Kirk- NEHJ
Registered User
I don't get the worship of the ISS draft guide on this thread as being far superior to Red Line's. It's a nice publication, I suppose, but it is essentially the same format with a few minor changes.
On the originality scale, ISS doesn't pass muster. They basically took the Red Line formula and copied the most essential portions, while adding extra fluff features to put their own "stamp" on it and make it different. That's fine- immitation is the finest form of flattery and all, and if you find it to be far superior, more power to you. Problem is- they've had a grand total of three draft guides to build their reputation on, so in the end, it will take a few years to better establish how their projections grade out. On the other hand, Red Line has been in existence for a full seven seasons longer and are the ones NHL scouts tend to recognize when you bring up the subject.
I find it interesting that a good percentage of the people who criticize Red Line, have never actually held a real draft guide in their hands, and are merely popping off based on things they hear or think they know based on the USA Today snippets. That's fine and all- everyone has an opinion, but to make it out like the ISS Draft Guide is something completely different and superior in every way to Red Line's is a bit of a stretch, IMO.
Both guides have their share of misses, just as they hit on players. In the end, though- you have to decide what you're willing to pay for. If you're expecting stats lines and bells and whistles, then Red Line is not for you. If you want a little more fluff and an aesthetically pleasing product with similar content, then Green Line, I mean- ISS- is right up your alley. ISS has done a nice job of getting some key media sources to use them as a resource, but in the end- I can tell you that to me, they don't have any kind of profound or substantial edge of any kind when it comes to scouting. Their guys have their opinions, Red Line's guys have theirs.
But, I think it does come down to personal preference. I've been using Red Line as a resource since 1999. They were the original business model that others have copied, but to me, haven't quite measured up. Again- it's a preference. Some are going to love ISS or Young Guns and the services they provide and that's fine. Me? I'm happy with Red Line and the way they break down. I'm admittedly biased because I've gotten to know their staff, but that's all about the credibility.
When I go to the draft, and I watch a Red Line scout talking with no fewer than five NHL scouting directors at various times, *that's* the credibility I'm getting at. Nothing against ISS, but I have yet to see them on the floor or anywhere near the NHL scouts come draft time, and I've been at every one since 2001 save for Ottawa last summer, when I was in Iraq. Take that for what it's worth.
On the originality scale, ISS doesn't pass muster. They basically took the Red Line formula and copied the most essential portions, while adding extra fluff features to put their own "stamp" on it and make it different. That's fine- immitation is the finest form of flattery and all, and if you find it to be far superior, more power to you. Problem is- they've had a grand total of three draft guides to build their reputation on, so in the end, it will take a few years to better establish how their projections grade out. On the other hand, Red Line has been in existence for a full seven seasons longer and are the ones NHL scouts tend to recognize when you bring up the subject.
I find it interesting that a good percentage of the people who criticize Red Line, have never actually held a real draft guide in their hands, and are merely popping off based on things they hear or think they know based on the USA Today snippets. That's fine and all- everyone has an opinion, but to make it out like the ISS Draft Guide is something completely different and superior in every way to Red Line's is a bit of a stretch, IMO.
Both guides have their share of misses, just as they hit on players. In the end, though- you have to decide what you're willing to pay for. If you're expecting stats lines and bells and whistles, then Red Line is not for you. If you want a little more fluff and an aesthetically pleasing product with similar content, then Green Line, I mean- ISS- is right up your alley. ISS has done a nice job of getting some key media sources to use them as a resource, but in the end- I can tell you that to me, they don't have any kind of profound or substantial edge of any kind when it comes to scouting. Their guys have their opinions, Red Line's guys have theirs.
But, I think it does come down to personal preference. I've been using Red Line as a resource since 1999. They were the original business model that others have copied, but to me, haven't quite measured up. Again- it's a preference. Some are going to love ISS or Young Guns and the services they provide and that's fine. Me? I'm happy with Red Line and the way they break down. I'm admittedly biased because I've gotten to know their staff, but that's all about the credibility.
When I go to the draft, and I watch a Red Line scout talking with no fewer than five NHL scouting directors at various times, *that's* the credibility I'm getting at. Nothing against ISS, but I have yet to see them on the floor or anywhere near the NHL scouts come draft time, and I've been at every one since 2001 save for Ottawa last summer, when I was in Iraq. Take that for what it's worth.