HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Notices

Scouting report on Bergeron

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-07-2003, 06:13 AM
  #26
Gee Wally
Retired
 
Gee Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF retirement home
Country: United States
Posts: 33,920
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterjaggers
I resent a journalist taking the bully pulpit in a fan's forum, saying that one of us is not qualified to comment.
\

misterjaggers et all ;

I have "known" Kirk for years. He is a wealth of info.
A "Founding Father" of this Board. He has earned his place on this board.
He hasn't to my knowledge ever "taken the bully pulpit " here.
I read him as clarifying what he does and how for NEHJ.

If you , any you, have resentment of that Or journalists in general, than perhaps this Board is not for you. That's your decision.

In the mean time ...I strongly suggest ALL read carefully here before hitting "reply".
None of us should be making generalizations about who does what in their jobs.

and yes I am on the pulpit.

__________________

BOSTON STRONG !!!
Gee Wally is offline  
Old
10-07-2003, 06:26 AM
  #27
Jeff from Maine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,667
vCash: 500
Could You Please Tell Me...

Could you please tell me if I am being out of line here?

I cant see as I am.

I just want clarification so I dont recieve a ban...thats all.

I have clearly commended Kirk and others...its not at all a shot at anyone. I am speaking to human nature.

Thanks in advance.

Later

Jeff from Maine is offline  
Old
10-07-2003, 06:39 AM
  #28
Gee Wally
Retired
 
Gee Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF retirement home
Country: United States
Posts: 33,920
vCash: 50
Awards:
I think that use of the term "our" in reference to what somebody other than you does or doesn't do is very assuming. Regardless of the folks in the debate.
More often than not when generalizations occur ..fireworks are are sure to follow.
I would submit that there are many facets to "human nature" .
A bell shaped curve if you will. And there lies the rub..



I think it should be "I" , "me", "my"..etc... is more appropriate in how info. has been digested and regurgitated by an individual.



If anybody requires further feedback from me , please PM me from here on in.

Gee Wally is offline  
Old
10-07-2003, 06:42 AM
  #29
Stock Rocks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Billerica, Mass.
Posts: 3,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Wally
\

misterjaggers et all ;

I have "known" Kirk for years. He is a wealth of info.
A "Founding Father" of this Board. He has earned his place on this board.
He hasn't to my knowledge ever "taken the bully pulpit " here.
I read him as clarifying what he does and how for NEHJ.

If you , any you, have resentment of that Or journalists in general, than perhaps this Board is not for you. That's your decision.

In the mean time ...I strongly suggest ALL read carefully here before hitting "reply".
None of us should be making generalizations about who does what in their jobs.

and yes I am on the pulpit.
Well said, Wally and sarge.

That's exactly how I saw it as well.

Jeff- his comments looked to be aimed simply at clarifying that you aren't aware of how he goes about getting his stories. It's kinda like that assumption you made about his schedule and job. If you don't know the facts about someone, then maybe you should stay in your lane a little better. I've emailed Kirk on occasion- know for a fact that he's in the military, but beyond that- don't know how he does his writing job. Therefore- I'm not going to make assumptions or post publicly on matters I know nothing about. Jeff's comments were probably not intended to spark a reaction, but he should remember that just he wouldn't appreciate somebody speculating on his livelihood and work, it's a two-way street. These are public boards- stick to what you know and hockey- leave the assumptions out of it.

I didn't see Kirk's remarks as anything but an honest and tactful attempt to clarify that the scouting reports were not puff pieces, but information gleaned from those in the hockey business who are paid to know these things.

Methinks that Misterjaggers ought to read the post a little more carefully before he goes around casting stones or characterizing falsehoods here.

Stock Rocks is offline  
Old
10-07-2003, 07:50 AM
  #30
Jeff from Maine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,667
vCash: 500
Stock Rocks

Stock Rocks,

Your comments are well taken.

That whole thing thing about Kirks job was totally blown out of context.

