Red Line report

Saw this posted on the prospects board. You can view the report here (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/columnist/woodlief/2004-05-21-woodlief_x.htm).

Biggest surprises on that list are Olesz at 6, Ladd at 8, and Thelan being non-existant.

Don't agree with the layout, but fun to read anyhow I suppose.

Biggest surprises on that list are Olesz at 6, Ladd at 8, and Thelan being non-existant.

Don't agree with the layout, but fun to read anyhow I suppose.


it doesn't surprise me.

it doesn't surprise me.

A lot of people on these boards seem to complain about RLR. Do any of the hockey insiders on this board have an idea how well respected Woodleif is amongst people in the know?

Plus, does anyone know anything about this Lauri Korpikoski?

A lot of people on these boards seem to complain about RLR. Do any of the hockey insiders on this board have an idea how well respected Woodleif is amongst people in the know?

Plus, does anyone know anything about this Lauri Korpikoski?
Supposively, every team in the NHL has his Draft Guide... So he must be something special. Do you guys know what job he had in the NHL prior to publishing RLR?

From USATODAY: Red Line Report chief scout and publisher Kyle Woodlief, a former NHL scout with the Nashville Predators.

Maybe a Preds fan could help on what role he played on the scouting staff :dunno:

From USATODAY: Red Line Report chief scout and publisher Kyle Woodlief, a former NHL scout with the Nashville Predators.

Maybe a Preds fan could help on what role he played on the scouting staff :dunno:
Oh, Thanks! I'm a little dyslexic today, it happens.

A lot of people on these boards seem to complain about RLR. Do any of the hockey insiders on this board have an idea how well respected Woodleif is amongst people in the know?

Plus, does anyone know anything about this Lauri Korpikoski?

Younggunshockey.com also has somewhat similar ranking.

Thanks for helping to clear that up.

I've been reading USA Today's version of the RLR for the last couple of seasons, about as long as I've been reading these boards, and I've always wondered how seriously to take Woodlief's expertise.

You know, for such a lightweight paper, USA Today have a really in-depth website -- at least when it comes to sports.

Personally it seems to be hit or miss. People either like him or think he's a guy who just found a unique business.

Personally I'm indifferent. I couldn't care less what he says, though I give his report credit for having the guts to do what few will, put their belief out there to be scrutinized.

I've always found the reports to be at the very least interesting {Legwand ahead of Lecalvier in 1998 is a bit ironic considering they mention Vinny in this article}.

But either way understand one thing about a professional scouting department, if its out there and from ANYONE who they can tell has seen kids play, they will read it. That goes true for Redline and many websites. They might not agree with it and they gives varying degrees of credibility to each, but they would be foolish not to at least look at the info.

Supposively, every team in the NHL has his Draft Guide... So he must be something special. Do you guys know what job he had in the NHL prior to publishing RLR?

Woodleif was a scout in the NHL for I beleive Nashville. Not sure why he left that position. I think he is a wannabe hockey player and his unfulfiulled dream has made him a very nasty man. I find his tactics on rankings and attacks on the players outrages. Someone should sue his a$$.

I don't know Kyle personally but he has developed quite a little cottage industry with his scouting and I can only hope that younggunshockey.com someday gets to that level. Kyle works in some capacity for the QMJHL, writes for USA Today and also publishes his draft guide. He says that the NHL teams all subscribe to his guide and I have no reason to doubt that. I also wouldn't place much emphasis on that as teams are aways looking for pertinent info and get to write off such subscriptions as tax deductions just like they would a subscription to The Hockey News.

I know some pro scouts and I can tell you that some read his report but it's not like they're sitting there using his draft guide as some sort of bible. If that were the case, then they wouldn't have to budget as much money as they do on their own scouts. The proof is also in the pudding when you see that a player like Notre Dame's Dave Brown was highly touted by RLR last draft and he went undrafted! If teams paid that much attention to RLR then someone would have drafted Brown somewhere along the way.

RLR isn't without its faults but before I go further let me say that I enjoy the RLR very much. I have my problems with it and I don't agree with it a lot but it's a good read - even when it's not perfect. Earlier in this draft year they had Alexandre Picard ranked pretty high and had some nice things to say about him. Only problem was they were referring to the Alexandre Picard who was a defenseman for Halifax who was drafted last year in the 3rd round by Philly and not the forward who is draft eligible this season. An understandable screw up because of the same name but the fact that the screw up made it into RLR's monthly issue was a pretty big screw up. This year they also had a piece on how Thomas Pock would have to be drafted this year since he was a european. Then a few issues later they had Pock listed as one of the most desirable college free agents who would not be eligible for the draft. Again, everyone's allowed to make mistakes but that was a pretty big screw up as well. The one thing I don't like is that RLR never acknowledges their screw ups. It would have been nice if they mentioned in a future issue that they had made a mistake in a past issue and had since corrected it but that never happened.

