Jussi
Registered User
Finn said:that's what I am wonderingTuukka will be amazing...
He's sucked so far in the men's games...
Redline Report is here..
- Thread starter Zoran Manojlovic
- Start date
- Status
He's sucked so far in the men's games...
markov`
Registered User
helicecopter said:
So... it just shows that he is one of the Woodlief favorites, like Kostitsyn or Brown.
helicecopter
Registered User
Ah ok..markov` said:
anyway someone could argue that since Korpikoski is looking good maybe Woodlief judged him better than some NHL teams that didn't selected him before than #18..
markov`
Registered User
helicecopter said:
He was selected 19th in fact, I think, since the Habs picked 18th and they picked Chipchura.
I was very excited to see that Korpikoski (with no R that time!) was still available at 18th. I wanted the Habs to pick him, but at the end of the day, I really think Chipchura is a steal.
1.It's early---it is surprising that no euros WHO PLAY IN EUROPE made his top ten at this stage---that will change by the time of the final list--he will be impressed at the World U-18 by some euros over there --I would be shocked if not a single euro playing in Europe this season failed to get into his final top ten...
2.The abscence of Bertram and Cogliano is surprising....
3. Some scouts were quoted late last year in THN that Carey Price was going to be one of the best goalies to ever come out of the Dub,but it appears that the rising Alexandre Vincent is posting superior stats --stay tuned to see which of these 2 BIG goalies grades highest at the end...
4. If--as I expect--there will be no 2005 draft due to no CBA signed before its scheduled date in Ottawa,then we face a possible double cohort draft (2005+2006) in June 2006 if a CBA gets done before then---if so --that will really screw up the rankings unless 2 seaparate drafts are held instead of one combo draft......another issue will be re-entries (eg. if denied re-entry because no 2005 draft will those who otherwise would have re-entered in 2005 be allowed to do so in 2006 or will they just be UFA's...and finally ,the issues of the lottery (based on last season played
=2003/04 if no hockey in 2004/05 and 2005/06 or a free for all lottery--moot if a partial season played in 2005/06 brfore the June 2006 draft) and the question of number of round in a combo June 2006 draft = usual 9 or doubled to 18 to accomodate the double cohort? With possibly 2 seasons before a draft,some of the top contenders on the 2005 list will falter and others farther down on lists even at the end of 2005 will move up.........so why get excited about any list at all this year--we only know 1 thing---Crosby still will be #1 in 2006...
2.The abscence of Bertram and Cogliano is surprising....
3. Some scouts were quoted late last year in THN that Carey Price was going to be one of the best goalies to ever come out of the Dub,but it appears that the rising Alexandre Vincent is posting superior stats --stay tuned to see which of these 2 BIG goalies grades highest at the end...
4. If--as I expect--there will be no 2005 draft due to no CBA signed before its scheduled date in Ottawa,then we face a possible double cohort draft (2005+2006) in June 2006 if a CBA gets done before then---if so --that will really screw up the rankings unless 2 seaparate drafts are held instead of one combo draft......another issue will be re-entries (eg. if denied re-entry because no 2005 draft will those who otherwise would have re-entered in 2005 be allowed to do so in 2006 or will they just be UFA's...and finally ,the issues of the lottery (based on last season played
=2003/04 if no hockey in 2004/05 and 2005/06 or a free for all lottery--moot if a partial season played in 2005/06 brfore the June 2006 draft) and the question of number of round in a combo June 2006 draft = usual 9 or doubled to 18 to accomodate the double cohort? With possibly 2 seasons before a draft,some of the top contenders on the 2005 list will falter and others farther down on lists even at the end of 2005 will move up.........so why get excited about any list at all this year--we only know 1 thing---Crosby still will be #1 in 2006...
Onion Boy
Registered User
markov` said:
Evidence suggests that the Ranger's would've taken him at 6 if Montoya wasn't on the board.
BobMckenzie said:
Isn't that the same as was said about Boris Valabik last year and surprisingly he too played for the Kitchener Rangers.
