I think a couple people would argee with me in saying that I put exactly ZERO thought into the Woodlief rankings.....taking a page out of his own book....Woodlief is about as accurate as a one arm man in a cross bow shooting contest.
- Status
Jason MacIsaac
Registered User
So Kyle seen this goaltender once and says he is their supersleeper. Lets hope he didn't only see Crosby once in a game where he got no points.
Unbiased Canadian said:
Why don't you go take a look at their rankings of 4-5 years ago and then compare those to Central Scoutings, The Hockey News, etc and look at how the players are turning out. Redline does as good a job or better than any of the rankings out there.
Carl O'Steen said:
You should really only judge their final rankings in a year. Or at least be consistent in your criticism. I've seen some BRUTAL CSS mid-term rankings in the past 7 years.
steblick said:
But the truth is scouts(at least someone) read Red Line Report. I originally thought they maybe look at the ranking but nothing more however talking with a few scouts this season, they pay more attention it than I originally thought.
Actually most scouts read it- after all, it's a journal that speaks directly to their trade. Most scouts are interested in what other hockey people have to say. But they certainly don't start running after certain prospects just because Redline calls them a sleeper, like the article seems to presume. For almost all the NHL clubs a player like Lang is not an unknown.czechhockeyfan said:
If people had a chance to look at most team's draft lists, they would be shocked to the point Red Line would seem much more conservative and consistent with main stream draft guides. That's why players like Blake Wheeler go top 5 instead of the 2nd round, and players like Jiri Hudler and Patrick O'Sullivan go in the 2nd round. It's also why Redline is so much more interesting, because they're not guessing on where people will get picked, but rather giving their own independant rating.
The truth is, and based on the above examples, I sometimes wonder whether it would be better for some teams to simply use existing draft material to figure out who to pick, rather than their scouts. Certainly some teams have to be kicking themselves for passing on certain players that were rated quite a bit higher in mainstream draft guides, O'Sullivan and Hudler being two examples.
The truth is, and based on the above examples, I sometimes wonder whether it would be better for some teams to simply use existing draft material to figure out who to pick, rather than their scouts. Certainly some teams have to be kicking themselves for passing on certain players that were rated quite a bit higher in mainstream draft guides, O'Sullivan and Hudler being two examples.
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
Flames Draft Watcher said:
To be fair, this should probably 5 years or later only, IMO.
The only Redline I have is 2000. It has its share of hits and misses and could probably qualify in the "as good as Central Scouting" category. That is only one year though. I suppose to get a more accurate picture we should look at more samples like 99, 98 etc.
Based on 2000 and based on his column and top10s, I would say if I was desperate for rankings I'd rather stick with CSS. They are as good and don't cost you a cent. On the other hand, they don't have the fancy descriptions. Those are valuable as an information source or as comic relief, depending on who you talk to
THN is also a fairly cheap source.
The problem is, none of them provide exactly what Redline provide, so they're not really in competition. THN seems to be a grab bag of several scouts opinions weighted and "averaged". CSS is a bunch of scouts but you get very little written info. Red Line is a group of scout. On the surface they provide the same service as THN, in depth it is completely different.
I personally like Redline's way of doing things. I just don't like the results.
Dr.Sens(e) said:
I think that's the big problem people have with Red Line. Drafting is not an exact science, and they get all mad when Red Line's opinion of certain prospects does not correspond with what they and their friends have all agreed upon over at Hockeys Future. Think of the last draft: as you said, Wheeler at #5, and if anybody predicted that, they would have been laughed off these boards. All those people swearing Schwarz was top 10, top 5 even, and would be the first goalie picked, and anybody who said otherwise didn't know their ass from their elbow. He of course, didn't go top 5, and was only the 3rd goalie taken. Tukonen out of the top 10? Idiot! Wes O'Neill IN THE FOURTH ROUND???
