Redline Report:Johnson is #1

[FTowwn]

it all depends on what team gets the #1 pick in the draft. that will decide if erik johnson jumps phil kessel for the number one spot. for example, if st.louis ends up with the numbe rone overall pick, phil kessel will go 1st overall. if pittsburgh gets the number one pick, erik johnson can expect to see his name called ahead of phil kessels.

 

[bigd]

Woodlief loves Nigel Williams

I don't think that the U18 coach is as impressed with Williams as everone else is. He doesn't get much ice time. He's never on the PK and the only power play time he gets is 5 on 3. Anyone that picks him in the top 10 is not doing their home work.

 

[Greg7]

Woodlief's comments about Kessel and the media are factually true I'd say, in the sense that there are plenty of dolts in the media, and many of them labelled Kessel a disappointment, but the implication that those dolts are wrong is not so true. It didn't take an expert in talent evaluation to see that Kessel was a disappointment, even if that's only because of those same dolts hyping him beyond belief coming into the tournament (that also goes for the "disappointment" of the entire USA WJ team in my mind). The fact is that regardless of how many previous viewings those dolts had, Kessel did not live up to expectations, and thus was disappointing. I could care less that he led the tournament in scoring, because too many of those points came against Norway and he was for the most part offensively ineffective in the important games regardless of what his statline says. Points mean nothing to me as a gauge of talent (I also DON'T think Toews was a disappointment at all), and can be very misleading in determining the quality of someone's play. All of this isn't to say that Kessel isn't a great talent, I'm just saying that his WJ tournament was disappointing, and I'm pretty sure that's all that those dolts in the media said too.

Also, as has been pointed out already, Woodlief is a hypocrite and a tool.

 

[heygarebear]

it all depends on what team gets the #1 pick in the draft. that will decide if erik johnson jumps phil kessel for the number one spot. for example, if st.louis ends up with the numbe rone overall pick, phil kessel will go 1st overall. if pittsburgh gets the number one pick, erik johnson can expect to see his name called ahead of phil kessels.

If the Blues get the 1st overall. I bet they take Johnson

 

[Ola]

Remember that the Redline Report isn't really where Woodlief thinks they will be drafted. It is just his list of the top prospects and how good they will be, I don't think it has anything to do to where they will be drafted. Probably being why Backstrom isn't in the top 10 because he is of a smaller stature and that Williams and Forney are in the top 10 because they are bigger players who are projects that will probably develop in to pros. Correct me if I am off base here.

This is what he said about him:

Nicklas Bäckström: This terrific playmaker plays a gritty style some in Sweden have likened to Peter Forsberg. Let's not get carried away, but he is pretty darn good.

I can't understand then why he doesn't have Bäckström in the top 10. Seriously I wonder if it isn't a misstake or a new approch just ranking NA players early in the season or something.

Bäckström isn't that small, he is 6´1.8 (185 cm, 186 is 6'2). He had a really strong U18 last year when he where scored at the same pace as many 1st rounders picked last draft.

He was 6th overall in scoring in this years U20 WJC with only Kessel ahead of him of the draft eligeble players, Robbie "the God" Scrhemp was 27th overall, Towes where 243rd overall.

Thats all statics. But Bäckström doesn't have any weakness. Probably the best defensive forward on that top 10 list, really smart in his own end. He is really strong. All this while beeing far from a finnished product physically. He can still fill out allot and improve his strength in his legs. People compare him with Forsberg because he have such great potential. I wouldn't at all be suprised if Bäckström becomes a better player then Zetterberg.

I know for a fact that Washington is showing allot of interest in Bäckström, watching him 24/7. I aware that isn't a gaurantee that they will pick him, he is probably exactly the type of player they would want(playmaker to go along Ovechkin) so it might be a little bit of wishful thinking from their part. However if Washington gets the 3rd overall pick id be suprised if they passed on Bäckström. There haven't been allot great talents comming out of Sweden the last decade. Though the biggest reason for that is shortage of raw gods to work with. Hockey Sweden often makes the most of the talents we have, look at Zetterberg. Just the fact that there haven't been many great prospects from Sweden in a while shouldn't talk against picking a Swede. If I where a GM it would be the other way around. Bäckström will stay one more season in Sweden after this but in 07' I wouldn't at all be suprised if he is leading a scoring line in the NHL.

Bäckström have allot more potential then Toumo Ruuto had at the same age for example. No matter what criterias you go by Bäckström is a lock to be a top 8 pick in this years draft.

 

[hawksfan50]

The reason Woodlief doesn't have Backstrom in the top ten let alone the top 5 where he clearly belongs,is that it is not the other scouts who are "dolts" but rather Woodlief who is the "dolt" --he must be blind...he admits to some of Backstrom's "terrific" qualities yet refuses to admit that this kid is well more advanced than a lot of the other so-called top 5-6 picks (eg. the 17 year old "baby's" of the draft like Staal and Toews and Mueller) --it may be one thing to project these guys upside given their position at the back-end of the age curve for draft eligibility--eg if Staal was born just 5 days later,he would not be eligible for the 2006 draft and would have to go to the 2007 draft)--but the fact remains that these 3 look far more "raw" at this stage than the more polished Backstrom who already is playing at a high level in the SEL against Swedish pros...so you can believe that a year from now they will also obtain more polish and perhaps surpass where Backstrom is now--or it may never happen--but anyway you slice it Backstrom must be given credit for that higher level now and should be in the top5-6 at the very least.

