Scribe said:
As for ISS, I've been a loyal reader for since their inception and they've improved a lot. As for copying Red Line, well call it flattery, but I would hardly call writing about hockey prospects a patented idea. ISS focusses on different areas that Red Line tends to ignore. More coverage of midget hockey in Canada and less coverage of prep schools and youth festivals in the U.S.
What I don't get is you referring to ISS as having "fluff" and "bells and whistles." That, to me, describes the Hockey News draft preview. I just got my ISS draft guide and it's a very meaty read. Profiles of top 100 prospects. In-depth features on five top-10 prospects. A look ahead at 2007, 2008 and the top 1991s.
Not trying to sway you from Red Line, just setting the record straight on ISS.
Fluff= spending 2-3 sentences on a scouting profile by declaring how much the scouting service has liked a prospect since last year and the year before. It's extraneous BS and adds nothing to the profile, but it happens far too much for my liking in the ISS guide. IMO- and, I've gotten every ISS draft guide since they came out in 2003, they are pretty heavy on the hyperbole, but pretty thin on the actual nuts and bolts of what a prospect does well or doesn't do well. Red Line cuts to the chase and breaks down the aspects of that player, as opposed to ISS, which spends far too much time describing what the player did that previous season- kinda like a season in review. In other words- fluff. Some folks like that kind of thing, but that isn't what I'm looking for.
It's a preference thing, of course. You've explained why you like ISS- more power to you. They do some things pretty well- the 2007 preview is a nice feature for example- but having compared the two guides side by side, I don't see how anyone can say that you are actually getting more hockey-intensive information out of the ISS guide, because the fact is- you aren't.
I'll admit that ISS is more aesthetically pleasing than Red Line, and they have the stats lines and a few extras that Red Line doesn't, but for the quality and depth of the scouting reports RLR provides, I don't think ISS is even close to getting there yet. And, when I'm paying $40 a pop for information, I want detailed analysis of the players, not the kinds of stat lines and subjective grades that I can get by logging onto the internet and reading these boards. One example I will cite is in the ISS Kyle Okposo profile, where they give him a 'B' for poise. I've seen him, and I'd say that his poise is one of his best attributes. Ask any scout who saw him take the Bucs all the way to the top in the playoffs, and they'll say the same thing. Okposo's poise is much better than a B. 'A+' for skating? Really? He's a good skater, but not a great one. Now, had I never seen Okposo play, I'd be expecting a blazing fast guy who's all over the ice but undisciplined, and not a big-game player based on those grades ISS gave him. Instead, the reverse is true- you have a guy who's a pretty solid skater (nothing spectacular though), but who really ratchets it up at crunchtime and gets it done. That's but one example, and there are others. Without the grades, the ISS profile's, solid, but those grades detract from it, because I've seen the guy enough to call BS on that.
I've subscribed to Red Line for seven years. I'm comfortable with their product and their knowledge and in the end- that's what it all comes down to. ISS has done a remarkable job in growing and getting their product out there over the past three or four years, and competition is good. They've essentially taken Red Line's successful formula and tweaked it for their own use- more power to them. But, when I look at the two side-by-side, I can form a much better picture of a prospect from reading what Red Line says about them than ISS. That's the bottom line for me.
Not trying to sway you from ISS, but just setting the record straight on Red Line
