I can see it. We see a lot of guys who tear it up in juniors but get physically dominated in the NHL. Scouts want to avoid taking those guys, but they have to make predictions about what a 17-year-old will become at age 22, and that’s a really tricky business. So they look at every little detail to try and figure out whether a guy is just undeveloped, or if he’s going to end up being 6’1 177lb for life. Neck width is one thing you could look at to make a projection about the fundamentals of the player’s build.
Obviously it’s dumb to reduce it to “don’t draft, neck too skinny”, but if there was a conversation about his upper body musculature, then neck measurement would have been part of that.
Sure, I get
why it might have happened, I just think it's hilariously erroneous logic. So many great players didn't have the size/look of an elite athlete, and yet were some of the best of all time, while so many of the worst ones looked like and had the size that said they should excel. And for each time that a scout looked at a player and said "his neck is small, he won't grow much" and was right, there was a Doug Risebrough who said "he has size 15 skates, he's going to be huge".
In truth, I think someone trying to predict the future is pursuing a fool's errand. I think they would be better served not by looking at arbitrary size metrics to determine how good a player will become, but instead by looking at how
productive a player is and how greatly that player is
intrinsically motivated to become even more productive. As a note, productive usually means points, but should not be limited to that. An example might be elite defensive play while playing 25 minutes per night (though that player is probably also picking up a decent number of points just by being on the ice so much).
I am not trying to convince you tarheelhockey, I'm just sharing why I find the logic of choosing a player this way extremely fallacious.