 

[Pipeandin]

Isn't Al McInnis the one responsible for making as you could say, has the "final say" about St.Louis's first round pick? Since McInnis was a Dman do you think he would be more likley inclined to select Eric Johnson or Phil Kessel? Presuming they have the top 2 picks.

 

[Doomsday Device]

Bäckström isn't that small, he is 6´1.8 (185 cm, 186 is 6'2). He had a really strong U18 last year when he where scored at the same pace as many 1st rounders picked last draft.

I've never seen Backstrom officially listed above 6'0". Where did you find this measurement?

 

[jake1]

One common misconception about Toews that I think permeates the boards is the idea that he doesn't have much offensive upside, that he's just a good all-around player. As a result, people see that he didn't score in the WJC and project him as a grinder. "Why would I want to take a grinder in the top 5?"

I have heard from people that get a chance to see him regularly that he is beginning to show glimpses of the dynamic offensive player that he always appeared to be against his peer group. It just takes a while to adjust when you're playing opponents who are as much as seven years older. As he continues to adjust to the more limited time and space in college, and the older, stronger players, I think you'll begin to hear more about his offensive upside.

 

[Ola]

I've never seen Backstrom officially listed above 6'0". Where did you find this measurement?

http://stats.swehockey.se/0506/html/elitserien/page0030.html

I've also seen him play live. I wouldn't risk my life on it but he looks to be above 6'1.

 

[Kirk- NEHJ]

Kyle Woodlief isn't the *only* member of Red Line's staff- just its chief scout and face.

Some of the comments here really sell short the outstanding scouts in the CHL and Europe who work hard every season and get the ****-blocks a lot of the critics level at Woodlief.

That's all fine, I suppose, but these guys do terrific work and for the record- they wanted Backstrom in the top-10. It may yet happen this season, but there is more to the Red Line Report than KW.

And, for the record- you may hate him with a passion, but he provides a service that just about all of the NHL teams subscribe to. That is validation in its purest form. So, yeah- RLR isn't perfect, but wouldn't you love to be working for them instead of sitting at your computer raging against the machine?

 

[Doomsday Device]

http://stats.swehockey.se/0506/html/elitserien/page0030.html

I've also seen him play live. I wouldn't risk my life on it but he looks to be above 6'1.

He's listed at 1.84 m there, which is a little over 6 feet even (6' 3/8" to be exact). He didn't look much bigger than Bergfors at the World Juniors but tv can be a bit deceptive with height.

 

[mvprimate]

i would way rather build around johson. His is the closest sure bet you can find to a top 2 defender in the draft. Even teams with a great top 2 could use a player like this needing excellent forwards or not.
On another note, i think kessel is a puck hog. He won't pass the puck unless he is going to get an assist out of it.

 

[Hiishawk]

Kyle Woodlief isn't the *only* member of Red Line's staff- just its chief scout and face.

The fact that scouts within an organization may differ in their opinions (and personalities) goes for each NHL team too. On HF in particular one reads a lot of "What were their scouts thinking!?" type of comments, as if the whole set of scouts agreed on the selection of player X, when it is in fact very rare for all a teams' scouts to have untiy on a certain pick. I know of several instances where some NHL teams' individual scouts thought that some of their teams' picks were going to be duds, but they were outnumbered or outranked come selection time.

Conversely, fans often laud the scouts of certain teams who have drafted well when it may have been just one or two key figures responsible for the "steal" pick. Other scouts on the same team may have thought the pick was a ridiculous reach at the time.

 

[Greg7]

Kyle Woodlief isn't the *only* member of Red Line's staff- just its chief scout and face.

Some of the comments here really sell short the outstanding scouts in the CHL and Europe who work hard every season and get the ****-blocks a lot of the critics level at Woodlief.

That's all fine, I suppose, but these guys do terrific work and for the record- they wanted Backstrom in the top-10. It may yet happen this season, but there is more to the Red Line Report than KW.

And, for the record- you may hate him with a passion, but he provides a service that just about all of the NHL teams subscribe to. That is validation in its purest form. So, yeah- RLR isn't perfect, but wouldn't you love to be working for them instead of sitting at your computer raging against the machine?

I think you're confusing disliking Woodlief with disliking Woodlief's (or Redline's) rankings. At least for me personally, I think Redline's rankings, while I sometimes disagree with them like any rankings, are generally a pretty good alternate view, and I trust their talent judgement.

What I don't like about Redline is the way Woodlief writes, and sometimes the things he says in his articles drive me nuts. For example, I have no problem at all with Redline leaving Kessel at #1 - he's obviously a perfectly reasonable choice - what bugs me is what he says about it, hypocritically criticizing so called non experts for judging him based on one tournament, and twisting statistics and making brief glib statements that don't provide any insight for the purpose of jabbing at the media. His amateurish style and tendency to take unnecessary shots at people bug me, not his rankings. And that gripe about Redline has very little or nothing to do with anyone but Woodlief.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

I think you're confusing disliking Woodlief with disliking Woodlief's (or Redline's) rankings. At least for me personally, I think Redline's rankings, while I sometimes disagree with them like any rankings, are generally a pretty good alternate view, and I trust their talent judgement.

