F A N
Registered User
- Aug 12, 2005
- 18,626
- 5,890
I'm sure many of you have read/heard about Mike Gillis "leaked" ideas on scouting. If not here's what presented to the Penguins:
The amateur scouting process has always been of interest to me. It seems to me that having as much information as possible is desirable. With that in mind, some teams have built a large scouting department. Theoretically, more eyes = more viewings and information right? Gillis himself greatly expanded the amateur scouting department when he was here. Then again, you have (arguably) good drafting teams like Anaheim, Nashville, Washington, San Jose, and even Tampa Bay who ran with a smaller group of amateur scouts. If more scouts was indeed better, the correlation doesn't seem to be there in terms of the drafting results.
I think there is a line between looking for players that fit say what a Canuck should look like and being stuck drafting the same type of player with every pick. Successful drafting teams often talk about the former. Then there's the whole "Best Asset Available" vs "Best Player Available" argument.
At the end of the day, a draft list needs to be created. Under Gillis' plan, there would be two independent draft lists. That obviously presents challenges as the time for putting together the draft list is limited.
And what about amateur scouts scouting professionally? There are certain teams that don't define the roles of their scouts. Amateur scouts can be influenced by their past views of a player as scouts can have a long memory. The Canucks have certainly acquired players they have liked from the draft. At the same time, the role of an amateur scout is to project prospects into NHL players and it's imperative that they know what an NHL player looks like.
Anyhow, I think it's an interesting discussion all around.
The amateur scouting process has always been of interest to me. It seems to me that having as much information as possible is desirable. With that in mind, some teams have built a large scouting department. Theoretically, more eyes = more viewings and information right? Gillis himself greatly expanded the amateur scouting department when he was here. Then again, you have (arguably) good drafting teams like Anaheim, Nashville, Washington, San Jose, and even Tampa Bay who ran with a smaller group of amateur scouts. If more scouts was indeed better, the correlation doesn't seem to be there in terms of the drafting results.
I think there is a line between looking for players that fit say what a Canuck should look like and being stuck drafting the same type of player with every pick. Successful drafting teams often talk about the former. Then there's the whole "Best Asset Available" vs "Best Player Available" argument.
At the end of the day, a draft list needs to be created. Under Gillis' plan, there would be two independent draft lists. That obviously presents challenges as the time for putting together the draft list is limited.
And what about amateur scouts scouting professionally? There are certain teams that don't define the roles of their scouts. Amateur scouts can be influenced by their past views of a player as scouts can have a long memory. The Canucks have certainly acquired players they have liked from the draft. At the same time, the role of an amateur scout is to project prospects into NHL players and it's imperative that they know what an NHL player looks like.
Anyhow, I think it's an interesting discussion all around.