Bob McKenzie many years later

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Bob McKenzie many years later

    People here seem to think that if Bob says it, it's true, or correct or has to be right.

    I like his delivery and find him entertaining, but he knows what is going to happen about as much as we do.  Here's his rundown of the '03 draft where he suggest Mark Stuart might go in the Top 10 and that Nathan Horton is the top pick overall.

    2003 NHL Entry Draft Preview - Part I

    Nathan Horton
    (December 18) NHL scouts will tell you how much they like this year’s crop of prospects, how there is depth of talent and no shortage of blue chippers with star potential.


    So when they also tell you that the best prospect for the NHL isn’t even eligible this year, it gives you some idea of how special Alexander Ovechkin is.


    The Russian forward, who is expected to turn heads at the World Junior Championship in Halifax, misses being eligible for the 2003 draft by a mere 48 hours. In TSN’s survey of NHL scouts, it was unanimous – Ovechkin would be the clear-cut No. 1 choice this year, if he were eligible.


    They say Ovechkin has it all – speed, size, smarts, skill and a mature attitude highlighted by outstanding character and work ethic. But the scouts will have to wait.


    Now, the class of 2003 is not without its jewels but there is no unanimity of who’ll be No. 1.


    Right now, it’s a two-man race between Russian winger Nikolai Zherdev, who’s been described by some as a lower case Ilya Kovalchuk, and Oshawa General power centre Nathan Horton, whose blend of offensive ability with size, strength and a physical approach is turning heads.


    In our survey of ten scouts, Horton gets the edge, barely, by a count of 6-4, over Zherdev for the No. 1 spot. It’s an impressive feat considering Horton missed a significant chunk of this season recuperating from a broken jaw suffered in a fight with fellow 2003 draftee Anthony Stewart.


    The scouts see Horton as a total package, an old-time hockey player who makes room for himself with his aggressiveness but one who has the skill and scoring touch to be a front-line NHLer.


    In the eyes of the scouts, Zherdev has greater offensive upside and may be more dynamic, a la Kovalchuk. And like Kovalchuk in his draft year, there is some talk about Zherdev’s volatile temperament and his disdain for sharing the puck. No one, though, doubts the skill level and raw potential. And Zherdev will get a chance to strut his stuff at the World Junior tourney.



    Marc-Andre Fleury
    No. 3 on our list is Czech Milan Michalek, a physically mature forward who plays a pro style game, though there may be some limitations on his offensive upside. He’s expected to play for the Czechs in Halifax.


    No. 4 is Peterborough Petes centre Eric Staal, who may be the exact opposite of Michalek. That is, the slender Thunder Bay, Ontario native has yet to fill out his 6-foot-3 frame, but where speed is concerned, he has a fifth gear and the offensive upside is huge.


    No. 5 is the undisputed top defenceman available, Braydon Coburn of the Portland Winter Hawks. The big kid from Shaunavon, Saskatchewan – he’s 6-5 and 210 pounds – is a mobile blueliner with a good mind for the game and all the physical tools to be a premier NHL defenceman.


    If scouts were disappointed to see Horton, Staal and Coburn left off Team Canada, they’ll get their chance to see other top prospects there.


    TSN’s No. 6 is Guelph Storm winger Dustin Brown, a rock solid goal-scorer who will play for Team USA.


    And No. 7 is Cape Breton Screaming Eagles standout goalie Marc-Andre Fleury, who could be Team Canada’s No. 1 stopper.


    No. 8 is Tomas Vanek, a big Austrian forward who is starring at the University of Minnesota.


    No. 9 is Ryan Suter, a defenceman in the U.S. Under-18 national program. He is the nephew of retired NHLer Gary Suter.


    As for No. 10, it’s Lethbridge Hurriances defenceman Brent Seabrook, whose resume includes wearing the ‘C’ for Canada’s Under-18 team last summer.


