[mrluongo]

TATAR!

[VICanucksfan5551]

Rundblad and De Haan are the two players I want in the first round, especially Rundblad. I have to do a little more research for the later rounds.

[chickenman92]

Baggy Spandex, on Jun 3 2009, 04:57 PM, said:

1st round: David Runblad, Calvin De Haan, and Simon Despres

2nd round: Brayden Mcnabb, Karl Klingberg, Alex Hutchings, Dimitri Orlov, and Kellan Tochkin

3rd round: Gabriel Lemieux, David Valek, Erik Haula, Jimmy Bubnick, and William Wallen

(all of these in no particualr order)

I'm very surprised at how no one talks about Simon Despres on here. If he went to 22 I think he would be a great pick.

what scares me off of depres is he has the tools to be a great D but when i've watched him he seems to lack confidence, and hockey sense.

if he ever figures out the game he could be a good one but if he stays where he is he'll be 5-6 guy

[MarinerIslanderSean]

I voted

22: Rundblad, Morin, Budish
53: Klingberg, Tatar, Hutchings, Orlov, Lander
83: Lynch, Haula, Blacker, Johansson, Myllari

[ButcherG]

I chose De Haan, Ashton, and Ferraro in that order. Players not on that list may fall to us like last year though, and that could be really exciting!!

I am not a fan of Rundblad at all. If Gradin sees something in him and he is there at 22 and the Canucks take him...

I can only hope he does not turn into a terrible plus minus player that takes years to develop.

Hopefully our scouting staff can pull some gems out of the later rounds.

This post has been edited by ButcherG: 04 June 2009 - 06:48 PM

[guitarded27]

ButcherG, on Jun 4 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

I chose De Haan, Ashton, and Ferraro in that order. Players not on that list may fall to us like last year though, and that could be really exciting!!

I am not a fan of Rundblad at all. If Gradin sees something in him and he is there at 22 and the Canucks take him...

I can only hope he does not turn into a terrible plus minus player that takes years to develop.

Hopefully our scouting staff can pull some gems out of the later rounds.

What makes you say that? From everything I've heard about Rundblad, I get the impression that he and Erixon are probably the closest to being NHL-ready out of all the defencemen not ranked in the top ten (aka NOT Hedman or Cowen). I wouldn't be surprised to see one, if not both of them in the NHL by 2011.

This post has been edited by guitarded27: 04 June 2009 - 07:58 PM

[ilikecanucks]

ButcherG, on Jun 4 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

I chose De Haan, Ashton, and Ferraro in that order. Players not on that list may fall to us like last year though, and that could be really exciting!!

I am not a fan of Rundblad at all. If Gradin sees something in him and he is there at 22 and the Canucks take him...

I can only hope he does not turn into a terrible plus minus player that takes years to develop.

Hopefully our scouting staff can pull some gems out of the later rounds.

WE got defensive defensman like Sauve and Ellington in our system, Rundblad is one of the most offensively gifted defensman in this draft.

Other than Victor Hedman, Rundblad is the most talked about Swedish defensman since Mattias Ohlund.

Rundblad can skate, reads the play extremely well, and has Mike Green type offensive abilities.

If he is -10 with 65 points he would be a success, this guy is an all out offensive defensman, something the majority of CDCérs have been making noise about since our playoff loss. +/- is overrated. Look at Bouwmeester's career +/- and tell me you wouldnt want him (in a cap free world).

Rundblad has the makings to be one of the best offensive defensman in the NHL.

This post has been edited by ilikecanucks: 04 June 2009 - 08:07 PM

[ButcherG]

ilikecanucks, on Jun 4 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

WE got defensive defensman like Sauve and Ellington in our system, Rundblad is one of the most offensively gifted defensman in this draft.

Other than Victor Hedman, Rundblad is the most talked about Swedish defensman since Mattias Ohlund.

Rundblad can skate, reads the play extremely well, and has Mike Green type offensive abilities.

If he is -10 with 65 points he would be a success, this guy is an all out offensive defensman, something the majority of CDCérs have been making noise about since our playoff loss. +/- is overrated. Look at Bouwmeester's career +/- and tell me you wouldnt want him (in a cap free world).

Rundblad has the makings to be one of the best offensive defensman in the NHL.