I was not in any way commenting on Kirks job, my implication was that Kirk writes the NEHJ...while KPD covers the Sox, the Bruins, the Pats as well as other specific stories. From what I have understood about Kirks articles (and I may be WAY off here...) is that he seems to have more than a day or 2 to prepare for a story. I may be of base here. Whereas, from mu understanding of the news business, Globe and Herald writers generally have much shorter deadlines for which to adhere.

I was sticking up, in essence, for KPD...NOT shooting down Kirk...a guy I have always appreciated for his knowledge and opinions.

That was my ONLY point...somehow it was taken to be a shot at Kirk having so much spare time on his hands. TOTALLY taken out of context!

I have always had a lot of respect for Kirk...regardless of what the general consensus is.

He is a great writer...you`ll get ZERO doubts from me on that point.

But it is my OPINION that he, like virtually eveyone I know, is a bit biased towards the Bruins.

That isnt a criticising thing...I certainly have my biases...we all do.

And I respect him and look forward to everything he writes.

But a fundamental part of being a journalist is that you open yourself up to the critical eye of the masses. We do it here routinely with the Herald and Globe writers.

Kirk is a journalist like the rest....open to appropriate criticism.

I am a poster here, as you are....and as such, am open to criticism from the boards masses!

Its what our beliefs are founded upon.

BTW...Stock, I greatly appreciate the manner in which you addressed me. I was respectful and classy. Thanks!

Later

Jeff from Maine is offline  
Old
10-07-2003, 08:45 AM
  #31
DR. Holiday
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Fighting the evil Schremp cult
Posts: 314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterjaggers
A journalist is no better than the sources he cites. In this case, most of the sources don't want to be identified by name. Why? Because their employers wouldn't approve of them sharing information with the press or because they don't want to be identified as the source.

It's ludicrous to pretend that scouts don't have ulterior motives. Why, for example, would a scout tout a prospect his organization is planning to draft if the exposure makes it impossible for his boss to draft him?

In this forum, where many of the posts are anonymous, it isn't fair to assume that the journalist's expertise trumps other posters because the posters here have a wide range of experience.

Everyone in this forum has the right to politely express his opinion, even posters in awe of so-called experts...
I am going to go way out on a limb here and say that maybe just maybe Kirk obtained the various scouting comments and opinions after the first day of drafting or after the draft was finished. Therefore there is no harm in a scout being honest about his comments. Based on your posts about what scouts will and won't do it is plain to me that you don't actual have any real insight into the scouting community (or respect for the job they do) and are just making your own assumtions.
It also seems clear that you have an axe to grind with Kirk.

DR. Holiday is offline  
Old
10-07-2003, 08:52 AM
  #32
DR. Holiday
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Fighting the evil Schremp cult
Posts: 314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff from Maine
misterjaggers...

hey bud, whats up?

I appreciate and certainly agree with much of what you posted.

But dont get too worked up about this...Kirks comments were directed at me and thats fine and good. His opinion is just as valid as mine is.

He will most surely stand by his opinion, as he well should. And by the same token, I will not bow down on mine.

Who is correct? Who knows. Nobody HAS to be correct.

Somehow, maybe unintentionally by me, how many sources are used was brought into this discussion.

That wasnt my intent.

My point is this...ANYone who is going to type up something and claim its a scouting report had damned well bette be using multiple sources if they are not a hockey person.

I commend Kirk for getting sources outside the B`s organization...that is 100% top notched journalistic integrity. He does his homework and does it damned well.

And now, I AGAIN risk the wrath of the board because I am going to use 3 REAL life people as examples here to back up or state my point:

* KPD
* Kirk
* Myself

This are not necessarily real scenarios...so dont take it as such.

Kirk and KPD come up with scouting reports (a fancy term for OPINIONS) by talking with many sources..some inside and some outside the B`s organization. I want to state that this is very good journalistic integrity. I could do the same thing if I had the inclination...many of us could.

