Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina
What I like about Redline Report and to a lesser extent Button's list - is that it actually presents a much different list than you get from everyone else. If you read a lot of the draft publications and mock drafts you will find they are somewhat similar - same guys in the top 30 with only minor differences. This becomes what fans perceive to be "the board".
But Redline is often way different - which is more reflective of the NHL reality - that there are dramatic differences between organizations when it comes to their lists.
To put it another way if Redline really likes a certain player, chances are there's at least one NHL club out there, that also does. That's when you see guys go higher than perceived and called 'a reach'.
|
The reason all of these other sources are so similar is because, like Bob McKenzie, they are data aggregators and have not seen the players themselves. They are collecting information that is readily available on line, putting their unique spin on it, and then republishing it as something original. That is why I asked the question of the validity of the publications prior to the draft. Who was the publisher, what expertise is contributing to the publication, what getting of the information is done, and so on.
Would it shock you to find out that Future Considerations is run out of a residential residence in Grand Prairie, AB? Would you be shocked to learn that The Hockey Writers is run out of an apartment in St. Lambert, PQ? Would the credibility of the publications be brought into question if you found out the articles and ratings were being submitted by high school and university students with little to no hockey background? Would all of that begin to make some sense of the hype that was built around these kids and the lack of information that was posted on each player? You would think that if all of these supposed publications were getting eyes on the players, and that there were so many different experienced hockey people involved, that there would be a much greater level of diversity of opinion rather than the same rehashing of the exact same ratings.
The reason that so many people buy into the whole "reach" angle is because the rankings that come out from McKenize and THN have been rehashed and reprinted multiple times so it appears to provide consensus where no true consensus exists. If the 30 teams released their own rankings after the fact it would completely destroy the credibility of many of these draft guides and show just how useless they are outside of the top 10 picks. Poirier versus Shinkaruk is just another example of the hype machine creating controversy where none should exist.