Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Bouchard vs. Dobson - The Athletic's in-depth analysis


D-Money

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, oldnews said:

thanks, but I'm not sure my opinion is worth much tbh - I just haven't seen enough of the three of them to where I'd be comfortable making the call.

my first take was to really want Boqvist - and the only thing that has made me second guess that is the concussion history.  He's so dynamic - great mobility, great shot, great vision, so poised and he has a body language imo that is akin to Pettersson - sheer confidence.  If he hadn't suffered those concussions, I'm probably more certain about taking the risk on his upside - as I think he's going to grow and mature, and his defensive game in the modern NHL with the right complementary partner I wouldn't anticipate being a problem.  I'm skeptical that anyone beyond 1 has a higher ceiling - and he's a very young pick in addition, as a mid Aug 2000 birthdate and yet in the running from 5 to 10 (pretty impressive).  The one other question mark I'd have relative to those other two is that while he's played against men, he's done so on larger European ice, so I suppose people could question how well his smaller frame translates on tigher NA ice.

I'm torn between Dobson and Bouchard - probably lean towards Dobson on the strength of his skating and being a relatively solid two way player with comparable tools.  Who knows if Bouchard's offensive instincts make him the better player in the long run, but Dobson looks to have the ability to be an elite defender in addition to his shot and upside - and some of what appear to be his limitations are highly coachable imo.

In the end I'm pretty happy that these three RHD all seem to be possibllities at 7 as that pretty clearly coincides with the team's greatest needs imo.

That said, I also wouldn't be disappointed if the team considered a forward like Wahlstrom (or whomever remains available) the bpa at 7 - it's just that tough to make a call without watching them all really intensively, which I just don't have the time/access to do.   I don't remember a draft where there seemed like so much parity in so many picks - it looks like a strong and deep top 10.

Between Benning, Weisbrod, Brackett, Wall, Green et al however, I'm pretty confident that they're going to make a great call here.

If the three of them were the front-running picks remaining at 7, I'd probably take Boqvist, but wouldn't exactly do so with great comfort or confidence.

I'd agree with pretty much everything you said...

 

Canucks brass really do have a tough call to make. I think I'm leaning in a different direction on a weekly basis. There's been talk that Tkachuk could potentially fall to 7 as well. So if he enters the equation, oh man...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vanuckles said:

I'd agree with pretty much everything you said...

 

Canucks brass really do have a tough call to make. I think I'm leaning in a different direction on a weekly basis. There's been talk that Tkachuk could potentially fall to 7 as well. So if he enters the equation, oh man...

Kotkaniemi as well - might he hard to pass on.   I know it's an upopular opinion, but even if Tkachuk were available at 7, I'd likely go with a different player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Kotkaniemi as well - might he hard to pass on.   I know it's an upopular opinion, but even if Tkachuk were available at 7, I'd likely go with a different player.

Personally I'd definitely take Tkachuk before Kotkaniemi. I think Tkachuk is as close to a sure fire top 6 rugged player as you can get. Kotkaniemi on the other hand, I have my qualms about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Kotkaniemi as well - might he hard to pass on.   I know it's an upopular opinion, but even if Tkachuk were available at 7, I'd likely go with a different player.

If Tkachuk is there at 7 we should be able to trade the pick (Tkachuk) to the Oilers or Flames for a nice return:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Alflives said:

If Tkachuk is there at 7 we should be able to trade the pick (Tkachuk) to the Oilers or Flames for a nice return:)

Flames don't have a 1st rounder and their prospect pool is meh.  Don't like Oilers prospect pool either.

 

So, if we must trade with one of them, I guess I'd do...

 

Tkachuk (#7) to Oilers

10th overall and Poolparty to Canucks::D

 

Does that work for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vanuckles said:

Personally I'd definitely take Tkachuk before Kotkaniemi. I think Tkachuk is as close to a sure fire top 6 rugged player as you can get. Kotkaniemi on the other hand, I have my qualms about him.

what concerns do you have?  Genuinely curious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, higgyfan said:

Flames don't have a 1st rounder and their prospect pool is meh.  Don't like Oilers prospect pool either.

 

So, if we must trade with one of them, I guess I'd do...

 

Tkachuk (#7) to Oilers

10th overall and Poolparty to Canucks::D

 

Does that work for you?m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, oldnews said:

thanks, but I'm not sure my opinion is worth much tbh - I just haven't seen enough of the three of them to where I'd be comfortable making the call.

my first take was to really want Boqvist - and the only thing that has made me second guess that is the concussion history.  He's so dynamic - great mobility, great shot, great vision, so poised and he has a body language imo that is akin to Pettersson - sheer confidence.  If he hadn't suffered those concussions, I'm probably more certain about taking the risk on his upside - as I think he's going to grow and mature, and his defensive game in the modern NHL with the right complementary partner I wouldn't anticipate being a problem.  I'm skeptical that anyone beyond 1 has a higher ceiling - and he's a very young pick in addition, as a mid Aug 2000 birthdate and yet in the running from 5 to 10 (pretty impressive).  The one other question mark I'd have relative to those other two is that while he's played against men, he's done so on larger European ice, so I suppose people could question how well his smaller frame translates on tigher NA ice.

