Rick C137
Registered User
- Jun 5, 2018
- 3,676
- 6,097
Quinton Hughes vs. Adam Boqvist vs. Evan Bouchard vs. Noah Dobson vs. Ty Smith
- Thread starter NJ DevLolz
- Start date
CP4
Registered User
Completely disagree, he also has elite passing/vision. He isn't a one dimensional player.
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
bert
Registered User
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Jason MacIsaac
Registered User
1 to 5 lumps too many players in similar ranges. 20 to 80 is a proven scale in baseball that accomplishes the same thing but allows you to be more exact and seperate skillsets via percentiles. To each their own, hockey is still miles behind in scouting.
bert
Registered User
Well you may think that and thats your opinion but when amateur scouts rate a players skill sets its based on a 1 to 5 scale.
Jason MacIsaac
Registered User
bert
Registered User
NHL scouts do, thats how they do it during an in game analysis then when they send in the report. Clearly when they send in their final lists they get more detailed on their opinion of the player but the scale to rate a player is 1-5.
Hughes should be watching Jared Spurgeon tapes non stop if he wants to have a long NHL career.
Jason MacIsaac
Registered User
I'm not going to get into a rant about NHL scouts, they are finally phasing out the dinosaurs but there is still far too much of friend/brother of players or former players who have a job as a favor. People still weren't applying context to their reports back in 2012. Grigorenko was being highly ranked even though he was probably in the 70%+ for offensive zone starts.
This rant really didn't provide much value on the topic but things change and the 20-80 scale works better because it has been established over dozens of years in baseball. When my military career slows down and I get back into scouting I will be using it.
Jason MacIsaac
Registered User
He just needs to perfect his craft, whether it is using leverage to create separation on the puck or having a very good stick to disrupt the cycle. He needs to be near elite at that given his playing weight, as does Smith but Smith is far advanced defensively without the elite offensive upside.
ehh, BB scouts aren't perfect. They are so into measurables that they seem to miss the ball players, sometimes.
bert
Registered User
I just do not agree with you here. Baseball and hockey are completely different sports, when you are watching a game with 7 draft eligible players playing in it, a more simple scale works better to evaluate a player over multiple viewings. You have the opportunity to review previous reports and potentially see consistent improvement over a season. It is really difficult to guage a player that specifically when you have to take into account so many variables. IE back to backs, or 3 in 3's injuries to linemates, how fresh the opposition is, injuries, players moving up and down the lineup etc.
Grigorenko physically matured early in his development, not the easiest thing to know if you are a scout especially when he just comes over from Russia so you do not have previous viewings to base it on. He was dominant in jr, offensive zone starts or not. Clearly his development curve was further ahead than his peers at this point but hind sight is easy.
I know people on this site dont like when the 'brothers, friend or former players etc' get the job but these guys are around the game and are privy to way more hockey knowledge than any HF poster and truly understand the sport alot better. They didnt just get the jobs for free they clearly have earned it as there are lots and lots of 'brothers, friends and former players out there'. If you havent been there you honestly dont know. People on here hate to give people that grew up in the game credit for this type of thing, the thread where HF posters went into detail about how they are more educated than actual players in the game was hilarious.
Its obvious in these discussions that most posters really havent been in a competitive hockey situation. For example the point someone made to me in another thread saying because Smiths mistakes didnt end up in immediate scoring chances doesnt mean they arent bad plays. Its a truly narrow minded concept of someone that didnt have to watch video after their games or truly understand how a simple mistake can lead to a goal two minutes later. Id advise anyone that dissagrees with this statement ot listen to Adam Oates on Spittin Chicklets interview. Its easy to understand for just about anyone that follows hockey.
Jason MacIsaac
Registered User
First off, if you go into a game looking to scout and take notes of 7 players you are already failing as a scout. Pick one or two that you want to look at and if another draft eligible prospect starts impressing then take whatever notes you can without affecting your original assignment then scout the team again in the future. You should be upwards of 200 - 250 games a season in your region so you will have plenty of time to get all the players, injured or not and you don't half ass your reports.
No Grigorenko, didn't play an ounce of defense and I thought his skating was just average for his size. He plays a slow game, you don't notice it that much because he was always getting the soft minutes in the offensive zone. his development curve had very little to do with why he dominated. He has excellent puck skills, vision and offensive instincts. He dominated on the PP and in zone possession. I had him late 1st or even into the second round. It was tough too because the QMJHL was terrible that year so I had to fight ranking him higher based on regional bias when we all compared our lists.
No many didn't earn it, many didn't scout for CHL or USHL teams or work their way up, they started instantly at the NHL level after their fizzled Jr A or CHL careers ended. Yes, some of these guys may understand systems a little better but scouting skills and hockey sense is just a knack. Knowing which skills are easily improved ect. A lot of the guys on HF played Jr hockey as well, they understand the game quite well. After watching Edmonton's war room from about 5 years ago it confirmed my thoughts, there was a video where one of the scouts was uttering pure nonsense.
I think what the member was saying is that because a lot of the plays smith missed that you deemed catastrophic were normal missed plays due to volume and shouldn't be weighted similarly to a complete turnover. Also, with a player like Smith you take some bad with the overwhelming good. He makes unbelievably difficult situations look easy with his vision and puck distribution skills and rarely chips it off the glass (gives the puck away) like all the other defensmen were doing. I already showed the stats which clearly show he was Canada's best defensmen by a longshot.
Jason MacIsaac
Registered User
They do however their scouting scale is clearly laid out. In hockey, anyone who uses the scale and understands the game can give a detailed report that compares the skill aspect like no other.
Attachments
Blame the referee
Registered User
More than a year later, for me its still the same order than the draft
Hughes
Boqvist
Bouchard
Dobson
Smith
Bouchard, Dobson and Smith all very close
Hughes
Boqvist
Bouchard
Dobson
Smith
Bouchard, Dobson and Smith all very close
That's the baseball scale, Pronman uses it. As far as I'm aware, most teams use a 1-9 scale in the NHL with no .5's.
bert
Registered User
No never suggested that, but we are going to acknowledge how much better Quinn Hughes is as a skater and all around hockey player. Will you come around to this idea now?
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
You've had almost two years to re-read this thread and you still can't read that I called Hughes the better skater, lmao.
Also, Hughes was always closer to the NHL, Boqvist is a project, both still look to be potential 1D one day.