Once we take those multiple opinions (scouting reports) and generate our OWN report on that player....MY OPINION is that bias will NATURALLY set in due to OUR perspective.

It doesnt matter whether or not its Kirk, KPD, me, Black Eye or Ian from the McKeens board.

When we take a scout generated report and then compose OUR OWN piece based on that...BIAS will set in.

No matter how hard we try, we WANT to see certain things, and we want to EXCLUDE certain things.

Thats why scouting is such an inexact science. If total objectivity was present, draft war rooms would never make mistakes. Mistakes come into play based on OPINION. Scouts from various teams have differing opinions on the same players...hence different values placed on drafting certain players.

What I am saying in this post is not negative, slamming or wrong. Bias creeps into most everything that we do as people.

Thats why I always say that the best scouting report is you own. YOU know whatyou want and what your looking for.

But I think to deny that bias creeps into scouting reports (OPINIONS) is essentially turning a blind eye to human nature.

I`m not slamming or taking anyone to task...and if anyone believes that I am, that person is looking WAY too deeply at this post.

Later
I think Jeff that if you feel that scouting reports done by pro scouts are just opinion you should at least acknowledge that they are EXPERT opinion in the field of scouting.
Based on your few posts about scouting in this thread I question your true understanding of how it is done and the actual willingness of scouts to share it with the public.
Lets face it you made an unfair and uninformed conclusion (again) about Kirk and his work and now refuse to admit it (again). You should look at the fact that Kirk has never claimed to be something he isn't and rather than get defensive read his reply objectively.

DR. Holiday is offline  
Old
10-07-2003, 09:32 AM
  #33
ron jeremy jacobs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 657
vCash: 500
Why is everyone getting worked up over this? When you come to a site like this, you should understand that the information you are getting is from a chat room, not from the Oracle on the Mount. It is up to you whether to believe, or not believe, the information you read.

ron jeremy jacobs is offline  
Old
10-07-2003, 02:03 PM
  #34
Kirk- NEHJ
Registered User
 
Kirk- NEHJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: CAV Country!
Country: United States
Posts: 12,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterjaggers
I resent a journalist taking the bully pulpit in a fan's forum, saying that one of us is not qualified to comment.
Hmmm.

Didn't mean to stir up a lot of controversy here, but I'm afraid you completely missed the point of my comments to Jeff.

I would never dream of inferring that people on this board aren't qualified to comment on hockey. What I took issue with was Jeff's inferences about my work at Hockey Journal.com, and attempted to clear up any misconception that his comments might have created with other posters.

Bully pulpit? Couldn't be further from the truth. Hopefully- we can put this behind us.

Kirk

Kirk- NEHJ is offline  
Old
10-07-2003, 02:09 PM
  #35
misterjaggers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Duke City
Country: United States
Posts: 14,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Wally
\

misterjaggers et all ;

I have "known" Kirk for years. He is a wealth of info.
A "Founding Father" of this Board. He has earned his place on this board.
He hasn't to my knowledge ever "taken the bully pulpit " here.
I read him as clarifying what he does and how for NEHJ.

If you , any you, have resentment of that Or journalists in general, than perhaps this Board is not for you. That's your decision.

In the mean time ...I strongly suggest ALL read carefully here before hitting "reply".
None of us should be making generalizations about who does what in their jobs.

and yes I am on the pulpit.
There seems to be some confusion. None of my remarks were intended to personally villify Kirk's abilities as a journalist. I was trying to politely illustrate a problem that ALL journalists face: the reliability of sources.

I never said he was a bad journalist. If it read that way, then I apologise for my poor command of the language.

At the same time, why should I apologise for being a skeptic? Or apologize for defending another poster's right to express an opinion without being told that he wasn't qualified to do so?