 

I'm torn between Dobson and Bouchard - and lean towards Dobson on the strength of his skating and being a relatively solid two way player with comparable tools.  Who knows if Bouchard's offensive instincts make him the better player in the long run, but Dobson looks to have the ability to be an elite defender in addition to his shot and upside - and some of what appear to be his limitations are highly coachable imo.  At this point, I'd have a hard time deciding between Dobson and Boqvist.

In the end I'm pretty happy that these three RHD all seem to be possibllities at 7 as that pretty clearly coincides with the team's greatest needs imo.

That said, I also wouldn't be disappointed if the team considered a forward like Wahlstrom (or whomever remains available) the bpa at 7 - it's just that tough to make a call without watching them all really intensively, which I just don't have the time/access to do.   I don't remember a draft where there seemed like so much parity in so many picks - it looks like a strong and deep top 10.

Between Benning, Weisbrod, Brackett, Wall, Green et al however, I'm pretty confident that they're going to make a great call here.

 

I think you said pretty much what I think.  I want Boqvist but 2 concussions before even being drafted, many that could be scary.  He might end up never getting another concussion for the rest of his life but each next concussion is just that much more worse and takes longer to heal unfortunately. Thats the only reason I don't want the Canucks to draft him, he possibly could be the 2nd best D out of the draft but if your investing in 10+ years in him on your team, how high does that concussion problems rank then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, N7Nucks said:

I was also gonna ask this, sounds like the only knock on Kotkaniemi is his skating.

And the knock is purely his skating style.  His speed is fine and his footwork, agility and edge work is excellent.  He just skates a little hunched over.  He's going to be an outstanding top 6, two way cman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, stawns said:

what concerns do you have?  Genuinely curious

I'm always wary about players who just rise up dramatically in the rankings out of nowhere. He seems to have really elevated his play, but is it something he can maintain over the course of a season or is this more of a playoff push? Is it something he can keep up? It's a big question mark imo. It's not something I can get past quite easily. Plus, I think his ceiling is a 2C realistically behind Horvat. I just don't see him being a 1C in the NHL, and we already have a 2C (probably more like 1B) in Horvat. I would say Tkachuk would be the better option for 2C. I see him as a Backes type player, he gets under the opposition's skin, he's big, physical, plays a sound 2 way game, puts up good numbers.

 

To me, especially between Tkachuk and Kotkaniemi, I wouldn't have a second thought about who I'm taking.

 

EDIT: It would definitely be interesting to see if someone has the time/energy/resources to do a similar analysis for Tkachuk and Kotkaniemi... sorry I'm lazy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the four being mentioned this late, my take is Bouchard as the pick. He's pretty much everything we need in a top 4 Dman. Notice I didn't say top pairing, guaranteed...that honor belongs to Dahlin, and maybe Hughes (big maybe...size limiting factor). But I could see him developing into that role, and honestly, who do we have that has a higher potential right now? No one...with all due respect to OJ.

After Bouchard, given what we have, I'd go with Kotnaniemi, then Dobson, then Tkachuk, then maybe Boqvist; I could see Veleno that high also. The main reason I'm putting Tkachuk down that far is 1) if there is anything we may have decently stocked, it's wingers...and 2) for someone so highly ranked, he did not score that much last year; I would have expected closer to a 20 goal year out of him, for a top 10 winger. I don't doubt he's going to make the NHL...I just see our needs not having him as high as the other four.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vanuckles said:

I'm always wary about players who just rise up dramatically in the rankings out of nowhere. He seems to have really elevated his play, but is it something he can maintain over the course of a season or is this more of a playoff push? Is it something he can keep up? It's a big question mark imo. It's not something I can get past quite easily. Plus, I think his ceiling is a 2C realistically behind Horvat. I just don't see him being a 1C in the NHL, and we already have a 2C (probably more like 1B) in Horvat. I would say Tkachuk would be the better option for 2C. I see him as a Backes type player, he gets under the opposition's skin, he's big, physical, plays a sound 2 way game, puts up good numbers.

 

To me, especially between Tkachuk and Kotkaniemi, I wouldn't have a second thought about who I'm taking.

 

EDIT: It would definitely be interesting to see if someone has the time/energy/resources to do a similar analysis for Tkachuk and Kotkaniemi... sorry I'm lazy.

 

Tkachuk is a winger, not a C.  I wouldn't necessarily say JK is a dramatic riser, more that people finally took notice.  He played an entire season of pro hockey as a 17 year old in one of the better leagues in the world and was probably his team's best cman, at both ends of the ice.  His outstanding U18 tournament merely kicked the door down for north americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stawns said:

Tkachuk is a winger, not a C.  I wouldn't necessarily say JK is a dramatic riser, more that people finally took notice.  He played an entire season of pro hockey as a 17 year old in one of the better leagues in the world and was probably his team's best cman, at both ends of the ice.  His outstanding U18 tournament merely kicked the door down for north americans.

Having two players like Horvat wouldn't hurt. If Pettersson can become our first like center then we are set down the middle. Gaudette is a bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, appleboy said:

Having two players like Horvat wouldn't hurt. If Pettersson can become our first like center then we are set down the middle. Gaudette is a bonus.

having three top 6 cman gives you a pretty nice to chip to play in a trade for another piece or top draft pick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 1:54 AM, Jimmy McGill said:

it sucks we missed out again on 1st oa, but this again looks to be a really good draft for us with solid choices. We may not have got the blonde but we got her really fun brunette friend. 

Oh we gunna boogie! :towel:

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...