April Redline Report in USA Today

[Anthony Mauro]

This is really a rather confusing comment. Red line is paid by NHL teams (and others) and are basically the only service that gives a true opinion on where they see prospects ranking, including their scouts personal prefereces, versus hedging their opinions when compared to the general consensus (although admittedly, Central scouting seems to do this pretty well). I find ISS and even McKeens tend to play catch-up with a player in their rankings (if they hadn't a player exceptionaly low or high compared to the rest of the scouting services, they'll gradually move closer to the median ranking).

The bottom line is if you saw team draft lists, you would be shocked at the variance in rankings. This is why players like Latendresse, Hudler and O'Sullivan drop to the 2nd round, while amateurs on these boards (like me) say things like "they will never drop past 12". It's comical sometimes.

I'm not saying Redline is any better than an other service, but it's an interesting comparison because it at least gives you a feel for a how an individual teams list might vary, where as the others are a little more main stream and rarely predict a major rise or fall.

My problem is not with Redline being different from the mainstream, and frankly I think that's perfectly normal in the business. But I cannot take them seriously when they routinely have such different, say, 8-10's. This month it's Hamill, Cole, McDonagh. Last month it was Esposito, Cherepanov, and Katic. In February it was
similar. January saw Petrecki ranked 9. December saw Petrecki, Hamill, and Korostin 7,8,and 9.

There's just too much movement to be genuine. If a team selects Petrecki at number eight, Redline pegged it regardless of their final ranking excluding him. If a team gambles on McDonagh they had him too. This is more than just player's switching spots as a result of their changing play in the season.

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

Hey There,

I like the Redline report. I like all lists that provide more of a view as to the talent rankings in the draft.

And I'm sorry, but I am sick of people getting offended by Cherepanov being slagged. I've seen him play on TV a few times (like everybody else I suppose), and to my eyes he doesn't look all that extra special, and plus who knows if he ever comes over. If I'm a GM and I only have one pick among the first thirty or so, one chance to make my team better, there's no way I pick that guy. I'm not saying that I am right - it's just my opinion, but I'm not surprised other people share it.

I personally like Kyle Turris and would love for the Habs to somehow get a chance to pick him, but I'm not going to be upset if he drops on someone's list. What difference does that make to me?

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

My problem is not with Redline being different from the mainstream, and frankly I think that's perfectly normal in the business. But I cannot take them seriously when they routinely have such different, say, 8-10's. This month it's Hamill, Cole, McDonagh. Last month it was Esposito, Cherepanov, and Katic. In February it was
similar. January saw Petrecki ranked 9. December saw Petrecki, Hamill, and Korostin 7,8,and 9.

There's just too much movement to be genuine. If a team selects Petrecki at number eight, Redline pegged it regardless of their final ranking excluding him. If a team gambles on McDonagh they had him too. This is more than just player's switching spots as a result of their changing play in the season.

First off, you're only seeing the top 10, so who is floating at 11-20 really tells you whether there is major movement or not. The shifting you're referring to could be very small.

That said, my view is the exact opposite, in that I don't understand how some rankings can be so static. These are 17 and 18 year olds after all, whose games are ever evolving and changing (by the month sometimes). These are critical years in that the player you are seeing in April is often very different from that same player during December. To see only marginal movement from some rankings over these months is surprsing to me. I think some services have a lot of trouble shaking it up (although from the sounds of it, we'll see a major ranking shake-up at McKeens this month).

Should a ranking service ignore the play of Shattenkirk, Cole or even David Perron over the last month or so? Yes, they can shrug it off as an anomoly because they saw them play three months ago and the player wasn't as impressive. But the reality is the version of Cole they saw three months ago may be no longer in that a new player has evolved. I've watched junior hockey enough over the years to look at a player and say "is that the same player?". The answer is yes, it is, but they have a much different game now.

It's clear Redline rubs some people the wrong way, so I can understand some of the hostility and I can't say I really need to read some of their more colourful references to the players they dislike, but in the end, they are probably pretty calm compared to some of the write-ups real scouts are making for their GM's and Chief scouts. And that's what makes it fun - it's like reading an insider report for a team.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I guess you weren't at World's. His stock rose significantly. Picked by Coaches poll top three player on Team USA. On a lot of lists. Draft day will tell.

And? He's been mediocre all year and he has no signs that he has a lot of untapped potential that should make him rise this far. He's fine for a 2nd/3rd round pick, however.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

And? He's been mediocre all year and he has no signs that he has a lot of untapped potential that should make him rise this far. He's fine for a 2nd/3rd round pick, however.

I haven't seen him play other than the U-18. Can you shed a little more light on this? He seems to have the size and skating abilility and I must say it caught my attention when the US coaches voted him as one of the top three players on the team. That says more to me than the occasional glimpse. I know most NHL put a lot of weight on how coaches and team mates rank players on their respective teams, so those U-18 rankings might be given a lot of weight. Any further insights on Cole, especially compared to some of the other US defenders in his class, is appreciated, as there are several intriguing players in that group, such as Shattenkirk, McDonagh, Cross, Ruth, Petrecki, Cohen and others. How would you rank all of them in terms of order and on a scale of 1-10?

 

[shawnmullin]

Nice to see Couture at least in the top 10 here. It's shameful how far he's fallen on the central scouting list. That guy is going to embarass a lot of people.

 

[timlap]

I haven't seen him play other than the U-18. Can you shed a little more light on this? He seems to have the size and skating abilility and I must say it caught my attention when the US coaches voted him as one of the top three players on the team. That says more to me than the occasional glimpse. I know most NHL put a lot of weight on how coaches and team mates rank players on their respective teams, so those U-18 rankings might be given a lot of weight. Any further insights on Cole, especially compared to some of the other US defenders in his class, is appreciated, as there are several intriguing players in that group, such as Shattenkirk, McDonagh, Cross, Ruth, Petrecki, Cohen and others. How would you rank all of them in terms of order and on a scale of 1-10?

Not that I have any insight to offer specifically regarding these players, but I will point out that the Team USA coaches are concerned with who had a good tournament and not with who is going to be the best NHL player one day. Although their praise is certainly valuable, we should keep that distinction in mind.

 

[nanzenkills]

I haven't seen him play other than the U-18. Can you shed a little more light on this? He seems to have the size and skating abilility and I must say it caught my attention when the US coaches voted him as one of the top three players on the team. That says more to me than the occasional glimpse. I know most NHL put a lot of weight on how coaches and team mates rank players on their respective teams, so those U-18 rankings might be given a lot of weight. Any further insights on Cole, especially compared to some of the other US defenders in his class, is appreciated, as there are several intriguing players in that group, such as Shattenkirk, McDonagh, Cross, Ruth, Petrecki, Cohen and others. How would you rank all of them in terms of order and on a scale of 1-10?

Jon did do a ranking on who he feels are the best US born skaters for this draft earlier here: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=344319&highlight=Cross

It doesn't have all of the players that you inquired about, but it does have some of them.

 

[bleedgreen]

And? He's been mediocre all year and he has no signs that he has a lot of untapped potential that should make him rise this far. He's fine for a 2nd/3rd round pick, however.

how you can make those kinds of judgements on 17 and 18 year old kids i just dont know. like the other poster said, these kids can change dramatically from one month to the next, they are in the hugest development years of their lives. a kid can sit at one level for two or three years, and then suddenly something clicks and they move to another level, it happens all the time - in every aspect of life.