When I see these posted I almost always ignore them, they seem to be written for the sake of having content but not necessarily by anyone who knows what they're talking about. Perhaps I'm not being fair here?
it essentially means you picked a lot of players from that publications list. It's the equivalent of winning a popularity contest.
I used to be a editor/writer early on in the days of HF. I feel that i know much more now than I did then. Of course it helps that I am a huge draft geek and routinely include viewings of Coyote prospects in my travel and vacation plans. I no longer write but do respect those who put their thoughts out there.
In regards to rating drafts. I focus on the first round. i don't have time to go much further into the later rounds. I reserve my criticism for our early pick(s) and highlight asset management. For example: I didn't love our 1st round pick this year. I'm in the minority. I had him closer to 20 than I did 10 which doesn't mean he was a total write off in my view. I'm just not sold yet on his upside and I want to desperately to be wrong in my initial analysis of him.
Personally, I like the recaps/grading of the drafts. It's a good chance to learn about the guys that I'm not that familiar with. What I look for at this point is do the experts like the upside of our picks. Do we have potential Top 6 help or some guys who can help to build a winning culture at the AHL level (which we need to do)? Did we roll the dice on Top 6 players or did we try to fill out a future checking line. This year this looks like we are going for Top 6 and Top 9 guys. Question is can more than 1-2 guys make it to the show.
