year old AHLers.  Maybe it is a valid objection, I just wouldn't base it so much on the fact that he made it to the NHL this year.

[Derlique]

Maybe you're right about what he'll become. I saw him play, and am not as high on him as some people, but that's just me. Josefson made the team as a 19 (maybe early 20?) year old, but has regressed a little bit. Tedenby dramatically so.

Really, it started out with the objection about how Matteau could be ranked so low as compared to a bunch of other players that are 21 year old AHLers. Maybe it is a valid objection, I just wouldn't base it so much on the fact that he made it to the NHL this year.

Like Tri said, if you're not in the league by 22, you're probably going to be a tweener. I get organizational strengths, but Urbom is probably not going to be anything more than a bottom pairing dman.

Goalies are a total crapshoot

Scarlett had a great season...in his overage junior season.

If I had to do a top 10 (not that it means anything)

Merrill

Severson

Matteau

Gelinas

Boucher

Urbom

Scarlett

Pietila

Burlon

Wedgewood

[Triumph]

This is one of those arguments that doesn't really have any meaning without any context.  Sort of like the idea that drafting a defenseman is a more risky proposition than drafting a forward, and thus it should inform your draft strategy.  It matters precisely who you are talking about, and not just saying a player got playing time at 18 and will thus have a good career since that's what usually happens, or you ought to be hesitant to draft Adam Larsson over Courturier since the bust potential for a defenseman is  greater.  Obviously, the vast majority of 18 year old NHLers are top 10 or even top 5 picks in drafts of varying quality. Not to mention the fact that it's the bad teams that are drafting that high in the first place.

 

Matteau was maybe the only forward that wasn't named Tim Sestito that you could plausibly call up for a significant period of time, especially when you had a shortened season with virtually no training camp which made things a little quirky this year.  Under most circumstances and with most teams his arrival time would have been about the same as any bottom first rounder in a so-so draft. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I think he'll be a useful if not good player.  It just doesn't have much to do wtih the fact that he got some playing time this past year. 

 

You still ought to be careful of Adam Larssons, though.  I don't think these two are the same thing.  Imagine prospects are like an iceberg and you can only see the ocean's surface.  You don't know how big the iceberg is under the water, but ultimately that's the most important part.  Picking prospects is a lot like judging icebergs, and with forwards, there's more of the iceberg outside the water.  That's the idea behind why picking defensemen is trouble - it's hard to identify which of their skills will translate to the NHL.  We can see this by comparing the top 50 forwards and top 50 D men in ice time (or if you wish to have the D be in a 2/3 ratio to the forwards, fine) - more of the forwards were picked at the top of the draft.

 

Matteau made the team over Bobby Butler, and he beat out Mathieu Darche for an NHL spot.  These aren't the greatest players to ever play the game, but they're NHL level players and the Devils judged that Matteau was better.  

 

Mantzas:  That's pretty much how my list would go although I think I'd switch out Burlon for Black - could just be a personal preference though.