Prospect Info: David Reinbacher

[_vivelequebec_]

It's not about the number of the draft pick. It's about the player you project to get there.

Is that worth it for Eiserman? Yakumchuk? It depends on the projections of the scouting team. Imo, if you think a pkayer still on the board will be a star, you do it. Hard to get a star with a late 1st. We have a lot of depth as is.

Take off the Flames (Panthers) pick and I'd do it.

 

[26Mats]

Take off the Flames (Panthers) pick and I'd do it.

think even with the Panthers pick the Sharks don't do it.

But for me it all depends on who WILL be available. I don't gamble and make the deal unless I know for sure who will be available (even if I have to wait until draft day) and I like the player a lot.

 

[salbutera]

Not a fan of Red Line Report and while Kyle is better than most of the obvious hacks like Dobber Prospects and Pronman/Wheeler he is still a very poor scout who makes egregious errors with regards to core fundamentals that scouts can not afford to be wrong on.

All of the public scouting services should be viewed as entertainment first and foremost as they are entirely composed of fan based narratives and guys who couldn't cut it as a competent scouts.

It has been a while since I have read anything from Kyle so I will allow for the possibility that he may have improved but he was well behind much younger hockey minds at an age where he was unlikely to change his spots too drastically.

Any person claiming to be a scout who does not rely primarily on live viewings is a fraud. You simply miss too much watching video and don't get a feel for so many important observations that can only be attained by watching a player play live.

The best scouts on the planet are employed by NHL teams, some will not last long and be exposed as imposters and it is these types that are starting these hockey/prospect publications. I don't in any way bemoan the existence of these entities as they are entertaining and not entirely devoid of facts and insight but I can not tolerate hearing/reading people citing them as authoritative sources of empirical evidence to be wielded in a debate as axioms that we must kneel before.

I believe that much like any skill, scouting is intrinsic for some and they become great scouts....the rest have to work 10 times harder just to be barely relevant. Woodlief, McCagg, Wheeler etc fall under the ladder

IMO Mark Edwards of Hockeyprospects does a pretty thorough job

 

[Runner77]

Not a fan of Red Line Report and while Kyle is better than most of the obvious hacks like Dobber Prospects and Pronman/Wheeler he is still a very poor scout who makes egregious errors with regards to core fundamentals that scouts can not afford to be wrong on.

All of the public scouting services should be viewed as entertainment first and foremost as they are entirely composed of fan based narratives and guys who couldn't cut it as a competent scouts.

It has been a while since I have read anything from Kyle so I will allow for the possibility that he may have improved but he was well behind much younger hockey minds at an age where he was unlikely to change his spots too drastically.

Any person claiming to be a scout who does not rely primarily on live viewings is a fraud. You simply miss too much watching video and don't get a feel for so many important observations that can only be attained by watching a player play live.

The best scouts on the planet are employed by NHL teams, some will not last long and be exposed as imposters and it is these types that are starting these hockey/prospect publications. I don't in any way bemoan the existence of these entities as they are entertaining and not entirely devoid of facts and insight but I can not tolerate hearing/reading people citing them as authoritative sources of empirical evidence to be wielded in a debate as axioms that we must kneel before.

I believe that much like any skill, scouting is intrinsic for some and they become great scouts....the rest have to work 10 times harder just to be barely relevant. Woodlief, McCagg, Wheeler etc fall under the ladder imo.

Thanks for the feedback.

A little disheartening to see your post lump Woodlief in the same sewer as McCagg. The latter is a pompous Neanderthal with outlandish takes for clicks and other than the few nuggets he gets on potential Habs picks, does anyone really take him seriously?

Woodlief looks to me to be in a much better class. He has scouting background and his evaluations are based on multiple in person viewings and other sources. If you read his draft guide, you’ll readily see that there’s nothing like it. He looks at attributes in ways that no other publication does.

There is a reason that he has almost all NHL teams subscribed to his draft guide year over year. I doubt anyone even wants McCagg’s draft list outside of the rando suckers who like to get bashed by him after they’ve subscribed to recrudes.com.

 

[MTL Dirty Birdy]

It depends on how you view better.

He doesn't have the offensive upside of a Buium or a Parekh but those guys will be lucky to defend as good as Reinbacher did in his draft year at their peak.