    It’s difficult to imagine any scenario where the first seven names on this list don’t end up as top 10 selections in the 2003 draft. But players like Vanek, Suter and Seabrook will be challenged by others, including J.P. Parise’s son, Zach, who plays at the University of North Dakota, Colorado College defenceman Mark Stuart and Mississauga Icedogs forward Patrick O’Sullivan. Those three Americans, by the way, will all be in Halifax. Quebec league forward Marc-Antoine Pouliot of Rimouski and Calgary Hitmen centre Ryan Getzlaf are also pushing for Top 10 status.


    But the fiercest battle will be waged between Horton and Zherdev for No. 1, unless, of course, those NHL scouts can find a way to doctor Ovechkin’s birth certificate between now and June.

    ***

    http://forums.smirkinchicken.com/thread.php?forumid=1&threadid=639

    My point?  If Bob says it, it's interesting and entertaining.  It doesn't make it so.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Bob MacKenzie many years later

    They're almost all the same and Bob McKenzie usually comes out with the scoop before any other.
    I personally like him as rarely disagree with his point of view and commentary.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Bob MacKenzie many years later

    Is this post a shot at mackenzie? Seems to me the majority of what he is writing is from a survey he took from 10 scouts and he's writing what they said for the fans.
    I like Bob Mackenzie but like every scout and G.M finds out, when you are drafting 18 year old kids it is far from an exact science.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Bob MacKenzie many years later

    In Response to Re: Bob MacKenzie many years later:
    [QUOTE]Is this post a shot at mackenzie? Seems to me the majority of what he is writing is from a survey he took from 10 scouts and he's writing what they said for the fans. I like Bob Mackenzie but like every scout and G.M finds out, when you are drafting 18 year old kids it is far from an exact science.
    Posted by kelvana33[/QUOTE]

    It's "not-a-shot" at McKenzie (can you believe that's the first time I've done that?). 

    It's a shot at those who think Bob's thoughts on the draft are soothsayer-ish and that if Bob thinks it'll happen, it will.  I like Bob.  He's a good entertainer.


     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Bob MacKenzie many years later

    In Response to Re: Bob MacKenzie many years later:
    [QUOTE]They're almost all the same and Bob Mc Kenzie usually comes out with the scoop before any other. I personally like him as rarely disagree with his point of view and commentary.
    Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, yeah, yeah.  I saw the spelling mistake.

    Life goes on.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from callodthedom19. Show callodthedom19's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    You make a post about someone and don't bother to spell his name right... LAZY!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    In Response to Re: Bob McKenzie many years later:
    [QUOTE]You make a post about someone and don't bother to spell his name right... LAZY!
    Posted by callodthedom19[/QUOTE]

    Oh come on!  I fixed it about a minute later!

    At least it's not Krecji, Charro, Pevereley, Thorton, or Tuka Raasskk!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Bob MacKenzie many years later

    NAS- Horton went #3 while Zherdev went #4, and worth pointing out this report is from December, not June.  This year's pre-season rankings has Couturier at #1 and RNH at #3.  The fact that things have changed since the beginning should be expected.

    McKenzie's methodology is to interview the scouts to get their feedback, rather than go "Mel Kiper" and rank himself as if he is the scout.  I think that is why people value his projections/rankings.

    From McKenzie's Take:
    "Finally, a word about the process used to determine these rankings.

    This is not a subjective analysis of who TSN believes will develop into the best prospects or the order that they should be taken. It's not a scouting report, per se.

    It is a more objective numerical ranking based on the consensus of opinion gathered from 10 NHL scouts, a barometer of where we think a player is most likely to be taken in the draft."

