Junkyard Dog Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Other than the Canucks should pass on them? Two words: Hunter Shinkaruk. Similar skill. Similar upside. Similar makeup. Canucks have more pressing needs. Starting with some meat on the bones of the top players in their lineup. Too many players, including the Sedins, need to be sheltered in order to be effective. When Torts didn't shelter them this past season, they were pulverized. Nylander or Ehlers would just add to that effect. Pass. I would rather move up into the top 2 than draft 6th. Virtanen and Ritchie will help us physically but won't help us score and scoring has been our biggest issue. Also it would take too long for Nylander or Ehlers to develop. Reinhart is top end talent and has the body to step in right away. Same with Ekblad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Too expensive to do that. We'll add a scorer or d-man, but sacrifice 2-3 other big pieces. Just do what the winning teams have done: Draft well all the time. Nobody's expecting the Canucks to do anything next season, so use it to acquire a franchise player in the very good 2015 draft, without trading away big pieces to acquire a good pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Too expensive to do that. We'll add a scorer or d-man, but sacrifice 2-3 other big pieces. Just do what the winning teams have done: Draft well all the time. Nobody's expecting the Canucks to do anything next season, so use it to acquire a franchise player in the very good 2015 draft, without trading away big pieces to acquire a good pick. If we get the rumoured deal with ANA done(Kesler 36th for Etem 10th and 24th) then we should have more than enough pieces to trade with Buffalo who is still a rebuilding team. FLA wants to make the playoffs ASAP so picks and prospects wouldn't interest them. I can see EDM making a move for 1st for Ekblad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyShackleford Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Nylander is the type of player that will thrive in the NHL with more skilled line mates. IMO, Ritchie is the type of player who will have a very hard time being as effective in the NHL as he is in juniors. It will take him at least 3 seasons in the NHL before he breaks through offensively. Yes I also think the Canucks will be choosing Nylander if no1 from the top 5 falls. Nylander dominated his own age group at the u18 like no1 else did this year and showed that he has elite offensive game. Ritchie and Virtanen would be good project players and would be good pick if canucks could get the 10th pick but either of them just dont have the elite skill Nylander or even Ehlers have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PowerAids Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 If we could get to 1 or 2 by trading the 6th and roster players id be all over it. No way am I trading Horvat though, that's going backwards, I don't care how good Reinhardt may be, we need to keep the youth we have and keep adding to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PowerAids Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Yes I also think the Canucks will be choosing Nylander if no1 from the top 5 falls. Nylander dominated his own age group at the u18 like no1 else did this year and showed that he has elite offensive game. Ritchie and Virtanen would be good project players and would be good pick if canucks could get the 10th pick but either of them just dont have the elite skill Nylander or even Ehlers have. Yea, I think so too, for some reason though I would not be surprised if they take Virtanen, I wouldn't be upset either. As one of the youngest players in the draft he may still have the most potential with his frame shot and speed. Obviously hoping we can get Reinhardt though.... Exactly the 1C that this team needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derp... Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 No one knows who Bennings top 6 is. It's completely subjective to the organization. I would say Nylander is in there, but really I have no idea. Neither do you! Unless you do, then please share I still feel us getting either Dal Colle Nylander or Bennett at 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Other than the Canucks should pass on them? Two words: Hunter Shinkaruk. Similar skill. Similar upside. Similar makeup. Canucks have more pressing needs. Starting with some meat on the bones of the top players in their lineup. Too many players, including the Sedins, need to be sheltered in order to be effective. When Torts didn't shelter them this past season, they were pulverized. Nylander or Ehlers would just add to that effect. Pass. Shinkaruk and Nylander aren't the same players, Nylander is a playmaker and Shinkaruk scores goals. We have plenty of size like Kassian, Lain, Zalewski, Jensen, Horvat, Matthias. Schroeder is our only player under 6 foot, we aren't a small team so we can afford to add some high end skill to the size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PowerAids Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Shinkaruk and Nylander aren't the same players, Nylander is a playmaker and Shinkaruk scores goals. We have plenty of size like Kassian, Lain, Zalewski, Jensen, Horvat, Matthias. Schroeder is our only player under 6 foot, we aren't a small team so we can afford to add some high end skill to the size. Especially when that skill is 5'11" and in great physical shape, it's not like they're 5'8". