A Case to Draft Oliver Wahlstrom

[DrJockitch]

You can see all the tools with Jake.

 

Beautiful skater, good physicality, good size, decent shot, goes to the net.  Absolutely those attributes put him high up in the draft but yes, it seems to be his head holding him back.  Could make the exact same argument for Gudbranson, all the tools but hasn't been able to pull it together given the expectations of a 3rd OA pick.   Pouliott was what 4th overall and again great looking tool set but has not yet pulled it together.

 

That is the way with prospects some time, you look for the tools.

[SuperJr]

8 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

You can see all the tools with Jake.

 

Beautiful skater, good physicality, good size, decent shot, goes to the net.  Absolutely those attributes put him high up in the draft but yes, it seems to be his head holding him back.  Could make the exact same argument for Gudbranson, all the tools but hasn't been able to pull it together given the expectations of a 3rd OA pick.   Pouliott was what 4th overall and again great looking tool set but has not yet pulled it together.

 

That is the way with prospects some time, you look for the tools.

  Pouliot 8th overall in 2012

[alfstonker]

9 hours ago, canucksnihilist said:

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?

 

No they didn't they came from the way we all (except you obviously) understand the English written language. You implied he didn't have a very high hockey IQ and I asked you how you knew his 6th place ranking didn't imply a reasonably high hockey IQ.

 

I've had enough of your obfuscation, have a good one.

[DrJockitch]

3 hours ago, SuperJr said:

  Pouliot 8th overall in 2012

okay, thanks

[canucksnihilist]

4 hours ago, alfstonker said:

No they didn't they came from the way we all (except you obviously) understand the English written language. You implied he didn't have a very high hockey IQ and I asked you how you knew his 6th place ranking didn't imply a reasonably high hockey IQ.

 

I've had enough of your obfuscation, have a good one.

Ok no worries.  Most people can’t do logic, I shouldn’t be surprised.   Finally get into why there is a misunderstanding and how clarity could be achieved and they always give up right away...  always an emotional axe to grind I suppose....   

 

cheers and peace

[alfstonker]

1 hour ago, canucksnihilist said:

Ok no worries.  Most people can’t do logic, I shouldn’t be surprised.   Finally get into why there is a misunderstanding and how clarity could be achieved and they always give up right away...  always an emotional axe to grind I suppose....   

 

cheers and peace

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

Some pretty tasty stats for Wahlstrom:

 

4.92 shots per game (ranks #1 among 2018 first time eligibles)

 

1.93 SEAL adjusted scoring (3rd best after Svechnikov and Dahlin)

 

pGPS: 100% expected likelihood of success (200 NHL GP) and a 70.5 expected points/82 NHL games (together this is best pGPS model value in the draft).

 

https://canucksarmy.com/2018/05/04/2018-nhl-draft-spring-rankings/

 

Quote

Next [#5], I have a current USNTDP player, scoring winger Oliver Wahlstrom. Wahlstrom is a dynamic volume shooter who is probably closer in upside to Zadina and Svechnikov than he is to the next available winger on the board. Wahlstrom’s 4.92 shots per game this season (USNTDP games against USHL competition only) was by far the highest rate of anyone on this list. Those numbers put him with some pretty elite competition.
 

 

 

[Dazzle]

I'm pretty sure Detroit will pick either Hughes or Wahlstrom. Hughes because he's already played on the international ice + he is playing in Michigan, so I think Detroit will more than happy to pick him.

 

This will leave Wahlstrom to us or Dobson. Dobson's pretty good as well.

[stawns]

5 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Some pretty tasty stats for Wahlstrom:

 

4.92 shots per game (ranks #1 among 2018 first time eligibles)

 

1.93 SEAL adjusted scoring (3rd best after Svechnikov and Dahlin)

 

pGPS: 100% expected likelihood of success (200 NHL GP) and a 70.5 expected points/82 NHL games (together this is best pGPS model value in the draft).

 

https://canucksarmy.com/2018/05/04/2018-nhl-draft-spring-rankings/

 

 

 

I actually like wahsltom's offensive game, but he's as one dimensional as it gets, imo.

[stawns]

On 02/05/2018 at 4:19 PM, canucksnihilist said:

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?

