Prospect Info: Who is the Canucks #10 prospect?

[arsmaster*]

I'd say we start to see weaknesses in Hutton's game next season. Not because I'm sour on him, but next year it sounds like he'll be the defacto #1 defensman on a team, thus, tougher matchups against better players.

I'd certainly say it's the case of probably not being challenged. Like Tanev, people will go on for weeks about how he was "our best defensman for large stretches", but it easy to look great when playing lesser competition.

I can't speak for absolute certainty as I didn't watch the games.

-------
My favourite part about thefeebster write ups and critiques is, if you follow the prospects or draft threads on this board you should have already read most of those things. He adds this information all year, linked those articles previously.....

I'm thankful he does, as it makes the addiction that is HFboards a lot more bearable year round.

 

[Shareefruck]

Whoa! People took that one not taking him seriously comment A LOT differently than I intended it to be. I for one appreciate his prospect reviews, he puts a lot of time into them and I respect that. I know I was being really nitpicky but it's just something I didn't understand and was genuinely wondering why it seems a lot scouting reports are like that, not just his. I didn't intend to single him out, I thought he might have some insight as to why I see a lot of reviews chocked full of positive traits rather than negative ones. I don't pretend to know everything around here and I don't know the first thing about how scouting is done, and I certainly didn't mean to diminish his hard work he's done for the board. As Tiranis said, it's probably a lot harder to spot their shortcomings at a lower level among other things and I'd probably have to agree with that.

The whole post reads like that.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

I wouldn't take it too harshly feebster. In a way, Rev is asking for something most prospect evaluators don't even do: be even handed. One could take that to mean you're not doing a good enough job, or to mean that he thinks highly of your posts, to the point of expecting that last little bit to make them a definitive source. The likening it to other scouting material is a give away to this IMO.

If that last little bit of negative information is included, then the picture will be more complete than anything found elsewhere. Just in how you take it. This type of criticism is in itself an affirmation that you are on the right track, and further ahead than most. Expect the best from the best.

Trust me, I read up on a lot of feebster's stuff and it's really good, insightful and more even-handed than most of the scouts who get paid to report on players and write them up on their website. Hutton's was a bit more positive and I took the opportunity to ask why some scouting reports are extremely positive about the player. Me and feebster have talked and we are on the same page now. Just a big misunderstanding no thanks to me going too far in my ranting and raving.