Guy Flaming said:
Just out of curiousity... what things in a draft preview convince you to buy it, whether it's online or at a newstand? (Hockey News, Redline, ISS, McKeen's, etc)
Right now, the only thing that convinces me to buy Hockey News instead of anything is else is the pricetag, plus that fact that most of the other information is available free on the internet. I have purchased some of the pricier private reports in the past, but didn't really find that they gave me any more accurate insight than just trawling around the internet would bring.
What types of things are missing from your version of the perfect draft preview?
Some ideas:
- I don't care about precise rankings... tell me about the player, and I can decide for myself where I'd rank him. Instead of going 1.,2.,3., etc, more general rankings like "top 5 pick", "mid-1st round", "probable 2nd rounder", "45th to 90th", would be as helpful, although of course just by doing a ranking this is somewhat implied.
- Of course, the Hockey News blurbs are entirely too short to get any decent scouting information on a player. I like some of the anecdotal info they give, but sometimes you end up with all anecdote and no scouting content. Meanwhile, some of the private reports give too much breakdown of individual skill grades, but not enough anecdotes. I would like to see a mix of both.
- I'm not interested in hearing scouts talk about the business, or what they're looking for when watching players, etc. I just want to read about the players.
- Some ancilliary info on prospects would be good: what line were they on in junior, did they play PP or PK, who were their usual linemates/defense partners, the record of their team, their playoff stats. It would save me looking that stuff up on my own. Include all the major tournament stats, include some info on juniors about where they were picked in their respective bantam/midget drafts, on any who have signed intents with NCAA schools, etc.
- If you have info on things like the Skills Testing at the Top Prospects game, publish it. Again, it can be found elsewhere, but save us the time and put it in the draft report. You have the skating, puckhandling, shooting abilities of 40 of the top NA prospects quantified to some extent by that testing, so print the results.
- Despite the marketing pressure, wait until you can include the re-entries and the opt-outs in your issue. There's still 4 weeks remaining before the draft. If any educated guesses on the draft order can be made (i.e. estimates of compensatory picks coming) try to include that somewhere too, along with a list of all the picks currently possessed by every team, through all the rounds.
- Basically, I would like to see as much comprehensive factual information as possible collected and tabulated, for as many draft eligibles as possible.
- Subjective scouting reports should also clearly indicate the identity of the scout and which, if any, specific games formed the basis of the report. I know some scouts won't want to do this, but legitimate ones should have no problem with it. Scouts have different levels of credibility, and I want to know how many grain of salts to attach to each report I read.
- Player "style" comparisons to NHLers can be good or bad... it all depends on the knowledge and the "eye" of the beholder... if somebody with a good eye is making the comparisons, I'm all for them.
- I don't really care to hear about past drafts, and I don't want any cliche-interviews with scouting directors who say "we're going to look at all the options and take the best player available", etc. We know that already. If you want to give us something organisational, give us a detailed listing of all the scouts employed by each organisation and their regional assignments. Show us the hierarchy of an organisation's scouting department.
Just some thoughts...