 

I don't think it's iq, so much as it is confidence.  He makes some great reads and is a better passer than I thought he'd be.  That said, he's much more of an instinct/reactionary player than he is a thinker out there.  Both styles have their advantages and disadvantages.

[JeremyCuddles]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

I actually like wahsltom's offensive game, but he's as one dimensional as it gets, imo.

Kinda like Boeser

[canucksnihilist]

On 2018-05-05 at 2:52 PM, stawns said:

I don't think it's iq, so much as it is confidence.  He makes some great reads and is a better passer than I thought he'd be.  That said, he's much more of an instinct/reactionary player than he is a thinker out there.  Both styles have their advantages and disadvantages.

Agreed.  That’s a good way to phrase it - the reactionary vs the analytic player.  I’m not trying to degradade his skill set...

[SuperJr]

https://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1040/burke-wahlstrom-a-must-take-if-he-s-available-at-7th-1.1082680

[Phat Fingers]

On 2018-04-29 at 4:11 PM, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Ehh. Only if we land another 1st rd pick in which we pick a Dman. Also, considering Wahlstrom plays RW, which we're pretty set on, it seems a little redundant.

Wahlstrom could be a center or winger. Very talent, nhl shot, speed and size. He is a damn good player. Honestly he is my favourite forward out of this draft. 

 

Don’t see a down side to picking him, Bouchard, Dobson etc... JB and co have a great spot to pick. This is a deeper draft that the previous two years,

 

Other than the top two three picks, it really doesn’t fall off until 11-12 and only marginally, then it is solid into the top of the second round. 

 

If Wahlstrom is the selection, then I expect a trade or two to add picks later into the first and upper second round. Too many d men available to not pick up one or two in the top 50. 

 

Tanev should be an enticing player for a number of teams, Baer is another. Why we move them, because we have a ton of cap space and forward depth. 

 

Tanev can be replaced thru the FA market to some extent. Hopefully a team like NYI would part with the one of their picks for Tanev. Then we can have a fantastic draft. Baer can be replaced internally and there are FA players that could replace him as well. 

 

One thing about Wahlstrom and Tkachuk. We are seriously short at center and you can never have enough centres.  I could see either player bring very high on JB’s radar along with some very good d men. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Phat Fingers]

On 2018-05-05 at 6:49 PM, stawns said:

I actually like wahsltom's offensive game, but he's as one dimensional as it gets, imo.

We could use an offensively focused player. If his IQ and drive are there, he can learn the pro game in time. 

 

Wahlstrom is my top hope at forward and Bouchard and Dobson, Hughes is good

but talk about one dimensional...  Would rather have a one dimensional forward than defender. Not really excited about Boqvist. 

 

If Tkachuk falls, he could make a very nice C/LW for us. Two areas of weakness at the same time. It would make for a great rivalry.  I think he could kick his brothers ass. 

 

So of the 5 players I would think are really great picks for our team are out of 10 players who are all ranked to be in the top ten. 3 players will go in the top 6 that are not on my list are Dahlin, Svechnikov and Zadina, all should be gone by the 4 spot. Boqvist is the other player and he is ranked to go

anywhere from 4-10. 

 

Dont think Tkahcuk falls past 5 as he would be a great fit for Ott and Zona. Detroit could go for anyone that we like. Really $&!#ty that they pick just ahead of us. 

 

Dont know if it would be worth it to trade up at all, but it would

be great to pick ahead of Det. 

 

 

I hope they really like Hughes and Ott really likes Boqvist as the heir to EK. 

 

Anyway it goes we will I’ll end up with a really good player out of omen of the deeper drafts in a long time. 

[Isam]

On 11/05/2018 at 10:34 PM, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

Wahlstrom could be a center or winger. Very talent, nhl shot, speed and size. He is a damn good player. Honestly he is my favourite forward out of this draft. 

 

Don’t see a down side to picking him, Bouchard, Dobson etc... JB and co have a great spot to pick. This is a deeper draft that the previous two years,

 

Other than the top two three picks, it really doesn’t fall off until 11-12 and only marginally, then it is solid into the top of the second round. 

 

If Wahlstrom is the selection, then I expect a trade or two to add picks later into the first and upper second round. Too many d men available to not pick up one or two in the top 50. 

 

Tanev should be an enticing player for a number of teams, Baer is another. Why we move them, because we have a ton of cap space and forward depth. 