    Here are some comments about his rankings from Bruins Draft Watch.  Kirk Luedeke points out at the end:
    "The rankings are worth checking out. Last year, McKenzie got 25 of 30 right, which was a down year by his standards most of the time. We shall see if he can get back closer to his high of 28. "

    http://bruins2011draftwatch.blogspot.com/2011/06/bob-mckenzies-2011-final-draft-rankings.html

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from callodthedom19. Show callodthedom19's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    In Response to Re: Bob McKenzie many years later:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bob McKenzie many years later : Oh come on!  I fixed it about a minute later! At least it's not Krecji, Charro, Pevereley, Thorton, or Tuka Raasskk!
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    I'm just getting back at you for the time I misspelled Kesler. haha
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    We'll see how he does this year, Crowls. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    I don't think anyone thinks that Bob can see into the future but it's, by no means, a stretch to say that he's one of the world's foremost authorities on draft-aged hockey players.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    Bob is like Dupont. They are both wrong from time to time.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    McKenzie's has stated his rankings and comments about players are based on NHL scouts opinions. What is so hard to understand about that comment ? He is not a scout, doesn't pretend to be one and let's everyone know that.
       

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    Unlike a lot of the yahoos on tv, McKenzie seems to maintain a certain amount of journalistic method.  Seems to have the best contacts, plays the information he collects at the right level and almost never makes the over-the-top pronouncement when giving his opinion.  In fact, he's far more likely to sound the caution than claim special knowledge.  I think it's the confidence that he's good at what he does - he doesn't have to "make a name for himself" or justify moving from SportsNet to TSN (I'm looking at you Dreger).
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from LeBruinsFan. Show LeBruinsFan's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    Nobody is ever 100% but at least BM knows what he's talking about.

    I wonder if Pierre McGuire can be leased out as a pinata during the off season.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    This opening post is flawed on a couple counts.  One is that it is the mid season rankings before the world junior takes place, not the final rankings.  The other is that it is a Bob McKenzie report, not editorial.  He is reporting on the opinions of scouts he intereviewed.  The only thing you can judge Bob on for this is did he give us a look into what scouts think?  I would say so.  At no point does he say who he thinks will be the best players of the lot or who he thinks should go high.  Bob is more than an entertainer like a Mike Milbury or Don Cherry.  He is respected because he has an outstanding network of contacts throughout the league and reports honestly.  He doesn't drop random speculation to get attention.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    How can anyone with a good sense of judgement say draft projections are accurate even remotely.  It is a crap shoot, looking back to last year for instance.  NAS is correct in that MacKensie is not always correct.  He may be more informative than others, and thus more credible. When it comes to trade rumors, player movements, and the inner workings of the NHL, he is the best in the business.  

    Off the topic, how does one simply say the top 9 are the best, why not the top ten, fifteen, or whatever.  Now that statement does smack of zeal.  


     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    In Response to Re: Bob McKenzie many years later:
    [QUOTE]How can anyone with a good sense of judgement say draft projections are accurate even remotely.  It is a crap shoot, looking back to last year for instance.  NAS is correct in that MacKensie is not always correct.  He may be more informative than others, and thus more credible. When it comes to trade rumors, player movements, and the inner workings of the NHL, he is the best in the business.   Off the topic, how does one simply say the top 9 are the best, why not the top ten, fifteen, or whatever.  Now that statement does smack of zeal.  
    Posted by islamorada[/QUOTE]

    Well said.
    McKenzie rules, MacKensie is a fake. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from scooter244. Show scooter244's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    This is a dumb topic.  Nobody with any sense see's McKenzie's commentary on the draft as anything but entertaining.  Just because certain posters lead a topic with "Bob McKenzie says" you think they take it as gospel?  They are reporting the words of a very good hockey mind and writer.  That's it.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    Again, missing the point of the article.  He is not saying that there are 9 that are the best.  He is saying that in a review with 10 scouts, they all agree who the 9 best are and that those 9 look better right now than anyone else in the draft.  It is not an arbitrary number.  The reason it is not 15, or 23 or whatever, is because the scouts agreed on 9.  If a 10th player was brought up consistantly by the scouts it would be a list of 10.  But they weren't brought up.  It is an objective report of 10 subjective opinions.