I wasn't trying to defend Jeff from Maine's opinion, just his right to express it without being told that he wasn't qualified to do so...

misterjaggers is offline  
Old
10-07-2003, 02:16 PM
  #36
DR. Holiday
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Fighting the evil Schremp cult
Posts: 314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterjaggers
There seems to be some confusion. None of my remarks were intended to personally villify Kirk's abilities as a journalist. I was trying to politely illustrate a problem that ALL journalists face: the reliability of sources.

I never said he was a bad journalist. If it read that way, then I apologise for my poor command of the language.

At the same time, why should I apologise for being a skeptic? Or apologize for defending another poster's right to express an opinion without being told that he wasn't qualified to do so?

I wasn't trying to defend Jeff from Maine's opinion, just his right to express it without being told that he wasn't qualified to do so...
Maybe I am thick but who is more reliable to give information on players than a director of scouting, another scout and the head of a scouting service? Again do you believe that all scouting is useless?

DR. Holiday is offline  
Old
10-07-2003, 02:17 PM
  #37
misterjaggers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Duke City
Country: United States
Posts: 14,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk- NEHJ
Hmmm.

Didn't mean to stir up a lot of controversy here, but I'm afraid you completely missed the point of my comments to Jeff.

I would never dream of inferring that people on this board aren't qualified to comment on hockey. What I took issue with was Jeff's inferences about my work at Hockey Journal.com, and attempted to clear up any misconception that his comments might have created with other posters.

Bully pulpit? Couldn't be further from the truth. Hopefully- we can put this behind us.

Kirk
It sounds like it was a misunderstanding all around. I'll strive to read closer and be more precise with my words.

misterjaggers is offline  
Old
10-07-2003, 02:23 PM
  #38
misterjaggers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Duke City
Country: United States
Posts: 14,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR. Holiday
Maybe I am thick but who is more reliable to give information on players than a director of scouting, another scout and the head of a scouting service? Again do you believe that all scouting is useless?
What do you say we drop the subject? There's no sense in flogging a dead horse...

misterjaggers is offline  
Old
10-07-2003, 02:25 PM
  #39
DR. Holiday
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Fighting the evil Schremp cult
Posts: 314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterjaggers
What do you say we drop the subject? There's no sense in flogging a dead horse...
No problem I was just asking a question about what seems to be an outlandish statement. But I guess I won't get one.

DR. Holiday is offline  
Old
10-07-2003, 02:53 PM
  #40
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 26,962
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff from Maine
misterjaggers...

hey bud, whats up?

I appreciate and certainly agree with much of what you posted.

But dont get too worked up about this...Kirks comments were directed at me and thats fine and good. His opinion is just as valid as mine is.

He will most surely stand by his opinion, as he well should. And by the same token, I will not bow down on mine.

Who is correct? Who knows. Nobody HAS to be correct.

Somehow, maybe unintentionally by me, how many sources are used was brought into this discussion.

That wasnt my intent.

My point is this...ANYone who is going to type up something and claim its a scouting report had damned well bette be using multiple sources if they are not a hockey person.

I commend Kirk for getting sources outside the B`s organization...that is 100% top notched journalistic integrity. He does his homework and does it damned well.

And now, I AGAIN risk the wrath of the board because I am going to use 3 REAL life people as examples here to back up or state my point:

* KPD
* Kirk
* Myself

This are not necessarily real scenarios...so dont take it as such.

Kirk and KPD come up with scouting reports (a fancy term for OPINIONS) by talking with many sources..some inside and some outside the B`s organization. I want to state that this is very good journalistic integrity. I could do the same thing if I had the inclination...many of us could.

Once we take those multiple opinions (scouting reports) and generate our OWN report on that player....MY OPINION is that bias will NATURALLY set in due to OUR perspective.

It doesnt matter whether or not its Kirk, KPD, me, Black Eye or Ian from the McKeens board.

When we take a scout generated report and then compose OUR OWN piece based on that...BIAS will set in.

No matter how hard we try, we WANT to see certain things, and we want to EXCLUDE certain things.

