A Case to Draft Oliver Wahlstrom

[stawns]

Kotkaniemi had 3 goals and 6 helpers at C

Wahlstrom had 7 goals and 2 helpers at W (I believe)

 

The Canucks have some solid offensive threats on the wing, they need playmakers to set those wingers up.  If Bouchard is gone, the Finn is the guy I want

[canucksnihilist]

I’d always opt for the high IQ player.   Because they can realize their physical potential, whatever that is, and be more than their physical potential in playmaking ability and positional play.

 

i don’t like a pick like Virtanen - who has a low hockey IQ.  No offence to him, I like what he is doing and believe he can be a valued contributor.  If he can be coached he could be phenomenal.  And you can’t have only one type of player on your team. I get that.

 

So ya I like what I am hearing about Wahlstrom 

 

 

 

 

[MoneypuckOverlord]

There is a case not to draft him after his recent tourny.  Skill galore but very little hustle.  Pass.  We need a dman, we are way to stacked upfront to draft another winger

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

Wahlstrom? I dunno. After that goal medal game finish, I’m getting some serious Lafayette vibes off this kid. 

 

(I’m kidding)

 

But it was a 3-2 score, late in the championship game, chance to force OT, wide open net and the puck on his stick.

 

(Again, I’m kidding)

 

At least Lafayette hit the post.

 

(Really, I’m kidding)

 

 

Anyway. Got that out of my system now.

 

I like Wahlstrom. Would be happy to have him. Not my first choice but depending on who’s left, he might very well be the BPA at #7.

[alfstonker]

4 hours ago, canucksnihilist said:

I’d always opt for the high IQ player.   Because they can realize their physical potential, whatever that is, and be more than their physical potential in playmaking ability and positional play.

 

i don’t like a pick like Virtanen - who has a low hockey IQ.  No offence to him, I like what he is doing and believe he can be a valued contributor.  If he can be coached he could be phenomenal.  And you can’t have only one type of player on your team. I get that.

 

So ya I like what I am hearing about Wahlstrom 

 

 

 

 

Does he really though? 

Yes he is/was immature but I see instances now of a pretty high hockey IQ poking through now and again. I think Jake's problem was bad conditioning lead to poor performance and diminishing confidence.

Now that he has got his fitness and conditioning right, I see more and more evidence of a player who will justify his No 6 ranking. I really don't think you get that kind of ranking just for being a big hitter.

[70seven]

I like wahlstrom, but top 4 Dmen are far and away the priority.  You simply MUST draft them in today’s nhl.  They’re so rarely available these days and cost an arm and leg to acquire by trade or ufa.

 

If we don’t add to this pool right now, it will only set the teams growth backwards. 

 

people still upset about not taking tkachuk?  I still say it was the right move, as will be the drafting of Boqvist, Hughes, Bouchard, or Dobson ahead of Wahlstrom. 

 

 

[Baratheon]

 I would be cool with Wahlstrom.  There should be some damned fine D available in the 2nd round as well.  Vancouver is not in a position where all we need is an offensive D and we're ready to go.  We need everyrhing lol

(Maybe not a goaltender but everything else)

[The_Aviator]

On 29/04/2018 at 12:53 PM, Rick Blight said:

Button has us taking Dobson and Boquist falling to the Oilers.

7. Noah Dobson

Defence | Acadie-Bathurst (QMJHL) | 6'3 | 180 lbs. | Jan. 7, 2000

2017-18 STATISTICS

• GP
  67
• G
  17
• PTS
  69
• +/-
  33

TSN Director of Scouting Craig Button says:

With the forward stable the Canucks have, Noah is the perfect complement to them and he helps the building of a strong defense corps. 

https://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-mock-draft-post-lottery-edition-1.1071168

Could Benning trade down and pick up some scoring help and still get a dman?

[stawns]

Just now, The_Aviator said:

Could Benning trade down and pick up some scoring help and still get a dman?

Dobson would be a mistake at #7, imo

[Rick Blight]

18 minutes ago, The_Aviator said:

Could Benning trade down and pick up some scoring help and still get a dman?

He probably could but I would still like us to be in a position to get either Smith or Wilde if we went that route. That probably means we couldn't make a trade to drop any lower than the 11th - 13th pick without risking losing out on one of those two. A trade such as that could maybe fetch us an extra 2nd round pick.