I think that a -10 player with 65 points can be useful.... but a +30 defenceman with 65 points, is far better. Lets try to find someone who can play Defense, and Offense.

[Champions of Nothing]

ButcherG, on Jun 4 2009, 10:00 PM, said:

I think that a -10 player with 65 points can be useful.... but a +30 defenceman with 65 points, is far better. Lets try to find someone who can play Defense, and Offense.

What about 150 points and +1000?

[Spectacular]

Champions of Nothing, on Jun 4 2009, 10:03 PM, said:

What about 150 points and +1000?

I think you win, but I'm not sure...

[Sawchuk]

ButcherG, on Jun 4 2009, 10:00 PM, said:

I think that a -10 player with 65 points can be useful.... but a +30 defenceman with 65 points, is far better. Lets try to find someone who can play Defense, and Offense.

Well, Erixon is supposed to be a more physical, better defensive version of Rundblad

"He is very good with the puck, great eyes, good on both offense and defense," Rundblad said, offering an impromptu scouting report.

In an unguarded moment, the more offensive-minded Rundblad admitted he wished he had more of Erixon's defensive-zone acumen.

"The way he reads the play in the defensive zone, he never makes a mistake there," Rundblad says.

Stubb, who has seen both youngsters an awful lot this season, has trouble picking the two players apart. Each is 6-foot-2 and about 190 pounds. Each, in his own way, has the makings of the classic power-play quarterback when he matures.

jQuery(function(){ jQuery('#inbody-userquote-cde2e2').corner('6px '); }); "(Erixon's) a little bit tougher, he likes to play the body more than Rundblad," Stubb said, reaching for technicalities.

- http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=418604

However, Rundblad is supposed to be better offensively (not that Erixon is that bad at all)

"It's just the way he handles the puck," Erixon told NHL.com. "He's great with his puck-handling and, obviously, he scores a lot of goals, too."

- http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=418603

[chickenman92]

Sawchuk, on Jun 5 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

Well, Erixon is supposed to be a more physical, better defensive version of Rundblad

"He is very good with the puck, great eyes, good on both offense and defense," Rundblad said, offering an impromptu scouting report.

In an unguarded moment, the more offensive-minded Rundblad admitted he wished he had more of Erixon's defensive-zone acumen.

"The way he reads the play in the defensive zone, he never makes a mistake there," Rundblad says.

Stubb, who has seen both youngsters an awful lot this season, has trouble picking the two players apart. Each is 6-foot-2 and about 190 pounds. Each, in his own way, has the makings of the classic power-play quarterback when he matures.

jQuery(function(){ jQuery('#inbody-userquote-cde2e2').corner('6px '); }); "(Erixon's) a little bit tougher, he likes to play the body more than Rundblad," Stubb said, reaching for technicalities.

- http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=418604

However, Rundblad is supposed to be better offensively (not that Erixon is that bad at all)

"It's just the way he handles the puck," Erixon told NHL.com. "He's great with his puck-handling and, obviously, he scores a lot of goals, too."

- http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=418603

imo it's kinda like picking between coffey and bourque

[ilikecanucks]

chickenman92, on Jun 5 2009, 12:40 PM, said:

imo it's kinda like picking between coffey and bourque

To a point that makes sense, I just dont see Erixon's offense being as close to Rundblad's. I have even read (cant remember where), that Erixon's defensive game needs quite a bit of work as well.

Rundblad is more comparable to Coffey, but Erixon cannot be compared to the 2nd best defenseman of all time.

To me I see Erixon as a Mattias Ohlund-like guy, a solid 2-way guy, who can play the PP, but wont be your QB. Whereas, I see Rundblad in the Mike Green, Dan Boyle, Ed Jovanovski mold - a guy who can rush the puck, has a great shot, and has the innate ability of knowing when to join/lead the rush(not exactly a JOVO like quality) and where to go with the puck.

[guitarded27]

ButcherG, on Jun 4 2009, 10:00 PM, said:

I think that a -10 player with 65 points can be useful.... but a +30 defenceman with 65 points, is far better. Lets try to find someone who can play Defense, and Offense.

Unfortunately, we don't pick high enough to land Hedman. It's a pity, I know.