Vincent will be the top goalie taken, hands down.
Like they said he is big and moves like he is 6'00 in the net. Great reflexes and quick legs. They raved about him, then ranked JP Lavasseur #6...doesnt make sense.
Lavasseur is overrated. People were hyping him when he was in Midget AAA saying he would be a top 10 NHL pick...i just dont see it.
Like they said he is big and moves like he is 6'00 in the net. Great reflexes and quick legs. They raved about him, then ranked JP Lavasseur #6...doesnt make sense.
Lavasseur is overrated. People were hyping him when he was in Midget AAA saying he would be a top 10 NHL pick...i just dont see it.
Setoguchi
Why is he not being highly thought of anymore? He already has 7 goals in 10 games and he seems to have dropped off the faceof the earth of late.
Why is he not being highly thought of anymore? He already has 7 goals in 10 games and he seems to have dropped off the faceof the earth of late.
At this point, even that seems like a real stretch. Too many good players available to risk a pick on a goaltender.Freaky Habs Fan said:
markov`
Registered User
For anyone to guess correctly where these players will be drafted a year before the draft is even held is near impossible. There are those exceptions like Ovechkin, Malkin, and Crosby, Brule, but it is an obvious crapshoot. For the same reasons we sit around and criticize these top 10 lists, the makers are going with what they believe. In Red Line Report, which I happen to love, there is no shortage of long shots, but I praise Kyle Woodlief for his opinions. There is no right or wrong, and seeing as we, the average Joe fan, cannot possibly see all of these draft eligible prospects, I look for insight in the way of these top 10 lists, made up by experts in the field. Do you really think Woodlief just sits around on his sofa and draws straws to come up with his criteria behind his draft order? He has a staff of people who go out and watch these guys.markov` said:
Korpikoski was supposed to go top 10, so what? Tukonen was supposed to go top 5, and Schwarz was supposed to be the first keeper taken, most likely top 10. No one can accurately predict what will be going through a GMs mind on draft day. That is why these boards are great. They give us all a voice, and we can share our opinions, without having to go out on a limb.
To call RLR a "treehouse rag" is idiotic. If it is so bad, then why does it have such a huge following? It is very brave to sit back after the draft has happened and make comments, but where is the risk in that?. We for the most part are making educated guesses because we have the RLR among other so called rags to use as references. Keep up the good work Woodlief!
Last edited:
Puckhead said:
I'd say you are letting your philosophy on the draft (goalies are risky) influence your thoughts on what will happen.
If you've followed the draft the past 5 years you'd know that goalies tend to go very high, as high as the scouting rankings or sometimes even higher. Schwarz dropping lower than he was expected to go seems to be an anomaly when you look at the rest of the data in recent history. And there's evidence that certain teams would have taken him top 10 had they been picking in that spot. Not every scouting service had Leclaire and Blackburn top 10 but both went. Krahn wasn't expected to go top 10 but did. Neither Fleury nor Dipietro were anything close to consensus #1 picks and yet both rose to that position. Montoya and Dubnyk went as higher or higher than most projected. And then if you look at the next tier we have goalies like Ward, Munro, Bacashihua, etc that snuck into the first round despite not being ranked that highly by most.
Given that a few goalies this year seem to be quite highly thought of, it's very realistic to expect one or more to go in the top 10. The evidence of past history supports it. It is the most important position in hockey and certainly many GM's realize that. There seems to be a myth on these boards that goalies are a much higher risk pick. I have yet to see any evidence that clearly indicates this. The bust rate for goalies vs forwards or defensemen seem to be pretty similar.