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rollieo Del Fuego Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Actually Shinkaruk is 5'8" but he plays larger. Think Zuccarello for the Rangers. He was hammering people out there and rarely got hit himself, plus he was scoring and setting up goals. Small is ok as long as fiesty is included and we have a few big guys around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedman Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Actually Shinkaruk is 5'8" but he plays larger. Think Zuccarello for the Rangers. He was hammering people out there and rarely got hit himself, plus he was scoring and setting up goals. Small is ok as long as fiesty is included and we have a few big guys around. What are you talking about? Shinkaruk is 5'11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumerman77 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Actually Shinkaruk is 5'8" but he plays larger. Think Zuccarello for the Rangers. He was hammering people out there and rarely got hit himself, plus he was scoring and setting up goals. Small is ok as long as fiesty is included and we have a few big guys around. Why do people continually point to the small players in the NHL as evidence that drafting small is an good strategy? Yes, there are small players in the NHL. However, drafting smaller players because they put up big point totals in Juniors is a horrible drafting strategy. I am assuming these are the same people who spend their retirement savings on lottery tickets because they've seen lottery winners on TV. There is something called probability. Drafting is about strategy. Teams should draft prospects that have the best chance of succeeding at the NHL level. There is a correlation in the NHL between size and point production. And the average height at the start of the 13-14 season was 6'1.3" and 203.7 pounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Shinkaruk and Nylander aren't the same players, Nylander is a playmaker and Shinkaruk scores goals. We have plenty of size like Kassian, Lain, Zalewski, Jensen, Horvat, Matthias. Schroeder is our only player under 6 foot, we aren't a small team so we can afford to add some high end skill to the size. your just finding an excuse to separate the 2 Shinkaruk falls into the category of speedy under 6'0 offensive winger. Nylander too also falls under that category under 6'0 speedy offensive winger. Limited physical attritbutes, as hitting is not his game. if he's not scoring for you, he's doing nothing for your team Mean while, the same with Ehlers Ritchie 6'3 220 offensive truculent winger who hits and generates offense and or a fights Virtannen soon to be 6'2 215 offensive winger who hits and generates offense. If those 2 are not generating offence, they will still be a physical presence, and will likely maintain their physical play. Not even close, and why the hell should we be drafting a under sized play maker? doesn't make sense. I tell you this. if this draft happened 9 10 or 11 years ago..... Probably be Nylander and or Ehlers locked into the 6 position, but the NHL today is no longer like the 80's or 90's or even the early 2000's. Physical play can get the best of offence nowadays, as we seen it, i'm not saying offense won't prevail no more, no! that's not what I mean, sure their is still Chicago, but nowadays, because of todays NHL, guys Like Virtannan and Ritchie are rated much higher. Chicago won the cup last year!. yes look at the final 4 teams. Consists of L.A and Boston. Boston got the best of Pittsbrugh in 4 games, made it to the finals, won the cup in 2011, this year, L.A was able to go up 3-1 on Chicago. also love the underratedness of Brenden Perlini. LOL. sure he's not a physical player for a 6'3 body, but man..... the guy is one hell of a sniper and a excellent play maker. Perlini has James Neal written all over him, its no joke. Think Zuccarello for the Rangers. He was hammering people out there and rarely got hit himself, plus he was scoring and setting up goals. No one is saying no against small players, if you look at it many of these small players are note even drafted in the 1st round. teams will usually take their risks on these guys in beyond the 2nd round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLocke Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Other than the Canucks should pass on them? Two words: Hunter Shinkaruk. Similar skill. Similar upside. Similar makeup. Canucks have more pressing needs. Starting with some meat on the bones of the top players in their lineup. Too many players, including the Sedins, need to be sheltered in order to be effective. When Torts didn't shelter them this past season, they were pulverized. Nylander or Ehlers would just add to that effect. Pass. Did you also tell Steve Yzerman back in 2013 to pass on Jonathan Drouin since they already have a scoring forward in Stamkos? Also keep mind that Shinkaruk may never even pan out to an above average player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 your just finding an excuse to separate the 2 Shinkaruk falls into the category of speedy under 6'0 offensive winger. Nylander too also falls under that category under 6'0 speedy offensive winger. Limited physical attritbutes, as hitting is not his game. if he's not scoring for you, he's doing nothing for your team Mean while, the same with Ehlers Ritchie 6'3 220 offensive truculent winger who hits and generates offense and or a fights Virtannen soon to be 6'2 215 offensive winger who hits and generates offense. If those 2 are not generating offence, they will still be a physical presence, and will likely maintain their physical play. Not even close, and why the hell should we be drafting a under sized play maker? doesn't make sense. I tell you this. if this draft happened 9 10 or 11 years ago..... Probably be Nylander and or Ehlers locked into the 6 position, but the NHL today is no longer like the 80's or 90's or even the early 2000's. Physical play can get the best of offence nowadays, as we seen it, i'm not saying offense won't prevail no more, no! that's not what I mean, sure their is still Chicago, but nowadays, because of todays NHL, guys Like Virtannan and Ritchie are rated much higher. Chicago won the cup last year!. yes look at the final 4 teams. Consists of L.A and Boston. Boston got the best of Pittsbrugh in 4 games, made it to the finals, won the cup in 2011, this year, L.A was able to go up 3-1 on Chicago. also love the underratedness of Brenden Perlini. LOL. sure he's not a physical player for a 6'3 body, but man..... the