Other common gripes about RLR are that they sometimes rate a player pretty highly after only seeing that player once and that they get kinda nasty about certain players and seem to be a bit inconsistent with how they dole out their criticisms. And then there's also the complaint about how they love to pat themselves on the back. Again, that would be more acceptable if they also admitted their mistakes.

Still, all in all, I think RLR does a good job and Kyle was one of the first to publish an NHL draft guide. The more interest he generates, the better it is for all the draft guides. I think people simply need to realize that no matter what draft guide you're purchasing, you're not getting an NHL team's pro scouting department. Once you understand that and take it for what it's worth - one guy's opinion or a few guys' opinions - you'll be better off.

Im suprised Robbie Schremp fell all the way to 15. Boy if he falls that far, I would love to see the Rangers trade up and grab him. Tell you the truth, If tukonen is gone by no 6, I would take Schremp.

Im suprised Robbie Schremp fell all the way to 15. Boy if he falls that far, I would love to see the Rangers trade up and grab him. Tell you the truth, If tukonen is gone by no 6, I would take Schremp.

I have really cooled on Schremp. I think he is one of those players that has all the skill, but doesn't have the desire and work ethic to get the results and reach his potential. If I was him I would be extremely pissed to be a healthy scratch in the playoffs, but he didn't seem to mind to take a rest and having his coach single him out as the problem. There is too much risk taking him, I rather take Picard or Wolski or Thelen.

No Schremp
No Shoes
No Dice

I have really cooled on Schremp. I think he is one of those players that has all the skill, but doesn't have the desire and work ethic to get the results and reach his potential. If I was him I would be extremely pissed to be a healthy scratch in the playoffs, but he didn't seem to mind to take a rest and having his coach single him out as the problem. There is too much risk taking him.

I agree on Shremp. I used to think that he could be a really nice gamble at around #10. I'm at the point where I don't know that I'd want him at #24. Everything that has been coming out is worse then what was before it. Apparently he was lousy at the combine, and I've heard from a few people on this site who have met/seen Shremp that they are very leery of choosing him. I still think Olesz and Thelan/Green (figuring how much we move up) would be my ideal draft... but I really think Shremp could be a lousy pick. Could he be a very good player? Sure, but the more I see, it just isn't worth the gamble.

He's not a bad person. I just don't if he has enough of "it" to be a good pro.

No Schremp
No Shoes
No Dice
Thanks, Hamilton. How's Burger World?

Thanks, Hamilton. How's Burger World?


Learn it, know it, live it. ;)

I have really cooled on Schremp. I think he is one of those players that has all the skill, but doesn't have the desire and work ethic to get the results and reach his potential If I was him I would be extremely pissed to be a healthy scratch in the playoffs, but he didn't seem to mind to take a rest and having his coach single him out as the problem. There is too much risk taking him, I rather take Picard or Wolski or Thelen.


Not to attack you, but its funny because even though Wolski clearly suffers the same thing, you think Wolski might be able to turn it around, and yet Schremp, who has leaps and bounds more talent can't, simply because he lacks, what Wolski lacks, desire. Just found it odd how you love Wolski and yet don't think Schremp can do it, even though Schremp is leaps and bounds more talented than Wolski

Not to attack you, but its funny because even though Wolski clearly suffers the same thing, you think Wolski might be able to turn it around, and yet Schremp, who has leaps and bounds more talent can't, simply because he lacks, what Wolski lacks, desire. Just found it odd how you love Wolski and yet don't think Schremp can do it, even though Schremp is leaps and bounds more talented than Wolski

Is Wolski overweight and out of shape? Did Wolski request a trade from his crappy team? Is Wolski content to play on the 2nd line? Has Wolski been a healthy scratch? Especially in the playoffs? Did Wolski's stats stay the same from last year like they did with Schremp? From what I understood Wolski's coach isn't very good, his team underachieved and players weren't motivated enough. I will take Wolski over Schremp any day.

Is Wolski overweight and out of shape? Did Wolski request a trade from his crappy team? Is Wolski content to play on the 2nd line? Has Wolski been a healthy scratch? Especially in the playoffs? Did Wolski's stats stay the same from last year like they did with Schremp? From what I understood Wolski's coach isn't very good, his team underachieved and players weren't motivated enough. I will take Wolski over Schremp any day.


