NucksCup2015
-
Posts
1,182 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by NucksCup2015
-
-
The Canucks wont draft Ehlers. They will put an emphasis on size, skill and toughness with the 6th overall pick.
I just don't see Ehlers as a Linden kind of player when it comes right down to it. He is going to want to draft players who can do it all... hit , skate and score. Ehlers is too one dimensional. End of story.
1. Linden is not the GM
2. Linden is not the head scout
He wants competitors and will expect the GM/scouts to take the best player available in the context of our prospect pool and future needs, assuming he hires a smart strategic GM
its not about finding Linden clones man
again, oversimplification
Oh and ps, Eric Lindros and Milan Lucic are not in this draft nor is someone even close to as good with all those qualities (hit, skate and score) ie Cam Neely available in this draft and if they were they wouldn't be available when we pick.
-
1. Nothing was implied, I was offering 2 different looks our team can have
2. Who said Ritchie has the same offensive talent as Ehlers? Ritchie has things in his game that Ehlers doesn't have and vice verca. No, Ritchie will not put up 80 points in the NHL but is Ehlers ever going to have that physical dominance? They are completely different players and not one is better than the other. Just a matter of preference.
3. Kane was a unanimous 1st overall pick despite his size. He has talent that Ehlers does not have. Ehlers is nowhere close to the player Mackinnon is. Claude Giroux is coasting in the east with nobody even touching him. Don't compare thid line to the WCE... They aren't even close
4. kane has hands that Ehlers does not possess and is more methodical. However, Ehlers is faster. I brought up Lucic to make a point that the Kane and Ehlers comparison is far off
Thanks for trying though
interesting that you seem to discount 100+ pts in the Q in his rookie year and the only other player prior to Ehlers that has done that was Crosby but hey ya he doesn't have great offensive ability
go back to reading the hockey news and watching youtube for your views
oh and your point on size, ya it doesn't matter when you look at our prospect pool for the 28th time, we have size, we lack elite talent, maybe that;s the 29th time i've said it not sure
but you might want to check that prospect pool for yourself if you think size is an issue for the canucks in the future
thanks for trying - oh and no need to respond i'm tired of your childish nonsense, I'm blocking you so I don't need to listen to your poorly thought out views.
-
Yes for sure Bo is a good passer as well but Cassels is just more of a play maker type player and Bo is more a complete all around player was what I was trying to say. One area I noticed a big difference in playmaking vision was on the PP. A really great passers skill should be more evident when playing with more open ice and extra passing lanes but I seen to many times Bo turn over the puck or just pass it out of the o-zone trying to get the puck to the point to say he is as good of a playmaker as Cole I just cant.
Its very interesting because I think many have assumed because of draft position that Horvat will be our number 1 of the future (barring a good pick for a real offensive center/trade), but Cassells may actually steal that role.
As you say he has very good vision and plays Toews type of game. Not a hitter but smart and gritty. Morrison was not a great 1c but an efficient/effective one given his wingers and his role.
I can easily see Cassells being as effective as Morrison or his father in that role if he has wingers like Shink/Jensen/Kassian....
He may very well be a steal of that draft. I do think last year the scouting staff did an amazing job selecting, there are a number of potential NHL'ers in that group!
Gaunce is really a 3c in my mind. This was his overage year and he didn't dominate as an offensive overager should. He barely had more ppg with a stacked team in Erie that he did in Belleville.
If he can up his skating explosiveness, he will be an effective player in the NHL at 3c but I don't see him being more than that. Then again Bobby Holik was never a prolific scorer but a hell of a shut down man
-
lol I really don't even know where to begin.
1. Nobody said Ritchie - Horvat - Kassian is better than Ehlers - Horvat - Kassian. Either I'm seeing things or you're hallucinating.
2. I never said Horvat's ceiling isn't very high. I said it isn't the highest, meaning he isn't going to be a massive point producing game breaker. He is a very good 2 way center, but keep your expectations realistic
3. Not sure who said kassian doesn't hit but again, either I'm missing something here or you're hallucinating.
4. You're just completely biased towards Ehlers. Ritchie brings completely different things to the table... "he has much less abilities than Ehlers" wow ok
5. West coast express was dominant a decade ago, get over yourself. The game has changed. Btw, Bert was the best power forward in the game. Moore was exhibit A. As to why you shouldn't touch naslund or morrison
6. If you want to bring up Kane, I'll bring up lucic. Neither comparisons are accurate but meh...
1. You're implying it via your arguments (ie Ritchie - Horvat - kassian would mean two physical wingers and a guy in the middle who'll hold his own)
2. If you think Ritchie has the same level of offensive talent as Ehlers well you're smoking the good stuff
3. WCE - please look at the line Patrick Kane plays on and tell me how big it is. Please tell me how big the line Claude Giroux plays on is, please tell me how big the line Nathan McKinnon plays on, then proceed to tell me again is, that a line the size of the WCE cannot dominate NOW lmao....