All depends on who is still available at 7 IMO.

[canucksnihilist]

10 hours ago, alfstonker said:

Does he really though? 

Yes he is/was immature but I see instances now of a pretty high hockey IQ poking through now and again. I think Jake's problem was bad conditioning lead to poor performance and diminishing confidence.

Now that he has got his fitness and conditioning right, I see more and more evidence of a player who will justify his No 6 ranking. I really don't think you get that kind of ranking just for being a big hitter.

I'm not sure if he really does or doesn't - kind of something nobody really knows, although hockey analysis can make decisions based on how he plays and has played... and that is the consensus opinion.  I stress that this in no way means I am not excited by him as a player on our team.  And he could develop high hockey IQ, maybe he is a late bloomer in that regard.

 

He was ranked 6 to 12, but that wasn't for hockey IQ - it was the potential to be a power forward.  Nobody at the 2014 draft thought he has high hockey IQ.  I stress again, that not all players need a high hockey IQ to excel.  Its just easier if you have it, but a lot of times those players don't come with the same physical skill sets...

 

edit:  and obviously we need to define what a high hockey IQ is.  To me is not that the player can deke around someone, or power through them, or has a great shot, or can play positionally well.  although there is a grey line there obviously and it all involves some hockey IQ.  Hockey IQ to me is what is used when a player makes a decision in a split second.  So Jake obviously has a high hockey IQ, but compared to other NHL players, it might be average.  High hockey IQ would be the ability to do something unexpected that makes sense and that the opposition isn't expecting.  And how often that happens is how you can determine high hockey IQ.  The Sends had really high hockey IQ for instance... And Bertuzzi didn't, but he didn't need super high Hockey IQ for what his role was (he obviously had high enough hockey IQ to beat a lot of goaltenders, but looking at his stats he was a 20-30 goal scorer most of his career, and never hit 100 points).

 

/peace

 

 

 

[alfstonker]

1 hour ago, canucksnihilist said:

I'm not sure if he really does or doesn't - kind of something nobody really knows, although hockey analysis can make decisions based on how he plays and has played... and that is the consensus opinion.  I stress that this in no way means I am not excited by him as a player on our team.  And he could develop high hockey IQ, maybe he is a late bloomer in that regard.

 

He was ranked 6 to 12, but that wasn't for hockey IQ - it was the potential to be a power forward.  Nobody at the 2014 draft thought he has high hockey IQ.  I stress again, that not all players need a high hockey IQ to excel.  Its just easier if you have it, but a lot of times those players don't come with the same physical skill sets...

 

edit:  and obviously we need to define what a high hockey IQ is.  To me is not that the player can deke around someone, or power through them, or has a great shot, or can play positionally well.  although there is a grey line there obviously and it all involves some hockey IQ.  Hockey IQ to me is what is used when a player makes a decision in a split second.  So Jake obviously has a high hockey IQ, but compared to other NHL players, it might be average.  High hockey IQ would be the ability to do something unexpected that makes sense and that the opposition isn't expecting.  And how often that happens is how you can determine high hockey IQ.  The Sends had really high hockey IQ for instance... And Bertuzzi didn't, but he didn't need super high Hockey IQ for what his role was (he obviously had high enough hockey IQ to beat a lot of goaltenders, but looking at his stats he was a 20-30 goal scorer most of his career, and never hit 100 points).

 

/peace

 

 

 

Fair enough but remember the term "power forward" has no bearing on the player's hockey IQ it is an assessment of how he may perform best and a reflection of the player's size.

Would you say Neely, Lindros, Iginla, Landeskog, Backes, Johansen, Perry, Getzlaf, Benn, had/have average hockey IQs?

[canucksnihilist]

2 hours ago, alfstonker said:

Fair enough but remember the term "power forward" has no bearing on the player's hockey IQ it is an assessment of how he may perform best and a reflection of the player's size.

Would you say Neely, Lindros, Iginla, Landeskog, Backes, Johansen, Perry, Getzlaf, Benn, had/have average hockey IQs?

Of course the term "power forward" has no bearing on hockey IQ.   Why would it?

 

I assume you aren't really asking me that question about if those players have average hockey IQs, but are putting it there rhetorically.  To make your case about Power Forwards - is that correct?

