SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Mock-Draft

my NHL24 ratings for the 2023 draft so far

my NHL24 ratings for the 2023 draft so far

Draft Class: 2023
Created By: zk97
Published: Nov. 24, 2023 at 12:06 p.m.
ROUND 1TEAMORIGINALPLAYERDETAILS
1Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks-87 Low Franchise
2Logo of the Anaheim Ducks-84 High Elite
3Logo of the Columbus Blue Jackets-83 High Elite
4Logo of the San Jose Sharks-75 Low Elite
5Logo of the Montreal Canadiens-72 High Top 4 D
6Logo of the Arizona Coyotes-73 Med Top 4 D
7Logo of the Philadelphia Flyers-80 High Elite
8Logo of the Washington Capitals-73 High Top 6 F
9Logo of the Detroit Red Wings-71 High Top 6 F
10Logo of the St. Louis Blues-72 Med Top 6 F
11Logo of the Vancouver Canucks-73 Med Top 4 D
12Logo of the Arizona CoyotesLogo of the Ottawa Senators74 Med Top 6 F
13Logo of the Buffalo Sabres-81 High Top 6 F
14Logo of the Pittsburgh Penguins-73 Med Top 6 F
15Logo of the Nashville Predators-73 Med Top 6 F
16Logo of the Calgary Flames-71 Low Top 6 F
17Logo of the Detroit Red WingsLogo of the New York Islanders74 High Top 4 D
18Logo of the Winnipeg Jets-72 Med Top 6 F
19Logo of the Chicago BlackhawksLogo of the Tampa Bay Lightning72 Med Top 6 F
20Logo of the Seattle Kraken-72 Med Top 6 F
21Logo of the Minnesota Wild-69 Low Top 6 F
22Logo of the Philadelphia FlyersLogo of the Los Angeles Kings73 Med Top 4 D
23Logo of the New York Rangers-74 Med Top 6 F
24Logo of the Nashville PredatorsLogo of the Edmonton Oilers73 Low Top 4 D
25Logo of the St. Louis BluesLogo of the Toronto Maple Leafs70 High Top 9 F
26Logo of the San Jose SharksLogo of the New Jersey Devils71 Low Top 6 F
27Logo of the Colorado Avalanche-72 High Top 9 F
28Logo of the Toronto Maple LeafsLogo of the Boston Bruins74 High Top 9 F
29Logo of the St. Louis BluesLogo of the Dallas Stars67 Med Top 6 D
30Logo of the Carolina Hurricanes-72 High Top 9 F
31Logo of the Colorado AvalancheLogo of the Florida Panthers72 Low Top 4 D
32Logo of the Vegas Golden Knights-73 High Top 9 F
Nov. 24, 2023 at 1:01 p.m.
#1
mokumboi
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2019
Posts: 27,138
Likes: 10,649
Heh. Your downgrading of all the Blues picks = hilarious. In what world is Dvorsky below Wood, Bonk, Cowan, ASP and Edstrom, and level with Gulyayev, Nadeau and Sale? Or the world where Benson is above Michkov?
Nov. 25, 2023 at 12:21 a.m.
#2
Sabres fan
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 4,621
Likes: 2,872
Edited Nov. 25, 2023 at 5:19 p.m.
Quoting: mokumboi
Heh. Your downgrading of all the Blues picks = hilarious. In what world is Dvorsky below Wood, Bonk, Cowan, ASP and Edstrom, and level with Gulyayev, Nadeau and Sale? Or the world where Benson is above Michkov?

Mitchkov is stuck in Russia for the next couple years. Benson is already contributing to an NHL roster. By the time he comes over from Russia, Benson could already be an established top six winger for the Sabres.
zk97 liked this.
Nov. 25, 2023 at 11:44 a.m.
#3
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 2,213
Likes: 967
Quoting: mokumboi
Heh. Your downgrading of all the Blues picks = hilarious. In what world is Dvorsky below Wood, Bonk, Cowan, ASP and Edstrom, and level with Gulyayev, Nadeau and Sale? Or the world where Benson is above Michkov?


