Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribe
Stanley, go back and read the article, please.
I didn't say my brother was a top-flight scout and it's a safe assumption that he has the same last name as me. Read the article in the context for which it was written and you'll understand why I call him my "super scout."
He gives me advice on players who play in the OHL. I've used that advice -- which I consider excellent because of his track record -- to draft OHL players for my hockey pool team. He often gives me the advice well ahead of the curve and I've used it to my advantage.
I respect your opinions on Kadri, and remember, my brother isn't saying Kadri won't be any good. The point is that he thinks Holland will be better because his game will translate better to the NHL.
|
Though I don't share the same opinion, I can see the idea. I expect Holland to translate well to the NHL due to his size/skating alone.
This being said, I don't buy the Kadri has to be a top 6 or he's an AHLer view. He's not Rob Schremp, the comparisons are hilarious that people try to throw out. I'm not saying Nazem is guaranteed to be a top 6 forward, if he doesn't develop as expected, notably in the weight room he won't be. But this goes for any prospect.
As for the article in general, I don't know why your surprised with the responses. IMO it didn't read like you were saying why Holland is better than Kadri, yet, what you think is wrong with Kadri. Which in general, when you make a statement like Holland will be a better pro than Kadri (I know it was your brother), that isn't shared by many of the scouts and GM's, you need to support it in favour of Holland more than you did IMO.
End of the day, it seems like an attempt to stir up the audience (most journalism is), but it's an opinion article, and was a good read for the most part.
EDIT: Just looking the article over, the random Burke part may be a reason for such responses. Of course, what Madic said is spot on as well.