(I was going to post this in the X-Sharkie thread, but no point in pushing that even farther off-topic.) Is it necessary to see a prospect in person to have a credible opinion on him? There seems to be a pretty sharp divide in the forums on this subject. And not surprisingly, the split seems to be between guys who are in places where they can see a lot of prospects play (junior and college towns, primarily) and those that can't. Personally, I can't attach much credibility to what somebody has to say about a WHL prospect they've only seen on TV and read about on the internet, and I don't expect anybody to put much stock in any comment I'd have about a guy in the OHL or Russia. TV can show you the obvious parts of a guy's game, but unless you're watching several games/tapes and focusing on a single player, the more subtle parts - finishing checks, play away from the puck, communication with teammates, and so on - are much more difficult to pick up on, because the camera is always pointed at the puck. Watching a game or two on TV also doesn't give you the perspective on a player's rate of improvement that seeing several games over the course of a season or more will. NHL teams seem to agree; most of their scouts work out in the field, as opposed to staying in a central location and reviewing game tapes. But I know a lot of other people think it's possible to do a good scouting job on a player without seeing him live. I'd like to hear a little more of their arguments about why they're right, without the 'so-and-so is just copying from McKeen's' aspect getting in the way. Opinions?