Last edited:
I completely agree with you FDW! I am just looking at it by way of picking the best player available at that spot, may not yield a keeper. Those teams that said they would have chosen Schwarz in the top 10 had they had a pick, sounds a little suspect to me. The fact is he slipped to 17, there was no shortage of possible trades for those teams to move up and grab him. I think that it was a complete shock to St. Louis when he was still available, especially seeing the moves they made leading up to the draft, to fill their void in goaltending depth, at both the NHL level and for the future. L.A. desperately needed help in goal, yet they decided they could not pass on Tukonen, who fell from the top 5 going into the draft, to out of the top 10.Flames Draft Watcher said:
Was it a surprise to you that Schwarz fell so far? It is quite conceivable for no goalies to crack the top 10. I am not saying they won't, but where is it written in stone that one or more will go there. Levasseur, and Rask seem to be the bigger names out there, and anything can happen between now and the draft which would see their stock go through the roof. By the same token, they could fall aswell. I think that if it comes down to a choice between a position player or keeper for any certain GM, and he feels that either or will help his club, then I feel the goalie is of more value, because there simply aren't the same number of quality ones out there as forwards or defense.
Last edited:
Puckhead said:
Just a reminder- Redline is a RANKING service, not a predicting one. The fact that player X or Y went much earlier or later in the draft than Redline had him ranked makes no difference. In fact, in Korpikoski's case, Redline actually stated that he (and others) would go lower than they had him ranked.
We'll see who was ultimately more accurate in a few years.
Puckhead said:
Idiotic is not understanding the difference between evaluating and ranking players on the one hand, and engaging in false innuendo, character assassination and libel to produce contoversy or "humor" on the other.
I really hope Heshmatpour sues his ass.
Legionnaire
Help On The Way
markov` said:
True. And I'm pretty sure that LA made them an offer to move up and get Montoya. So if that's the case, and the Rags really, really wanted Koporski, why didn't they take the trade, move down 6 spots and then add something extra?
Legionnaire said:
LA could have taken Schwarz but didn't, so they probably weren't looking for a goalie in the first round after trading for Garon.
helicecopter
Registered User
markov said:
What 'so what?' meant:helicecopter said:
steblick said:
Apparently a necessary reminder!
Legionnaire
Help On The Way
Reilly311 said:
No. They were looking for Montoya. There was obviously something they didn't like about Schwarz. Personally, I don't blame them. He reminds me too much of Cechmanek
The Garon trade came in the third round.
Puckhead said:
Great post. I really enjoy reading the USA Today / RLR coverage and wish there was more of it around.
I understand that RLR is simply ranking the prospects, and the truth is nobody will know for the next 4-5 years. I am simply stating that I have great confidence in RLR. For the purposes of my keeper pool, where we also hold a yearly amateur entry draft, I find it a fantastic read, and really gives loads of insight. I obvioulsy don't get a chance to follow all of the prospects in their draft years, and so it affords me the opportunity to learn a great deal about players I would have known very little about, all be it simply their rankings, and not a proper evaluation. Seeing as all of this is done prior to the draft, it goes without saying that it is not an evaluation the be-all and end-all of rating services. RLR has a disclaimer in the back of its draft special which basically says that this is their ranking of these players, and that they have no inside track as to who will actually go where.Juan said:
Kirk- NEHJ
Registered User
Puckhead said:
Well said.
Many of the people who complain about Red Line seem to fall in the following categories:
A. Nonsubscribers who really have *no clue* what the content is other than the very small portion that appears monthly in USA Today online, yet take shots as if they subscribed based on about 30% of the total monthly content that comes with the pay service.
B. People with a vested interest in certain players who don't shine in RLR for whatever reason and feel the need to hide behind anonymity to take shots at Woodlief and Co. rather than have the stones to identify themselves and their reasons for trashing Red Line on this forum.
Now, there are some on here who have taken Woodlief to task and been forthright about who they are and why they have an issue with Red Line, and you have to applaud that. You and they know who they are- no need to single anyone out. You don't have to agree with every position taken, but you have to respect someone who doesn't hide behind some internet handle and take potshots like a coward does.
As a military officer, I have always been taught to stand by your convictions like a man, and be prepared to answer for your questions. Not everyone lives by that code, I realize, but I think you abdicate your right to be taken seriously when you use the cloak of anonymity to spread the poison I read on here at times.