Basically every single player you listed is having a roughly equivalent, if not better (or in the case of ASP, infinitely better) D+1 year than Dvorsky so far. The only one who I'd agree is significantly too high is probably Sale, but at a certain point you're not really adding anything meaningful to a discussion if you're going to give someone a hard time anytime they value any player higher for a particular reason
Nov. 25, 2023 at 12:16 p.m.
#4
mokumboi
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2019
Posts: 27,138
Likes: 10,649
Quoting: DH28Hockey
Basically every single player you listed is having a roughly equivalent, if not better (or in the case of ASP, infinitely better) D+1 year than Dvorsky so far. The only one who I'd agree is significantly too high is probably Sale, but at a certain point you're not really adding anything meaningful to a discussion if you're going to give someone a hard time anytime they value any player higher for a particular reason


Setting aside that the first 15 games of D+1 season is not the sole and final decider of anything, are we only allowed to comment when we lock-step agree with someone? What's the point then? Critical comments are every bit as meaningful as whatever type of comments you favor, and all these guys didn't magically become better prospects than Dvorsky in a month and change, regardless of how hot a flavor they are this week. Rating prospects is about the long haul, not which way the wind blows. And you can set that all aside if you like, as Dvorsky is one of the hottest D+1 players around anyway.

Besides, his numbers/tiers don't even add up right. Danielson is only a 71 (another weirdly low rating), but he's a "high top 6" while Dvorsky at 72 is "medium top 6". There's a lot of obvious issues here, and there's nothing meaningless about pointing them out.
Nov. 25, 2023 at 5:17 p.m.
#5
Thread Starter
v5 CBJ GM
Avatar of the user
Joined: Feb. 2019
Posts: 15,762
Likes: 8,520
Quoting: mokumboi
Setting aside that the first 15 games of D+1 season is not the sole and final decider of anything, are we only allowed to comment when we lock-step agree with someone? What's the point then? Critical comments are every bit as meaningful as whatever type of comments you favor, and all these guys didn't magically become better prospects than Dvorsky in a month and change, regardless of how hot a flavor they are this week. Rating prospects is about the long haul, not which way the wind blows. And you can set that all aside if you like, as Dvorsky is one of the hottest D+1 players around anyway.

Besides, his numbers/tiers don't even add up right. Danielson is only a 71 (another weirdly low rating), but he's a "high top 6" while Dvorsky at 72 is "medium top 6". There's a lot of obvious issues here, and there's nothing meaningless about pointing them out.


I've given players from the CHL lower numbers than most, because the CHL is way easier than other leagues (NCAA, SHL, Liiga, etc.). Additionally, ratings =/= potentials (or as you call them, tiers). Danielson could be a worse player than Dvorsky today (although in hindsight he should be higher than Dvorsky) while having a better long-term outlook.
Nov. 25, 2023 at 5:45 p.m.
#6
mokumboi
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2019
Posts: 27,138
Likes: 10,649
Quoting: zk97
I've given players from the CHL lower numbers than most, because the CHL is way easier than other leagues (NCAA, SHL, Liiga, etc.).

Additionally, ratings =/= potentials (or as you call them, tiers). Danielson could be a worse player than Dvorsky today (although in hindsight he should be higher than Dvorsky) while having a better long-term outlook.


1 - You're applying an arbitrary thing as a blanket assessment. As if no players who played in junior ever were better than a player who played NCAA (which of course could not be further from the truth). I'll assume your rationale is that NCAA players are older, and thus better (which of course also could not be further from the truth). Good luck with all that.

2 - This makes zero sense, dude. But whatever.
Nov. 25, 2023 at 6:04 p.m.
#7
Hnswe0345
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2023
Posts: 75
Likes: 29
Quoting: zk97
I've given players from the CHL lower numbers than most, because the CHL is way easier than other leagues (NCAA, SHL, Liiga, etc.). Additionally, ratings =/= potentials (or as you call them, tiers). Danielson could be a worse player than Dvorsky today (although in hindsight he should be higher than Dvorsky) while having a better long-term outlook.


Danielson was a reach at 9th overall and Dvorsky is outproducing Danielson by a lot, despite being almost a year younger. On no planet is Danielson the better prospect
Nov. 29, 2023 at 12:27 p.m.
#8
Stovetop
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2017
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 743
I can really only speak to the Sharks prospects with accuracy here (other than a few other guys that I've seen quite a bit from like Gabe and Leonard), but Smith would have been a 1st/2nd overall in a lot of other drafts. Low Elite is a bit strange. At the very least he'd be High Top 6.

Also Musty nearly made the Sharks roster out of camp and the staff said it's likely he gets 9 games this year. I'd have him 76 ovr and MED Top 6 / Low Elite POT.

For Leonard I think he's closer to 78 ovr and MED top 6. I don't think he has a super high ceiling but he could easily be in the NHL right now and will grow into a really solid player.
Perreault is more of a low Elite POT player. Production machine but watching his games he really isn't the play driver most of the time. I think its a bit of a coin flip if he's one-dimensional player like Olofsson or a legit elite offensive player
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll