D+1 NHLE
Rathbone: 12
Lundkvist : 15

D+2 NHL E
Rathbone: 20
Lundkvist: 45

D+3
Rathbone : 34
Lundkvist: 40

Im high on him because he he had 2 of the best U21 SHL seasons by a defenseman, is very well rounded and doesn’t have a weakness in his game. Elite IQ, elite mobility and is good in all 3 zones.

Prospects success can change a lot over multiple years. He is not as exciting as he was when he was dominating the SHL. You are completely disregarding the fact that in this moment of time, Rathbone is better, and has shown he has the higher ceiling playing in North America.

Edit: I'm surprised Rathbone had a similar NHLE in their D+1 year considering Lundkvist was a first round pick, whereas Rathbone was a FOURTH round pick

Rathbone is better right now than Lundkvist but Rathbone hasn't shown to me that he has a higher ceiling than a #4/5 guy, i see him becoming a very good 3rd pair guy, Lundkvist may bust but i could see him becoming a good 2nd pair option

Rathbone was over a point per game in the AHL at 22, named to the AHL all rookie team. I don't see how that translates to bottom pair guy at all. Lundkvist's North America play has not been close to Rathbone. Both have played the same amount of hockey since they were drafted (Rathbone basically skipped last year)

Rathbone reminds me of Sami Niku

Points don't equal NHL success, we've seen plenty of guys put up amazing AHL years while not doing anything NHL wise, Rathbone needs to show the upside too, he has skill, that's not in question but the upside hasn't been shown to me

Who would be Lundkvist's NHL comparable? For Rathbone, he has the Quinn Hughes tool set with a better shot, but took way longer to develop

Define upside. He has production, and he has skill. I really don't see why you are limiting his ceiling

Upside is the project-ability and translate-ability of a player's skill, production doesn't mean upside or else DFD's would all be horrible, skill doesn't mean upside because some players have amazing skill but can't put their skills together to get to the next level

Then tell me why Rathbone doesn't have high upside. I'm listening

Because he hasn't shown to me that the project-ability of his skill is higher than that of a 3rd pair D

Are you going to elaborate on that? You keep saying "he doesn't high very high upside" but you never say why...

But Jack doesn't have that glorious flow that Sami has (well, had), though...

Decent flow. He should grow a mullet

Gagner to Wpg just feels weird

Like honestly I thought Toronto or Edmonton were gonna grab him

You are putting way too much emphasis on points. There are plenty of other factors to consider when projecting a defensemans future in the NHL. IQ, pace, defensive ability ,etc…

You’re also disregarding that Lundkvist had a good season (in the NHL). He was able to drive offense at even strength and on the PP. It was pretty similar to Dobson’s rookie year.. both played with awful D partners, were able to drive play but lack of points was due to lack of opportunity.

I don’t think there’s an NHL team (besides the Canucks) that would take Rathbone over lundkvist right now

Hockey IQ, and pace are two of Jack Rathbone's best attributes... I'm not sure what you are going on about. As for defensive ability, neither Rathbone or Lundkvists are studs at defense. I guess we are really lowering the bar for the term "good" if you can classify Lundkvists NHL stint as "good". If he was "good", why didn't he stay in the NHL? Clearly the Rangers didn't think he was good enough to be in the top 6 with Schneider taking his spot

Rathbones hockey sense in all 3 zones is not on Lundkvists level. Lundkvist is more of a Devon toews type d, his high end IQ and skating allows his to be effective in all 3 zones, not a flashy D but extremely effective. Rathbone is like a poor mans ghostisbehre.

I wouldn't be using the rangers decision making on prospects to prove a point. They have proven they have no idea how to evaluate. He was miles better than Braden Schneider, the difference is Schneider is 6'2

So are you going to tell me what Rathbone's deficiencies are or what? Do you plan on telling me why Rathbone's hockey IQ is not up to par with Lundkvist?

We're now within a month from the beginning of preseason.

Over/under 30 season discussion threads before the playoffs?

As I’ve been saying in like my last 3 posts, Rathbone doesn’t have high upside because I don’t see his skills becoming much better, he’ll top off as a good 3rd pair D imo, if he can show that his skills can project at a higher level, his ceiling will get move up

Going to explain how his skills aren't getting better? Can you even tell me what Rathbone's skills are?

defense and his hockey sense isn't as good as Lundkvist, which is why the most likely outcome is rathbone will be a #5, Lundkvist #3. Lundkvist is one of the highest IQ prospects in the game.

Have you not watched Rathbone? Hockey IQ is one of his best attributes.

I rather have Lundkvist over Rathbone and that says something considering I hate the Rangers