I myself have subscribed to Red Line since the 1999 draft issue and have every monthly report and draft guide since. I have gotten to know the staff (and meet up with them every year at the draft) and I value their insights. Do I agree with everything they say or write? No. But the beauty of the service they provide is that they let you draw your own conclusions based on the evidence of their observations, plus what you hear on your own. Not having the resources to scout the hundreds of CHL, NCAA and European games they attend, RLR is a valuable resource for me and the work I do. I would also add that I have knowledge that ISS own business model is based on RLR. If they are so bad at what they do, then why are there several copycat scouting forums out there?
For far too long, I've watched people on this forum- some of whom have been subscribers themselves and blatant rip-off artists of some of the content contained inside RLR- take shots and ridicule the publication. Fine. You know who you are. And I saw you get called out in Raleigh. Don't forget- silence is consent. If you didn't defend yourself when confronted, then you are guilty of the very charges of theft of intellectual property you were accused of. To steal from RLR is one thing, but there is nothing more vile than someone who then uses that knowledge to boost their own standing while tearing down the very source they got it from.
I've watched members of certain player entourages- agent, family member, friend, etc. make a huge deal out of Red Line's 'unprofessionalism' and you know what- based on what I saw from a certain individual who was roundly criticized in their pages recently, it was justified. Again- draw your own conclusions, I did. But, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like one, then it probably is a duck. Is RLR always right about the players it criticizes? No. Do they go too far at times? Possibly. But if I were a scout, I would value that bluntness because it would certainly give me focal point to draw from the next time I went to view that player. Remember- the teams decide whether to roll the dice on a player, not Kyle Woodlief. If a player has been unfairly characterized in the pages of RLR, the teams are smart enough to figure that out.
Ultimately- Kyle Woodlief doesn't decide when these guys get drafted. The teams do. So, why be so concerned about what appears in Red Line? Because of the hype machine, of course. Everyone wants to hear nothing but glowing praise for their favorite player whether he's earned it or not. I remember the great Col. Nathan R. Jessup line from 'A Few Good Men': "You can't handle the truth!" If there is a grain of truth to what is being said about the player, then take some damn responsibility for your shortcomings instead of always looking to blame someone else.
In the end, RLR is an acquired taste. If you like it, then you gladly pay for it and move on. If you don't, then that's fine too. But this continous need to bash RLR because they don't get the placement of picks right is just silly. If you subscribed, then you would know that they almost always correctly identify who will go higher than they have listed, and who will go lower. They aren't in the business of guessing who will be drafted by whom. They are acting like a 31st team who builds its rankings based on what it sees and feels about players. Harping on the Dave Browns of the world is pretty sad and ignorant. After all- they pretty much nailed that Robbie Schremp would fall like a stone, and he did. For every RLR miss, you can easily find players that they were bang on with, so it all washes out.
And if you don't think that every NHL team has their own list that bears little resemblance to the Central Scouting rankings that come out every year, then you need to learn more about the scouting and drafting process. A lot of people here seem to think they are experts on what will and won't happen come draft day. That's all fine and well, but the reality is- teams do their own scouting. They don't depend on RLR and they certainly don't depend on Central to figure out where they are going at the draft. We can all have ideas on who teams want or need, but outside of the top picks, the end result rarely resembles the multitudes of mock drafts that appear here.
I'm biased. I'll admit that. I'm a satisfied subscriber and friend to the staff. That friendship developed over time, and only after I had established a business relationship first. If that makes me a 'trusty sidekick,' as I was once called by someone here, then so be it. But because I've been with them for so long, I can go back and look at players that they have absolutely nailed, when others got it wrong. And just as they have been right, they have also been very wrong. But it still doesn't change the fact that their product provides observations and insight that you couldn't get anywhere else until other knockoffs started cropping up. Competition is good, but let us all not forget who started it. RLR isn't perfect, but it doesn't deserve some of the criticism it gets either.
Kirk Luedeke
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Series Talk: Eastern Conference Quarterfinal: BRUINS (A2) vs Toronto Maple Leafs (A3)- Latest: BruinsFanMike82
-