 

Tanev can be replaced thru the FA market to some extent. Hopefully a team like NYI would part with the one of their picks for Tanev. Then we can have a fantastic draft. Baer can be replaced internally and there are FA players that could replace him as well. 

 

One thing about Wahlstrom and Tkachuk. We are seriously short at center and you can never have enough centres.  I could see either player bring very high on JB’s radar along with some very good d men. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again man. Wahlstrom has been used as a winger only with usndtp.

[Phat Fingers]

1 hour ago, Isam said:

Again man. Wahlstrom has been used as a winger only with usndtp.

Isam, again with the inaccuracy, man....Sigh. why don’t you actually just google the guy and read.  

 

If you actually know what your facts are, you can be condescending

 

But if your facts aren’t actually facts and you try to correct other people, well it makes you look bad. Especially when you say things like ‘Again, man...’ like you are exhausted pointing out others mistakes.  

 

It comes across as very condescending, I don’t like it and if you do want to talk to others that way, at least know what your talking about first. 

 

Wahlstrom is only playing winger this season cause the next generational player, Jack Hughes, is now on that line playing center.

 

Wahlstrom has played Center as of last season with the USNDTP and can play center, just like many other centres, he can also play wing. 

 

Its not rocket science and all

it takes a bit of reading beyond the last couple of months to figure out.

 

Just as a test I googled Wahlstrom and picked the first site, not even a half

page down Elite Prospects has him as a ‘C/RW’.

 

So unless you are claiming that they and every other site/scout is also wrong about what goddam position he can play, stop nitpicking and either comment on the content of a post rather than trying to single out some irrelevant point out of context. 

 

 

And I say, ‘Have a good day, sir.’ 

 

 

 

[Isam]

6 minutes ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

Isam, again with the inaccuracy, man....Sigh. why don’t you actually just google the guy and read.  

 

If you actually know what your facts are, you can be condescending

 

But if your facts aren’t actually facts and you try to correct other people, well it makes you look bad. Especially when you say things like ‘Again, man...’ like you are exhausted pointing out others mistakes.  

 

It comes across as very condescending, I don’t like it and if you do want to talk to others that way, at least know what your talking about first. 

 

Wahlstrom is only playing winger this season cause the next generational player, Jack Hughes, is now on that line playing center.

 

Wahlstrom has played Center as of last season with the USNDTP and can play center, just like many other centres, he can also play wing. 

 

Its not rocket science and all

it takes a bit of reading beyond the last couple of months to figure out.

 

Just as a test I googled Wahlstrom and picked the first site, not even a half

page down Elite Prospects has him as a ‘C/RW’.

 

So unless you are claiming that they and every other site/scout is also wrong about what goddam position he can play, stop nitpicking and either comment on the content of a post rather than trying to single out some irrelevant point out of context. 

 

 

And I say, ‘Have a good day, sir.’ 

 

 

 

He actually has been playing winger before this. I don't get where you have been getting this. This year even before hand they had gruden in as center and wahlstrom out at the wing. You are a great poster man and I respect you alot but you haven't watched alot of the usndtp.  So where did he play down the middle for them? 

[Solinar]

Who's been the 2nd line center on his team if he's been playing wing with Hughes?  I'm not too familiar with the players beyond the ones being scouted for this years draft, but my question would be this, is he a better center than that guy?  If he is, why hasn't he been deployed as such to spread the offense around?  Is he a distributor, or is he a shoot first kind of guy?  If he's a shoot first, then he'd be a center much akin to Ryan Kesler or Sutter?  Or is he a distributor, so that if he was a winger, he'd be like a Tanguay, a winger who could play with a shoot first center because he was a distributor who had superior on ice vision.

  Really have to nail down what kind of player he is, what he can be, and see if you have the people in the pipeline to surround him with to take advantage of his positives, and cover for his negatives.  I'd imagine if he is going to be a winger, Wahlstrom, Petterson, and Gadjovich would make for a very intriguing line.  Shooter, Distributor, Banger with hands that can play the defensive side as well.

[CanucksJay]

On 2018-04-30 at 11:35 PM, 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 

 

 

 

 

That reminded me of Virtanen's draft year and man... That was an awful year. 

There's a handful of stars in the NHL (and by handful I mean less than 5) and they are scattered throughout the first round which means most of the NHL scouts didn't get it right either