    In Response to Re: Bob McKenzie many years later:
    [QUOTE]How can anyone with a good sense of judgement say draft projections are accurate even remotely.  It is a crap shoot, looking back to last year for instance.  NAS is correct in that MacKensie is not always correct.  He may be more informative than others, and thus more credible. When it comes to trade rumors, player movements, and the inner workings of the NHL, he is the best in the business.   Off the topic, how does one simply say the top 9 are the best, why not the top ten, fifteen, or whatever.  Now that statement does smack of zeal.  
    Posted by islamorada[/QUOTE]
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    So I would break this down like this:

    1. NAS's point is that you shouldn't take what McKenzie says as a prediction, a certainty, a revelation from the divine.  Regardless of the rest of the post, I agree.  So would McKenzie.

    2. NAS's strategy in backing the point up has holes.  The biggest hole, as discussed above, is that this is a mid-season ranking based on the collated rankings of ten NHL scouts.  It doesn't pretend to factor in team preferences, tendencies, or weirdness.  So anyone who took that list as gospel and got "Zherdev - first overall pick!" hats made in, say, Pittsburgh team colours based on the list needs to have his head examined regardless of the content on the list.

    3. What NAS's research does show - and it addresses the point on a broader scale than over-valuing Bob - is how difficult it is to predict who the ten best players in any draft are even for scouts. 

    That was a great draft year, so you can't really knock Staal or Fleury or Horton (all key pieces on Cup championship teams) for either making this interim list or for going 1,2,3 overall.  The only two guys on this list who were pushed out of the top 10 were Brown and Seabrook, and they were still top 15.  Phaneuf had a great WJHC that year and his stock soared (#9), and the Shabs went for A. Kostitsen (lol) at #10.  Jeff Carter and the much mocked Hugh Jessiman went ahead of Brown and Seabrook.  So the scouts had 8 of 10 in the top 10 even if they had the order wrong (and this would depend on teams drafting as much as the quality of the kid).  Hindsight's a beyotch, though.  You'd have to put Getzlaf higher up, not to mention Perry, Kesler, and Mike Richards (who didn't get a mention at all by Bob's scouts).  And, oh yeah, some kid named Bergeron, who is the 9th most productive scorer drafted that year, went 45th; another kid named Shea Weber went 49th.

    But all that said, three of the top 10 career scorers from that draft were top ten, 9 of 10 were first rounders (Bergeron being the exception) and we know one of the top 10 picks was a goalie so scoring doesn't really help evaluate.  The true crap shoot begins in the next group where you see guys like Enstrom and Byfuglien (both 8th rounders).  In a redraft, bet the Rangers would prefer Byf to Jessiman?

    To sum it up - NAS is right, just not that bright.  (Offseasons are boring - gotta poke a few bears)
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    I actually like Bob but I don't think that everything he says is the hockey standard. He has to have an opinion it's allot better than the wishy washy prognostications who make the safe comment.

    Dr. Z, Peter King, Chris Ford all their pre-draft rankings go to shambles after the draft starts always.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    In Response to Re: Bob McKenzie many years later:
    [QUOTE]McKenzie's has stated his rankings and comments about players are based on NHL scouts opinions. What is so hard to understand about that comment ? He is not a scout, doesn't pretend to be one and let's everyone know that.    
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]

    Good to see you back.
    What's your take on Hamilton vs Murphy ?  Why has Hamilton's stock grown over Murphy's ?  
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Bob McKenzie many years later

    In Response to Re: Bob McKenzie many years later:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bob McKenzie many years later : Good to see you back. What's your take on Hamilton vs Murphy ?  Why has Hamilton's stock grown over Murphy's ?  
    Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]

     I would take either one with my first choice being Hamilton because he has good size ( 6'4" ) and is better in the defensive zone. And don't think that just because he's big means he's slow. He is fast and likes to jump in on the offensive rushes. Good shot, voted best skater in the OHL East, has improved enough to be used as a shutdown defenseman, has been more physical and Qb's the PP.

    Murphy has been a special talent in the OHL . Fun to watch with great offensive skills. He was the most dynamic player for me to watch this year in the league. Can he carry this over to the NHL despite his 160 pound frame ? He'll have to put on a few lbs. and get better in his own end. He gets pushed around in front of his net too easy right now. But for pure offense from the back end he's easily the best.

     

Share