EHM The Blue Line

hey guys, is there any way of showing how much a younger player will get better? like ea has its stars and colours. lemme know thanks.

You will find that kind of information in the scout report tab while looking at a player. When the player has been scouted in depth your scout will give you a projected career role in form of what lines he would eventually be playing on (1st, 2nd line, etc.) as well as a player projection (comparison with an already established NHL player whom your scout believes he will become)

thanks man!

basically any prospect that is expected to be an nhl player is going to be projected as a first liner until one summer suddenly they're not a first liner anymore. there's absolutely no granularity between a guy with a potential of 120 (3rd/4th liner) and a potential of 200 (best possible) except maybe his comparisons if you're lucky

That is not the case at all. I have guys who are listed as nothing more than 3 or 4 liners by my scouts score 30 goals for me, play D as 5-6 dmen and achieve ratings of 7.5 for seasons at a time. I have 4th line prospeccts from my scouts make my team and play on the 3rd line and do just fine. I have Taylor Leier who when game starts had limited potential according to my scouts, and now if you ask them 4 years later, he is listed as 2-3 line guy, and plays that way. Conversely I have guys like Scott Laughton who was listed as a top line potential guy, dropped to 3rd line potential and now back to 2nd line potential. And my scouts often disagree on the guys. Sometimes one will say limited and another will say first or second line. Sometimes the guy who says the players sucks is right, sometimes the other guy is. Sometimes they are both wrong.

batdad wrote:Sometimes the guy who says the players sucks is right, sometimes the other guy is. Sometimes they are both wrong.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is like real life I'd say. This is why we see 1st round busts and players from later rounds (Daniel Alfredsson, sixth round - Henrik Zetterberg, seventh round - Henrik Lundqvist, seventh round - Pavel Datsyuk, sixth round) or even undrafted, like for example Chris Kunitz, become productive. Sometimes the raw talent is not developed as expected (Alexander Daigle, I'm looking at you buddy).

I'm not the best scouting evaluator in the world, but not the worst either IMHO.

Key is to get as many scouts to get as many looks at a guy as possible. Then:

1.) Look at the comparable player.
2.) Look at the projected role.
3.) Look at their Determinaton, and then their scouted mental characteristics in the Reports.
4.) Look at the Injury recommendations. Do scouts suggest a recurring injury?
5.) Does the guy have any glaring, blatant weaknesses that will impede his potential (weak skating, is he simply too small to be an effective power forward, etc)
5.) Of course then consider their sheer playing style. A guy that's a clear physical defenseman isn't going to morph into puck-moving Brian Rafalski-type or something, regardless of what the scouts say or try to compare him to. So just use some sense, and decide if they'r going to be a fit.

So.... if they're projecting Sidney Crosby as a comparable, but as a projected 3rd or 4th liner... something's off there obviously in their assessment (that's an actual combination that can happen, BTW). So don't just look at comparable player (which is all I used to do). At times, 3 or 4 scouts will make that exact same weird combo scouting a guy even, that means you need to scout him thoroughly again to get a grip on what he actually is.

The tougher part, IMO, than the scouting is the development -- knowing when to have players make the jump from junior/college to minors, and then minors to pro. That has a big impact on how they actually turn out.

Again, I'm not an expert. I'm not the best at scouting and development. I don't claim to be. So take what I say with a grain of salt I guess... the scouting reports are useful, but if you're used to say EHM freeware, or EA Sports games and scouting, it'll take some adjustment to learn how to use them.

I couldn't say for certain, but if it's like FM then mental stats are very important - a determined hard working projected 4th liner is much more likely to reach and even exceed their potential and hit 3rd line than a projected 3rd liner with 0 determination and work rate - after all, the guy who shows up to practice and gives it everything will improve the most.
Don't expect miracles though, FM was always designed so exceeding potential was tough, and you couldn't turn (for example) a limited potential player into Sid Crosby. (if you do then it's most likely your scouts gave you the wrong info and if you're using several good guys/reports then that should almost never happen, though they may disagree on potential).

Players might get drafted low but they still have high potential to reach. I always get good scouts and listen to them (average it out if there's a spread) and pick the high determination/work rate guys that will fit my play style. Some will still bust no matter what you do of course, that's life, but most should come good.

I don't want to hijack, but the question seems relevant and I didn't think it was worth starting a new thread for: the scout "career role" evaluation is based on NHL standards while the "scout notes" are based on your team specifically, is that right? I play lower leagues and pretty much only get young players, so the scout evaluations are always majorly skewed.

Not sure. IN the past the scout career role was based on your league and team. May have changed? That is a good question. And yeah the younger players are the more skewed the scouting results as it is harder (much harder) to predict what someone who is 14 will look like when he is 19, than what an 18 year old will look like when he is 21-29.

The development and growth of a player between 14 and when Junior career finishes is in 90% of cases much harder to predict than an 18 year old into an adult. So much changes.