Just because a consensus has been reached on Hockey's Future, based largely on a group of people who have never seen any of the kids actually play sort of averaging out the random rankings people make to come up with a list, doesn't mean that Red Line, CSB, or any one of the 30 teams who actually do the picking will think the same way.
And that's okay.
Jag68Sid87
Sullivan gots to go!
It is an inexact science, which is part of the draft's charm...actually, I think most of its appeal is the inexact nature and unpredictability of it all. And, there's a big difference between being accurate as to where players eventually wound up in a particular draft...and whether or not those players actually DESERVED to be where they were selected.
In other words, while some people saw the Blake Wheeler selection at No. 5 coming, I wouldn't toot my own horn just yet...first, the kid must prove that he's not a monumental bust.
Otherwise, those that had him in Round 2 or 3 were the more accurate ones.
In other words, while some people saw the Blake Wheeler selection at No. 5 coming, I wouldn't toot my own horn just yet...first, the kid must prove that he's not a monumental bust.
Otherwise, those that had him in Round 2 or 3 were the more accurate ones.
steblick said:
I have to agree with what you said. Scouts definitely saw Lang in the past and know him.
Though the truth is considering how little ice time he is receiving in Nurnberg since the start of the season and how much(not really much) exposure he has received at the international stage(being from Germany) this year than I think you can call him as a sleeper. Tough to find interesting prospect no one scout didn´t see. Of course it doesn´t mean lots of scout will immediately drive to Germany to watch Lang because of Red Line Report.
Redline is not intended to be a mock draft, so saying it is wrong doesn't make sense. It is an independent ranking of players. In fact, the draft guide usually includes a list that says, "these players will go higher than our list" and "these players will go lower than our list".
In addition, they fully acknowledge that every team has certain needs they will attempt to address and the Redline list does not account for that.
I find it to be interesting, even the one-line descriptions that some of the later-round players are given.
In addition, they fully acknowledge that every team has certain needs they will attempt to address and the Redline list does not account for that.
I find it to be interesting, even the one-line descriptions that some of the later-round players are given.
SabreHomer007 said:
It's not just Kyle is it? Its a group of scouts. I dont understand the vitriol aimed at Woodlief as if he does all the scouting, makes all the decisions by himself.
When he wrote that about "the word" being out I didnt take it as anything more than that. The word is a buzz among scouts, Red Line or otherwise. If you are prejudiced against Woodlief, you presume he meant only himself and his scouts knew but that is not what he wrote. I am sure he certainly doesnt think he's the only scout in the world who knows who Lang is.
Skille at 4? He had a good tourney at 4&5 nations but has done nothing since, cannot score and is invisible in college games, check it out. I would put Ryan ahead of him.Top Shelf said:
This ranking is way too high. Look at his results since the last tourney and against college teams-nothing!Rabid Ranger said:
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
I have seen him play at least 20 games this year. I think he is a good player, but hands and vision no way. He does look like a freight train, but totally out of control. Questionable hockey sense. I hate seeming cruel to kids, but I can't believe the ranking. I agree with first round, maybe 15-20.rt said:
Kirk- NEHJ
Registered User
Vlad The Impaler said:
Not to mention making ISS look very bad by engaging in this war of words.
I doubt Chebot or Dennis would look favorably on a member of its staff making a false accusation on a public board, regardless of how right he might think he is.
Again- its about professionalism. This isn't the place.
Buffaloed
webmaster
Our boards will not be used to host libelous or potentially libelous accusations. That subject is not open to debate or discussion. If someone is doing something wrong take it up with the proper authorities or responsible parties. HF is neither of those. Any further libelous accusations will result in immediate loss of forum privileges. We are not going to allow our site to be dragged into someone else's disputes. Confine your discussion to the actual rankings and keep it civil.
markov`
Registered User
Hab Fan said:
You have seen Skille play a lot? So I suppose you have seen the other one... Stoa. Who's better and where both should go?
- Status