What I don't like about Redline is the way Woodlief writes, and sometimes the things he says in his articles drive me nuts. For example, I have no problem at all with Redline leaving Kessel at #1 - he's obviously a perfectly reasonable choice - what bugs me is what he says about it, hypocritically criticizing so called non experts for judging him based on one tournament, and twisting statistics and making brief glib statements that don't provide any insight for the purpose of jabbing at the media. His amateurish style and tendency to take unnecessary shots at people bug me, not his rankings. And that gripe about Redline has very little or nothing to do with anyone but Woodlief.

I'm not a Woodlief apologist, but let's not forget that most of us only get a glimpse of his views through a rather small column in an online newspaper. Of course it isn't going to be extremely thorough or insightful. He's offering a condensed view of his opinion that is found in the actual report.

 

[Greg7]

I'm not a Woodlief apologist, but let's not forget that most of us only get a glimpse of his views through a rather small column in an online newspaper. Of course it isn't going to be extremely thorough or insightful. He's offering a condensed view of his opinion that is found in the actual report.

That's fair to some extent. Maybe I wouldn't mind him so much if I got to read the full report and see what justification he provides, but the main point still stands: he has an immature tendency to take shots at people, and I'm just not interested in Kyle Woodlief's personal grudges. Write what you know about hockey, not what other people don't know.

 

[sabresrat]

Kessel looks a lot like Vanek to me. I don't think he is nearly as dominant as many hoped/expected him to be.

 

[Kirk- NEHJ]

I think you're confusing disliking Woodlief with disliking Woodlief's (or Redline's) rankings. At least for me personally, I think Redline's rankings, while I sometimes disagree with them like any rankings, are generally a pretty good alternate view, and I trust their talent judgement.

What I don't like about Redline is the way Woodlief writes, and sometimes the things he says in his articles drive me nuts. For example, I have no problem at all with Redline leaving Kessel at #1 - he's obviously a perfectly reasonable choice - what bugs me is what he says about it, hypocritically criticizing so called non experts for judging him based on one tournament, and twisting statistics and making brief glib statements that don't provide any insight for the purpose of jabbing at the media. His amateurish style and tendency to take unnecessary shots at people bug me, not his rankings. And that gripe about Redline has very little or nothing to do with anyone but Woodlief.

Greg, that's a fair response. I was trying to point out that while Woodlief is the chief scout and face of Red Line, there are a lot of guys who make that publication go. I wanted to make sure that people understand that just because KW feels a certain way does not mean all of his guys are in agreement.

That said- I'm a satisfied Red Line customer now in my seventh full season of subscribing. I enjoy the service they provide and they have never let me down when I've contacted any of them for information outside of what is published in their monthly reports and draft guide.

RLR isn't for everyone- some people don't like the "personal" attention that KW gives some of the players, but let's face it- some folks take this whole hockey prospect scouting stuff way too seriously. The same people who whine and cry about Kyle ripping into their boys get on this forum and write nasty and vicious things about the players they *don't* like. So, I find all the hurt feelings and indignant remarks pretty hilarious sometimes.

My issue with a lot of posters here is that they either rip Red Line for things that Kyle says up front that they *don't* do (ie- correctly project the first-round order) or relentlessly attack Kyle personally over the stuff that appears in one very small sample size- the USA Today column. If they actually subscribed to the publication (very expensive, I know), they would see how valuable a resource it is. Just line the issues up- month to month from a given full hockey season- then read away. A lot of original thought goes into the scouting reports, and it isn't a bunch of recycled hash or shotgun blasts from a bunch of zipper-heads you've never heard of and won't ever see an NHL rink as a player. A lot of folks on this forum get their panties into a bunch over what appears on the first or second page of Red Line, not realizing that the *true* worth of the publication is found on pages 3 and beyond. Want to know how a Finnish player you are interested in did at the Five Nations Cup? To paraphrase the old Prego commercial: "It's in there!" Where else are you going to find the kind of in-depth data they provide?

One gentleman on this forum, who will go nameless, relentlessly criticizes Red Line, but let me tell you a story about this guy: he's never so much as read a single issue! In fact, he was asking me to send him profiles from the RLR Draft Guide on the players that his favorite NHL team took in a recent draft, which I did. So, what does he do- he joins his little anti-Red Line buddies on this forum to badmouth Kyle, even though he doesn't have the first clue about the actual content aside from what I supplied to him (which was pretty bang on iirc). He just follows the herd...just another cow. But he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. And, we won't even talk about the lack of integrity he shows by doing that. But, I digress...

I'm not trying to sell anyone on it one way or another. Just want to make sure that people understand that Kyle Woodlief isn't the only scout at Red Line, and sometimes, even though the publication may have one player rated a certain spot, his other scouts have argued in favor of that prospect being higher or lower.

FWIW.