Stan Butler not very good!??! :amazed: , c'mon man he's a great coach. And Schremp wanted to be dealt because their wasn't a trainer and his brother spoke very poorly of the new group of owners. ALSO it wasn't Schremp who demanded a trade it was his agent. Also just because Schremp is benched doesn't mean it was his fault, a lot rests on the coaches shoulder. How doyou know the coach wasn't incompetant like the rangers coaches??? Also stats are a weird thing, you can't take just the raw stats without comparing them to the situation. On the dogs, Schremp was the go to guy, in London he wasn't he had to share the glory, Wolski on the other hand was the go to guy, so naturally his stats will be higher

Is Wolski overweight and out of shape? Did Wolski request a trade from his crappy team? Is Wolski content to play on the 2nd line? Has Wolski been a healthy scratch? Especially in the playoffs? Did Wolski's stats stay the same from last year like they did with Schremp? From what I understood Wolski's coach isn't very good, his team underachieved and players weren't motivated enough. I will take Wolski over Schremp any day.

No offense but when someone is on a second line(Schremp) and produced more than someone on a first line(Wolski), the first player is usually better(Schremp). That means that Schremp point up more points with out a lot of ice time, that says alot!

Stan Butler not very good!??! :amazed: , c'mon man he's a great coach. And Schremp wanted to be dealt because their wasn't a trainer and his brother spoke very poorly of the new group of owners. ALSO it wasn't Schremp who demanded a trade it was his agent. Also just because Schremp is benched doesn't mean it was his fault, a lot rests on the coaches shoulder. How doyou know the coach wasn't incompetant like the rangers coaches??? Also stats are a weird thing, you can't take just the raw stats without comparing them to the situation. On the dogs, Schremp was the go to guy, in London he wasn't he had to share the glory, Wolski on the other hand was the go to guy, so naturally his stats will be higher

Don't forget that Dale Hunter is the GM at London, and there are whispers that he held back Schremp to advance his own nephews(?), at Schremp's expense.

No offense but when someone is on a second line(Schremp) and produced more than someone on a first line(Wolski), the first player is usually better(Schremp). That means that Schremp point up more points with out a lot of ice time, that says alot!

There is also such thing as Power Play where Schremp is surrounded by all kinds of talent. Wolski was surrounder by average players.

Stan Butler not very good!??! :amazed: , c'mon man he's a great coach. And Schremp wanted to be dealt because their wasn't a trainer and his brother spoke very poorly of the new group of owners. ALSO it wasn't Schremp who demanded a trade it was his agent. Also just because Schremp is benched doesn't mean it was his fault, a lot rests on the coaches shoulder. How doyou know the coach wasn't incompetant like the rangers coaches??? Also stats are a weird thing, you can't take just the raw stats without comparing them to the situation. On the dogs, Schremp was the go to guy, in London he wasn't he had to share the glory, Wolski on the other hand was the go to guy, so naturally his stats will be higher


Wolski might be the go to guy, but he wasn't surrounded with any great talent and he was never supposed to be as amazingly skilled and gifted as Schremp.

You guys are arguing about two very risky prospects here.

For my two cents, I've gotta say Schremp is a little more a risk than Wolski. There is a lot of stuff that after a while has to fall on him.

He's now worn out his welcome with two junior teams {might be moving to a third next season} and was NOT impressive at all at the scouting combine.

Wolski {though also lacking certain qualities} was at least a good soldier.

Though after this party incident, you gotta wonder there as well.

Wolski might be the go to guy, but he wasn't surrounded with any great talent and he was never supposed to be as amazingly skilled and gifted as Schremp.

When you are the go to guy, you get the puck all the time and often relied on by your team the most therefore have the most points. When you are surrounded by talent, you are not always the go to guy, and your point totals are lower, but in this case Schremps are higher. A good example is Kovalev in Pitts and in Montreal. In Pittsburg he was the go to guy and was one of the leading scorers in the league. In Montreal he was one of the go to guys, and didn't perform highly.

When you are the go to guy, you get the puck all the time and often relied on by your team the most therefore have the most points. When you are surrounded by talent, you are not always the go to guy, and your point totals are lower, but in this case Schremps are higher. A good example is Kovalev in Pitts and in Montreal. In Pittsburg he was the go to guy and was one of the leading scorers in the league. In Montreal he was one of the go to guys, and didn't perform highly.

I agree and Wolki did lead his team in points. But it doesn't mean that a player on a very bad team will score more than with a bit less icetime on a much deeper team. Also Wolski had to face the top defensive units of other teams, Schremp probably didn't.

Also Wolski had to face the top defensive units of other teams, Schremp probably didn't.

But so did Kovalev! When when Jagr was here, Kovalev was on the second line and got worse!