Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while, I think it is. Some people will keep bringing up the 2 or 3 guys they were right about and conveniently leave out the other wild takes they had that never really ended up working out. As I said before, the "I had him at 19" type comments on the main boards are just cringe-worthy.
The funny thing is what we do on here is very similar to what an actual scouting department does.
Scouts debate the merits of guys they like, and there’s some very heated discussions.
Personally, I’m less interested in predicting where a guy goes, than I am in predicting value and return on investment.
It’s why I don’t really do mock drafts. The reality is that I am even somewhat hesitant to do “lists” as well. There’s many factors that don’t necessarily show up when simply looks at a list.
For example, the difference between 3 and 5 can be an ocean. The difference between 5 and 12 could be relatively minor.
Rankings can also be deceptive because you can have a prospect who had the potential to be one or the best players in the draft, but have question marks that make him harder to rank higher than other guys. It doesn’t inherently mean he isn’t a good option, it just means he’s a different prospect.
But predicting drafts is a major challenge. Just one variable can change everything.
Last year, reports were the Rangers were very high on the American kids — Wahlstrom, Tkachuk and Farabee. Those players were seen as being in their top 5 or 6. The one variable? Kravtsov. There wasn’t as good of a read on how high the Rangers had him. That changes everything.
In talking to reports around the league, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of teams that had Hayton as high as Arizona. But it only takes one team to change the landscape.
Similarly, Zadina arena to have been in a lot of top 4s. But the three ahead of him was different and he dropped a little.
It can be so incredibly difficult to account for all the moving parts.