guy is one hell of a sniper and a excellent play maker. Perlini has James Neal written all over him, its no joke. No one is saying no against small players, if you look at it many of these small players are note even drafted in the 1st round. teams will usually take their risks on these guys in beyond the 2nd round. Nylander is undersized? Then I guess Mike Richards is undersized aswell. I understand what you're saying about what Virtanen/Ritchie are doing when they're not scoring but they don't have the skill to be a 1st line player. Who's going to replace the Sedins? Ritchie/Virtanen have the potential to be complimentary players who can lay the body and score but they aren't going to be 1st line players. The Canucks are at a point where they don't have a future player who has the ability to replace the Sedins in the next few years, Nylander has that skill. We can draft bruisers in the later rounds but we can't draft a player with the type of offensive skill Nylander has. We have to take the risk of Nylander becoming a 1st line 60+ point getter for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canorth Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Why do people continually point to the small players in the NHL as evidence that drafting small is an good strategy? Yes, there are small players in the NHL. However, drafting smaller players because they put up big point totals in Juniors is a horrible drafting strategy. I am assuming these are the same people who spend their retirement savings on lottery tickets because they've seen lottery winners on TV. There is something called probability. Drafting is about strategy. Teams should draft prospects that have the best chance of succeeding at the NHL level. There is a correlation in the NHL between size and point production. And the average height at the start of the 13-14 season was 6'1.3" and 203.7 pounds. I have not seen anyone state that focusing on smaller players is a sound primary strategy for drafting; rather, I believe the primary strategy in these situations is drafting skill. The same could be said for focusing on players just because they are big - not a good strategy. I would like to see this data which describes the correlation between size and production; however, I would bet that it pales in comparison to the strong positive correlation between SKILL and point production. Correlation does not always equal causation. Success in the NHL is dependent on many more variables than just size or skill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Shinkaruk and Nylander aren't the same players, Nylander is a playmaker and Shinkaruk scores goals. We have plenty of size like Kassian, Lain, Zalewski, Jensen, Horvat, Matthias. Schroeder is our only player under 6 foot, we aren't a small team so we can afford to add some high end skill to the size. Weight, not height, is what matters. Kassian may be a 3rd liner. Lain may be a 4th. Zalewski? Who? Jensen has been concussed twice already and won't be known for throwing his weight around. Horvat may be a great 3rd line center or a good 2nd line center. Matthias is also a 3rd line-type. So you see, we still need size. Scoring-capable size. And that means 'playmaker' Nylander, ie. easily brushed-off perimeter type with far less skill than either Sedin, isn't needed. And Shinkaruk we will be praying pans out to anything after his hip surgery. Other than that we agree though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Did you also tell Steve Yzerman back in 2013 to pass on Jonathan Drouin since they already have a scoring forward in Stamkos? Also keep mind that Shinkaruk may never even pan out to an above average player. Gee, is Tampa Bay the team that just traded MSL away? I forgot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Why do people continually point to the small players in the NHL as evidence that drafting small is an good strategy? Yes, there are small players in the NHL. However, drafting smaller players because they put up big point totals in Juniors is a horrible drafting strategy. I am assuming these are the same people who spend their retirement savings on lottery tickets because they've seen lottery winners on TV. There is something called probability. Drafting is about strategy. Teams should draft prospects that have the best chance of succeeding at the NHL level. There is a correlation in the NHL between size and point production. And the average height at the start of the 13-14 season was 6'1.3" and 203.7 pounds. This. Thank you. Even if Nylander is 180lbs (I doubt it), that's pretty close to peak weight for him. And Ehlers is 168lbs. Just WAY to small to face the likes of LA, Anaheim and SJ for important divisional games year after year. We need to do these guys a favour and pass on them so they can put up some points against weaker eastern competition. Not only that, but why is it that every time our top players get buried we say to ourselves 'man i wish we had (big opposing center or power winger) on our team, because he's crushing us right now', and then people here say 'wow, that really tiny kid sure is skilled, we should build around him' come draft time? Daaaaaaft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PowerAids Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Weight, not height, is what matters. Kassian may be a 3rd liner. Lain may be a 4th. Zalewski? Who? Jensen has been concussed twice already and won't be known for throwing his weight around. Horvat may be a great 3rd line center or a good 2nd line center. Matthias is also a 3rd line-type. So you see, we still need size. Scoring-capable size. And that means 'playmaker' Nylander, ie. easily brushed-off perimeter type with far less skill than either Sedin, isn't needed. And Shinkaruk we will be praying pans out to anything after his hip surgery. Other than that we agree though... Actually, when you lay it out like that it sounds like we could use some top line forwards in our prospect pool, not more 3rd/2nd tweeners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.