morley Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Found this link on Yahoo. Looks like they will be posting 10 each day over the next week plus. http://www.sbncollegehockey.com/2015/2/18/8065629/introducing-the-sbn-college-hockey-top-100-nhl-prospects 100-91 http://www.sbncollegehockey.com/2015/2/19/8056631/2015-top-100-nhl-prospects-in-the-ncaa-91-100-free-agent-caggiula-somerby-sanford-calnan Caggs comes in at 95 Quote
jk Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Any guesses on who the ten Sioux players on the list are, and in what order? I pretty sure Caggiula is there, at #10 on the UND list. Zane and the first rounders for sure. Quote
brianvf Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 10. Cagguila 9. Thompson 8. MacMillan 7. Parks 6. Poolman 5. Stecher 4. LaDue 3. J Schmaltz 2. N Schmaltz 1. McIntyre Quote
MoreSiouxForYou Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 10. Cagguila 9. Thompson 8. MacMillan 7. Parks 6. Poolman 5. Stecher 4. LaDue 3. J Schmaltz 2. N Schmaltz 1. McIntyre Agreed. Only thing I might consider is swapping Stecher and Poolman sheerly on a size basis. NHL guys like the bigger bodies. Quote
jk Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Nice list. I might move Thompson up (still young and a great skater) and I think Ausmus is even higher than that (best NHL body on the team). Quote
yzerman19 Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I will reverse the order and add my 2 cents: 1. Jordan Schmaltz 2. Zane 3. Parks 4. Nick Schmaltz 5. Gage 6. Mark Mac 7. LaDue 8. Pool man 9. Thompson 10. Jewels Honorable mention: mattson, OD, Johnson Quote
brianvf Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Nice list. I might move Thompson up (still young and a great skater) and I think Ausmus is even higher than that (best NHL body on the team). I put Thompson at #9 just because he's only going to get better and is still so young. I would guess that if we made this list a year from now he'd jump a few spots. I debated with substituting Ausmus in for either MacMillan or Parks...just wasn't sure which one. Hard to say which one will do better in the NHL. Right now I'd say Parks just because of his work along the boards and excellent reach, but who knows. Quote
AZSIOUX Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 1. Jordan Schmaltz 2. Nick Schmaltz 3. Parks 4. Zane 5. Gage 6. Thompson 7. Poolman 8. Ladue 9. Stecher 10. Jewels Quote
jjensen Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I put Thompson at #9 just because he's only going to get better and is still so young. I would guess that if we made this list a year from now he'd jump a few spots. I debated with substituting Ausmus in for either MacMillan or Parks...just wasn't sure which one. Hard to say which one will do better in the NHL. Right now I'd say Parks just because of his work along the boards and excellent reach, but who knows. If Parks goes to the Flyers than he will be better. Just fits what they want to do so well. Quote
jk Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Surprised Stecher isn't making more appearances. There are bigger guys, faster guys, older guys, but if we're choosing teams I know which defenseman I'm picking first. Size is a huge NHL issue, I understand, but he seems to have "it", the hockey sense that has him in the right place ahead of time. Quote
willythekid Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Speaking of our ol' buddy Chris Dilks... Quote
Sodbuster Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Surprised Stecher isn't making more appearances. There are bigger guys, faster guys, older guys, but if we're choosing teams I know which defenseman I'm picking first. Size is a huge NHL issue, I understand, but he seems to have "it", the hockey sense that has him in the right place ahead of time. It seems like our "smaller" defensemen don't get much of a look, like Chay Genoway, for example. And as long as I brought him up, how does Stecher compare with Genoway? Quote
UNDBIZ Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 It seems like our "smaller" defensemen don't get much of a look, like Chay Genoway, for example. And as long as I brought him up, how does Stecher compare with Genoway? IMO, Stecher's defense is way better. Also, I believe the injury set Chay back a lot. Quote
yzerman19 Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Stecher is outstanding. He can play on any Sioux team. The issue is he is undrafted and undersized...not promising for the NHL. If you asked me to rate our dmen this year it is very different than my NHL prospect analysis. UND best dmen this year: 1. Stecher 2. Ausmus 3. Schmaltz 4. LaDue 5. Poolman 6. Mattson 7. Thompson 8. Panz Quote
yzerman19 Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 and forwards: 1. Parks 2. Jewels 3. Mac 4. Schmaltz 5. Chyzyk 6. OD 7. Gaarder 8. Pattyn 9. LJ 10. Pogo Quote
Oxbow6 Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Thompson just seems to get a little better every weekend. #2 is just flat out a hockey player. If he could play at UND 8 years...I'd cover his scholarship for the last 4 years. Quote
MafiaMan Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Thompson just seems to get a little better every weekend. #2 is just flat out a hockey player. If he could play at UND 8 years...I'd cover his scholarship for the last 4 years. Whoa! Someone's W-2's must look pretty good! Quote
Oxbow6 Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Whoa! Someone's W-2's must look pretty good! I thought between you, gfhockey, myself and aluminum can recycling we could get it done. 1 Quote
AZSIOUX Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 LJ at 83 http://www.sbncollegehockey.com/2015/2/20/8064865/2015-top-100-nhl-prospects-ncaa-81-90-free-agent-draft Quote
scpa0305 Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 I will reverse the order and add my 2 cents: 1. Jordan Schmaltz 2. Zane 3. Parks 4. Nick Schmaltz 5. Gage 6. Mark Mac 7. LaDue 8. Pool man 9. Thompson 10. Jewels Honorable mention: mattson, OD, Johnson I'd move thompson ahead of Gage. Quote
MoreSiouxForYou Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Just to recap that means they have UND Prospects as 10. Jewels 9. LJ No one who took a shot listed Johnson, other than yzers Honorable Mention. What am i missing about that kid? I think the defensive comment is a joke. Quote
scpa0305 Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Just to recap that means they have UND Prospects as 10. Jewels 9. LJ No one who took a shot listed Johnson, other than yzers Honorable Mention. What am i missing about that kid? I think the defensive comment is a joke. No he does have a decent defensive mind and he knows where to be. The article did mess one thing up, I believe they said he would fill out more or get bigger and that won't happen. That kid is an ox. However, the article did mention he is a plus skater and I wouldn't go that far. He has to stop taking dumb penalties and he has to become more consistent (over an entire season). Quote
MoreSiouxForYou Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 No he does have a decent defensive mind and he knows where to be. The article did mess one thing up, I believe they said he would fill out more or get bigger and that won't happen. That kid is an ox. However, the article did mention he is a plus skater and I wouldn't go that far. He has to stop taking dumb penalties and he has to become more consistent (over an entire season). Maybe this is my problem that i cannot see past the idea that he plays his best when he feels like he has to make up for something. I cannot stand how often we find him in the box. Quote
geaux_sioux Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 No he does have a decent defensive mind and he knows where to be. The article did mess one thing up, I believe they said he would fill out more or get bigger and that won't happen. That kid is an ox. However, the article did mention he is a plus skater and I wouldn't go that far. He has to stop taking dumb penalties and he has to become more consistent (over an entire season). In physical maturity they may not have meant size. Maybe just becoming a man instead of a boy? Could get stronger and faster without getting bigger. Quote
SiouxForever Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 In physical maturity they may not have meant size. Maybe just becoming a man instead of a boy? Could get stronger and faster without getting bigger. You can get faster, John Taversas proved it. LJ needs to get in touch with Gary Roberts JTs trainer. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.