Lion Hound
@JoeTucc26
I'm going to check Borders tommorrow, but I won't get my hopes up that it will be there. But i'm sure there will be 100's of home remodeling how to mags.
The natural progression seems to be heading towards less than more. While I don't see how they could get much less than the current issue and still call it a Draft Preview, I guess it's entirely possible that they'll just abandon the project entirely?I hope they go back to the normal issues instead of glossy magazines for the draft previews.
They had much more info on each prospect.
I picked it up....but I hop ethat is not the issue everyone is talking about. It has Erik Johnson on the cover, and had a 2 page layout on the 07 draft with an article about Voracek? Is that the same issue, or is this something different?
I'm going to check Borders tommorrow, but I won't get my hopes up that it will be there. But i'm sure there will be 100's of home remodeling how to mags.
I was really disappointed in this year's edition. As others have noted, there were a lot of errors. For example, Dallas defence prospect Ivan Vishnevsky is described as a "gritty forward" by the regular Stars team contributor
I found the team reports to be really formulaic and repetitive, especially in the scouting section. For almost every team they write something like "in the new NHL era, the focus has shifted from drafting bigger players to more skilled ones, with size seen as less of an impediment."
Kind of O/T, but I ALMOST considered not renewing my subscription. I think THN's quality has declined steadily. Although a large part of that is my utter disrespect for Ken Campbell's supposed journalistic abilities, I usually find his columns laughable.
Did they have it? I have to travel 60 miles to get a copy of it and you would save me some time and gas
Another couple of things..how come they don't mention the players that each team would be interested in for the team preview? They pretty much just give the positions they need, I'd like to at least see them mention a few good fits for each team.
And it seems dumb that they list the pick and the "best picks of the last 20 years at that spot" for teams like the Isles and Stars and Devils and teams that don't havea 1st rounder.
Nope...according to the responses above, I have the future watch issue, which I guess is different from the draft preview.
The only thing that disapoints me about this magazine is that this year's ranked 31-50 players are all bunched up on only 2 pages which sucks........there is very little writeup on these players....really about 10 words on each. Last year they still did the same size writeups for the prospects all the way through 50.
but they were even so much better before last year.
They used to have write ups down the page for each of the top 60 prospects. And it actually gave us useful info about the prospects.
I dont really remember back before 2005 how they did it....in 2005 though they had the regular hockey news issue and just put the top 50 with writeups much like last year and last year and this years writeups are much longer then the ones from the 2005 issue. Last years had the top 50 with long writeups in the magazine type issue which is my favourite one theyve done. this years would be great but they skimped on the 31-50 prospects.
The writeups are getting shorter to the point of ridiculousness. I wish they would cut out the team pages (which say the same things every year) and give us more information about the actual prospects. Why can't they do the top 100 in at least as much detail as the top 30? My only reason for ever purchasing The Hockey News is fading a bit each year.
if a bunch of us angrily wrote THN about the Draft Preview and how crappy it's getting each year..do you think it'd do anything?
if a bunch of us angrily wrote THN about the Draft Preview and how crappy it's getting each year..do you think it'd do anything?