Thats why scouting is such an inexact science. If total objectivity was present, draft war rooms would never make mistakes. Mistakes come into play based on OPINION. Scouts from various teams have differing opinions on the same players...hence different values placed on drafting certain players.

What I am saying in this post is not negative, slamming or wrong. Bias creeps into most everything that we do as people.

Thats why I always say that the best scouting report is you own. YOU know whatyou want and what your looking for.

But I think to deny that bias creeps into scouting reports (OPINIONS) is essentially turning a blind eye to human nature.

I`m not slamming or taking anyone to task...and if anyone believes that I am, that person is looking WAY too deeply at this post.

Later
We also need to remember that scouts can be quite off in their assessment- I remember one prominent scout saying after the Broons passed on Jody Hull and took Quintal that Hull was a 40-50 goal guy. I never forgot it and watched, and watched, and watched and 6 years later Hull scored his 50th goal. I also remember being told Dave Archibald (I think that was his name) was going to be a stud by another scout. As for Kirk's reports- I enjoy the heck out of them. I myself played a lot of hockey and coached the yutes but other than Orr I probably couldn't tell alot. Heck, I watched Bergeron the other night almost willing him to do something great so I can say "geez, I understand..." but truth be told, I was more in awe the first time I saw Mats Timander- and how'd that work out

DKH is offline  
Old
10-08-2003, 02:52 AM
  #41
Jeff from Maine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,667
vCash: 500
Joe Dirtbag

joe Dirtbag,

I appreciate your coming to my defense...as you appear to be just about the only one who is able to understand what I said.

Certain posters have a clear agenda here against me....just look at the wording in Doc Holidays post!

If thats not clearly antagonistic and baiting I dont know what is! There was absolutely NO NEED for him to put (again)....(again). But he did and that is fine.

I`ll just sit back and take it again. I have no choice at all in the matter. I have to allow the slamming to continue.

But I appreciate your comments nonetheless. To me it was OBVIOUS that I in no way at all took a shot at Kirk. I was talking about scouting being an opinion based pursuit.

Later

Jeff from Maine is offline  
Old
10-08-2003, 03:11 AM
  #42
Jeff from Maine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,667
vCash: 500
Kirk

Kirk,

I want to clear this up to YOU directly.

Maybe you think I have a problem with you, and thats your prerogative. But the fact is that I dont. I have always respected you for your work. And FWIW, the big deal that a couple people made out of your military career and the comments I made comparing you and KPD...was just that a big deal about NOTHING!

As I said, I respect you, but I dont always agree with you. You likely have the same outlook on my opinions and that is GREAT! Thats what this board is all about. It shouldnt be some nice little box where we all sit down on the floor drinking hot chocolate and talk about how cute Stocks baby is!

As far as scouting is concerned...as Dirtbag was the only one to ascertain, my ONLY point is that it is an inexact subjective science. What is a qualifies as a certain grade for a particular area of hockey "sense" is one thing in one scouts eyes, and another in another scouts eyes.

And then when WE as writers, posters and fans take that information...regardless of whethe we used 1 or 11 sources, to make our own report...

Our own opinion and bias DOES naturally creep in!

I do that all the time...as does virtually everyone! Its a piece of the human condition/make up. We interject bias into everything we do. Behavioral science tells us that.

I was not in any way condemning you, or saying that your reports/stories are faulty in any way.

As I also mentioned before, some posters have a clear bias towards me that has been propogated over time.

Whenever I type something, I can be sure that the same 1 or 2 posters will take it and use what I post as baiting material towards me.

So, in no way was I ripping you...I thought I had made that as clear as crystal.

If you were offended by my post...I apologize to you here, publically. If it offended you I take responsibility, as I posted it. Regardless, my intent was not to shoot at anyone.

Cleary, it wasnt....as Joe Dirtbag CLEARLY saw!

Later

Jeff from Maine is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:31 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.