[JCiarniello]

In Order of preference:

1st Round: Zach Budish, Carter Ashton, Tim Erixon.

2nd Round: Seth Hegelson, Taylor Doherty, Phillipe Paradis, Simon Bertillson, Thomas Tatar

3rd Round: Collin Bowman, Thomas Vincour, Tommi Kvisto, Jimmy Bubnick, Andrej Stastny

[Supaman]

Chris Krieder people. Then tatar

[Grama]

ilikecanucks, on Jun 5 2009, 12:54 PM, said:

To a point that makes sense, I just dont see Erixon's offense being as close to Rundblad's. I have even read (cant remember where), that Erixon's defensive game needs quite a bit of work as well.

Rundblad is more comparable to Coffey, but Erixon cannot be compared to the 2nd best defenseman of all time.

To me I see Erixon as a Mattias Ohlund-like guy, a solid 2-way guy, who can play the PP, but wont be your QB. Whereas, I see Rundblad in the Mike Green, Dan Boyle, Ed Jovanovski mold - a guy who can rush the puck, has a great shot, and has the innate ability of knowing when to join/lead the rush(not exactly a JOVO like quality) and where to go with the puck.

eliteprospects page on Erixon has that quote, but its outdated, as most of those pages are.

I still say that Erixon is underrated. One coach (maybe it was the U18 coach?) said that Erixon was a bigger OEL. And I would take OEL, had we the pick to take him with.

All I know is that both are really good, tho I think Rundblad's style of game lends itself quite well to European rinks. I am a little worried that he might not be able to bring his game here, especially given his lack of physical play. Erixon is a little more physical, and better defesnively.

[riske1]

jonmorrison1980, on Jun 3 2009, 12:20 AM, said:

At the Memorial Cup, Jordan Caron for Rimoski looked big, smooth, fast and powerful. He'd look good in a Canuck uniform on the wing with one of our smaller centers like Hodgson or Wellwood. But If Ryan Ellis, Despres, Elliot or DeHaan are available when we pick, they could obviously fill the mobility need and we should take one of them. This draft seems so deep with talent in the first round, it makes me want the Canucks to acquire another first rounder through trade to stock pile there farm. If so they can take 1 forward and 1 defenceman, or even 2 high end puck movers if they wanted! One can only dream, they'd probably have to Trade Luongo or Bieksa to get another first rounder.

I agree, Jordon Caron is the guy to get based on the limited info that is available for most players ranked in the 20 - 30 range. A big forward with some skill is desperately required for this organization. In the second round Seth Hegelson is a great choice if available. He is a beast with potential to contribute not to far in the future.

All this hype about drafting a small puck moving D man is BS IMO. What is this, the flavour of the month because some one said the team needs to draft a puck moving D man? This team needs bigger players with character that can skate, not any more Smurfs with a allergy to physical play.

MG will draft what he considers to be the future of this franchise and the direction he moves in will tell us what to expect about the type of team we will see down the road. I hope it is a team with more size and character.

[CFF7]

All I want is Tatar, or Elliot

[Sawchuk]

riske1, on Jun 15 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

I agree, Jordon Caron is the guy to get based on the limited info that is available for most players ranked in the 20 - 30 range. A big forward with some skill is desperately required for this organization. In the second round Seth Hegelson is a great choice if available. He is a beast with potential to contribute not to far in the future.

All this hype about drafting a small puck moving D man is BS IMO. What is this, the flavour of the month because some one said the team needs to draft a puck moving D man? This team needs bigger players with character that can skate, not any more Smurfs with a allergy to physical play.

MG will draft what he considers to be the future of this franchise and the direction he moves in will tell us what to expect about the type of team we will see down the road. I hope it is a team with more size and character.

Not like the D-men we could get are all that undersized... Rundblad, Erixon and Olsen are 6'2, Elliott is 6'1, Button and deHaan are 6' and Despres is 6'3

Only Leddy and Ellis are below 6'

Upon hearing Mike Gilles' explanation of the team's new drafting mentality, although he did say that they would take the BPA, he mentioned that the focus would be on the character and intelligence of the player. This being said I think that this favors us taking Elliot if he is available because he was the WHL scholastic player of the year.

This post has been edited by Sawchuk: 15 June 2009 - 11:40 PM