Reinbacher would be the best defender on the defensive side of the puck in this class. His offensive upside is better than Silayevs, less than Levshunovs, and similar to Dickinson but Dickinson does have a better shot so should score more goals and obviously he's left handed.

The offensive element that people don’t talk about with DR is his outlet pass is great and when he’s allowed to pinch and activate he’s really good . I feel a lot of people are going to be pleasantly surprised with just how good this kid is and will be. Unless he’s paired with Hutson he will be used within this system to create offence.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

Thanks for the feedback.

A little disheartening to see your post lump Woodlief in the same sewer as McCagg. The latter is a pompous Neanderthal with outlandish takes for clicks and other than the few nuggets he gets on potential Habs picks, does anyone really take him seriously?

Woodlief looks to me to be in a much better class. He has scouting background and his evaluations are based on multiple in person viewings and other sources. If you read his draft guide, you’ll readily see that there’s nothing like it. He looks at attributes in ways that no other publication does.

There is a reason that he has almost all NHL teams subscribed to his draft guide year over year. I doubt anyone even wants McCagg’s draft list outside of the rando suckers who like to get bashed by him after they’ve subscribed to recrudes.com.

I have listened to Woodlief and found him to be disappointing. I know that he has a scouting background but there is a reason that he is no longer employed imo. I remember watching him on Marinaro's show on a recent draft day and was interested to hear him talk. I would have to go back and watch it again for the details and was disappointed to hear him say things that ruled him out as a competent scout. It wouldn't have been anything to do with a subjective comment but with an objective fact such as skating. He made subjective comments that further exasperated his objective shortcomings and I clearly remember thinking that he wasn't much better than the Buttons, Boisverts and Bukalas of the world.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that NHL teams subscribe to RLR in the same way that I used to buy fantasy hockey draft guides. I didn't buy them to learn anything about the players themselves but more so as a source to ensure that I am not missing anybody. Whether the claim that he has almost all NHL teams subscribed is true or not is debatable but I suspect that teams would make as many resources available as possible to their scouts regardless of whether they are overly competent or not. RLR has been around for a long time and Kyle does have NHL connections so I would lean towards believing the claim of NHL teams subscribing.

The fact is that he simply does not employ NHL scouts and there is a possibility that he was not a very good one himself, much in the same way that Craig Button is a poor scout who was finally ousted from the boy's club. Listening to him talk put him more in Button's class than McCagg's which is better but not good enough for my interests.

I do agree that he is better than McCagg who never really was a scout and was quickly discarded from his part time position and I only put him in that category due to him appearing to be a failed scout trying to make a living in the public forum after being shunned in the NHL.

Perhaps he is better than I am giving him credit for as I have had very little exposure to him and am making bold assertions over a tiny sample size. I will make an effort to look into Woodlief's content without paying for it as his product is far too expensive for a publication made by amateur scouts. Hopefully I can find enough free content to come to a more informed decision lol

edit: Just watched Kyle say that Michkov would have went #1 over MacKinnon and Mathews in his opinion lol. Statements like that are just too dumb to make me want to look any further.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

It depends on how you view better.

He doesn't have the offensive upside of a Buium or a Parekh but those guys will be lucky to defend as good as Reinbacher did in his draft year at their peak.

Reinbacher would be the best defender on the defensive side of the puck in this class. His offensive upside is better than Silayevs, less than Levshunovs, and similar to Dickinson but Dickinson does have a better shot so should score more goals and obviously he's left handed.

There is no way of making strong assertions and ranking these players accurately according to exactly which players will be better offensively.

I have a hard time seeing Parekh and Buium in the same sentence when it comes to defensive play as Buium is one of the top defenders in the draft and Parekh is attrocious defensively. I do agree that Reinbacher should be a better defender than Buium due to his physical advantages but Buium exhibits elite IQ in all three zones and will be a very good defender for an under sized dman imo.

 

[KevSkillz4]

I'm more confident with a D like Reinbacher than any D of 2024 draft except Dickinson.

The only D's, I would hesitate to take ahead of Reinbacher, it's Leshunov and Dickinson. He is in the same tier of these guy.

Habs got a really good one with Reinbacher, I was not big fan of the pick at draft day, but today. I'm a really really happy man.

Since pre-season, I have big hope for Reinbacher! He seems have everything to become a dominate two-way D. A stud.