I could care less about some scouts gimmick to get views. It reminds me of Tod McShay for football. At the end of the day, it’s all an educated guess base on statistics and opinion. Personally I feel like McKeen’s perpective doesn’t properly reflect his own grades.
Kakko : quick, clean, powerful,accurate, scoring threat. He uses a short stick, negative!? (Who Cares): 60.
Hughes: Pass first, shoots a lot, it’s a tool, strong slap shot(um it’s a slap shot), not intended to score and then trys to justify himself by saying it sustains velocity: 60.
I’m calling BS.
You realize of course that NHL GMs refer to the high-level scouting services. These aren't written for fantasy hockey owners.
Also it's important to realize the context of these statements. When a scout says that "using a short stick does not benefit Kakko's shooting" it is not a negative. What the scout is saying is that Kakko's shot would benefit from using a longer stick.
When a scout says that Hughes has a strong slap shot, it's because the "shot" category is comprehensive for all types of shots. When a scout says that Hughes' shot is "not always intended to score", it means that, when Hughes does not see a scoring opening, he will shoot off the goalie and try to direct the rebound to a teammate in the net area. And I'm uncertain how a shot having and maintaining velocity would not be seen as a positive.
Now scouting services are not infallible. Many of them have biases. The scouting service of highest prominence is the ISS, and they can be criticized for being too old-school in their preferential treatment for players with size and physicality. Some of the newer services and scouts (Corey Pronman is a great example) go the complete opposite, under ranking players with the power game and overranking small, flashy players, even if there are red flags around other aspects of their game. Some of the newer services overly rely on analytics, an impossible tool to correctly utilize in a draft where players come from over 20 different leagues.
But what do they not do? BS. That's what they do not do. Every year, these scouting services must justify to their subscribers why they, and not another scouting service, should be the one they most often subscribe and refer to. If they BS and are incorrect in their estimations with any regularity, they will lose credibility, and thus their subscribers, and thus their livelihoods. These guys literally make their living on being as correct as possible.
I'm not trying to pick on you. I just like to get all vitriol and hysteria as far away from possible from the Devils prospect/draft boards, because they do not advance the debate. Quite the opposite, they stultify the debate. As I have said before, I can debate all day with someone I disagree with. If the Devils pick third, I would like Byram. Many of you would like Cozens. I would love to debate that. If the Devils pick and Byram and Cozens are off the board, I want Turcotte. Many of you would like Podkolzin or Zegras or Krebs. I would love to debate that. But the debate ends in stupidity if someone argues for Podkolzin by saying something absurd, like that "Turcotte reminds me of Steven Gionta" or "Turcotte is a bust" or "the scouting reports which universally state that Turcotte is an incredible skater are all lying to you and actually he isn't".
I am not the most knowledgeable draft expert on the continent. I'm not even close. To be honest, if I disagree with McKeen's (which I often do) or Corey Pronman (which I often do) or the ISS (which I often do), you might want to take their word for things. These guys all make a living doing this. I'm an ex-draft writer who runs a bar in NYC for a living and watches a lot of hockey.
My point and advice is, a lot of people on these threads respect my opinion and a big reason for it is because I have great respect for their opinions, as well as opposing opinions.
This would be an opposing opinion I would respect: "I think the scouting services are underselling Kakko's ability to be the best player to come out of this draft."
This is the type of vitriol I am trying to eradicate from these boards: "Jack Hughes is like Scott Gomez, and all the scouting services who say he has a strong shot are actually BS-ing you, because his shot is below average in my opinion."
Can we see the difference?