 

 

[70seven]

No to dealing this pick up or down.  Pick best D available.  Better yet, do that for every single round this year.   Cast as many rods into the lake as possible.  

 

This organization has one of the weakest, if not the worst Dmen pools in the league.  It must be addressed ASAP. 

 

Wahlstrom might be be a better player, but it won’t matter if you don’t have any top 4 Dmen    

 

The idea of drafting so so many forwards that you can trade for a Dman is foolish thinking.   The cost is simply outrageous.  

 

Draft one of Dobson, Boqvist, Hughes, or Bouchard.  Then hopefully land Miller or Sandin... and so on. 

 

 

[KKnight]

On 29/04/2018 at 5:10 PM, Rick Blight said:

I really like Boqvist as well but he only played 15 games against men in the SHL. In those 15 games he only had 1 assist and was a -7 so it might be a stretch to say that he held his own against men. He did, however, have 24 points in 25 games in their under 20 league so the potential is certainly there. FWIW, this what Canucksarmy had to say:

Speaking of Brady Tkachuk, he passed Adam Boqvist for fourth overall in the aggregated list. Tkachuk’s size, style and bloodlines are pushing him forward, in addition to a strong second half in college hockey. Boqvist hasn’t exactly been cementing his case either. Despite continuing to make the occasional highlight reel, the fact that he struggled to stick in the SHL at any point this season makes it difficult to guarantee him a spot in the top five.

People arent taking in to account that Boqvist is the youngest player in the draft. 

[JustABandwagoner]

On 4/29/2018 at 11:48 AM, Rollieo Del Fuego said:

I am fine with Wahlstrom but if Bouchard or Hughes are available I take one of those 2, we need a point producing D.,....badly....!

If hughes is there, thats a tough decision. I personally will AVOID bouchard at all costs.

[JustABandwagoner]

9 hours ago, The_Aviator said:

Could Benning trade down and pick up some scoring help and still get a dman?

Why would we want scoring help??? We tanking full-on next year to draft J. Hughes in Vancouver!!! 

[Rick Blight]

1 hour ago, KKnight said:

People arent taking in to account that Boqvist is the youngest player in the draft. 

Yup, he is one day younger than Merkley.

[alfstonker]

8 hours ago, canucksnihilist said:

Of course the term "power forward" has no bearing on hockey IQ.   Why would it?

 

I assume you aren't really asking me that question about if those players have average hockey IQs, but are putting it there rhetorically.  To make your case about Power Forwards - is that correct?

 

 

It was because you posted.

 

"He was ranked 6 to 12, but that wasn't for hockey IQ - it was the potential to be a power forward."

 

That makes it sound mutually exclusive to me.

 

My point was how do you know why he was ranked 6-12. There are all manner of qualities that go into a scouts ranking of a player. You can't say with any certainty a reasonably high hockey IQ wasn't one of them even though the potential to be a power forward obviously was. I say again I doubt there was any question over his IQ if he was selected at 6. You can get a basic power forwards much further down the draft.

 

 

[canucksnihilist]

13 hours ago, alfstonker said:

It was because you posted.

 

"He was ranked 6 to 12, but that wasn't for hockey IQ - it was the potential to be a power forward."

 

That makes it sound mutually exclusive to me.

 

My point was how do you know why he was ranked 6-12. There are all manner of qualities that go into a scouts ranking of a player. You can't say with any certainty a reasonably high hockey IQ wasn't one of them even though the potential to be a power forward obviously was. I say again I doubt there was any question over his IQ if he was selected at 6. You can get a basic power forwards much further down the draft.

 

 

well, just because I specified that the ranking wasn't for one thing, but was for another.... that doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive.  That is your assumption.  Fair enough, but just be aware that I didn't have those thoughts, they came from you.

 

His ranking:  I looked it up, and out of a few I saw he was ranked anywhere from 6 to 12.   Good enough.  Maybe other people have him ranked elsewhere...  And I remember 2014, and that a lot of people were saying that other players have a higher hockey IQ.  Doesn't mean they are right, but probably there is some truth to it - where there is smoke there is fire.  where the fire is and why it is there is always another story!

 

so... I get it that you like Virtanen as a player - so do I.  And you don't like that I referred to him as having a lower hockey IQ than some other players.  However we can discuss semantics and intent all day, which is kind of pointless, don't you think?