4. I didn't compare Ehlers to Kane, Dale Tallon did, the man who drafted Kane, you must be smarter than him - NO ONE in the NHL is comparing Ritchie to Lucic
thanks for trying
-
In my undergraduate degree I did some work with a guy who was involved with CFL combines, lots of NCAA football training, and off ice training for many hockey teams. When scouting football players at the combines it is well known that the most genetically influenced skill is flat out top speed. Everything else could be trained. They were never worried if a guy had poor endurance, or sub average strength because in just one off season these elements could be dramatically improved. Speed however is a different beast. A guy could spend a whole year working on speed training and barely improve his 40 or his 100. Speed is one of the first things they look for, even in the fat linemen. (PS I knew a guy who was 325 and ran a 4.4)
I know hockey is a different sport, but the physiological principle is the same. A high proportion of fast twitch muscle fibers from birth will equal speed. Slow players do not become fast players. They just don't. Henrik could train nothing but speed the entire off season and nobody would notice.
Now I know speed alone means little except backing up the defence. But if a guy has wheels and sick puck skills at full speed that's a pretty dangerous combo.
I have changed my tune. Canucks pick order should look like this.
1. Ekblad
2. Reinhart
3. Bennett
4. Dal Colle
5. Draisaitl
6. Ehlers
10. Virtanen
11. Ritchie
149. Nylander
3, 4, and 5 are a bit of a toss up for me. All have sick vision and to me are better play makers than Ehlers. Nylander.... Just no
Usual top 5 or Ehlers IMO.
absolutely, speed can only be increased marginally, game smarts/iq cannot be taught, and skill can only be developed so far
in the end the easiest thing to overcome is a lack of strength as you say...alot of people simply dont get it...
-
As I said I could careless if we take ehlers, Ritche,Nylander or who ever at 6th. If canucks take Ehlers at sixth good i'll be happy, I trust that our scouting staff knows way more about the upcoming players than everyone on CDC. I find if funny that people believe their own created hype so much that they make up false facts (as Nuckscup2015 did or outdated scouting reports, as you did in the other thread) to support their claim, On top of this, people completely right off other players in the consideration and dismiss the same arguments being made for their current claim.
It's like "If the canucks don't take Ehlers at 6th and they take ____whoever instead they made a terrible mistake" If canucks take _____ over Ehlers at 6th, it's because they know something you don. All these threads have turned into a draw a line in the stand and stick with it type arguments, all it doesn't is bring immediate negativity onto our selected player as people will pout that "their" player wasn't selected. Just like happened with the Kassian trade, instead of being excited for what kassian brings to this team they write him off and still worship hodgson, now that is ridiculous...
really?
make stuff up/outdated scouting reports? hahahha you might want to look at how Elhers has moved up the charts since the start of the year
and by the way no one is saying 'terrible mistake if they don't take ehlers', at least not most of us, we are saying take the most talented player which if you played hockey as you say, you'd get incorporates alot more than size
if you played hockey as you say, you'd understand there are nuances to player's games that most people (and certainly on cdc) do not see, those nuances are things that can indicate the ability to take their game to the next level whatever their strengths and deficiencies.
ie can those nuances indicate they can overcome their deficiencies, improve and become solid professional players.
please mr pretend player, show us some hockey knowledge before you want to debate.
-
I know i should have said there are exceptions but look at those teams everyone of them had good Canadian kids that put them over the top big 1s and small 1s D-men and forwards doing the dirty work also take a good look at your list its not a very long list.
dude its the point wow...you think teams are just made up of big candian guys? you need scorers/game breakers and it doesnt matter where they are from, and btw we have almost a full roster of big canadian kids in our prospect pool, please think a bit
sorry folks but this obsession with size/canadian has gone beyond stupidity.
one person above said a line of Ehlers Horvat and Kassian wouldn't be as good as a line of Rithie Horvat Kassian
1 Because Horvat's ceiling isnt very high - says who? its higher than Kesler's when he was drafted
2. Because Kassian doesn't hit - umm offensive lines dont need to 'crash and bang to be successful' the same people argue we need to be a puck possession team then argue our big guys don't play a dump and chase and hit game lol...they cant even see the absolute irony in that statement. Moreover, the issue is USING SIZE ALONG THE BOARDS TO WIN PUCK BATTLES AND USING THE BODY TO GAIN POSITION AND GETTING TO THE NET, YOU DONT NEED TO HIT TO DO THAT..
3. Ritchie may be good he may be a bust, but CDC;'ers just assume he's going to be great lol oh and he has much less ability that Ehlers
4. I remember a line of Naslund Morrison Bertuzzi, which by the way is smaller than Ehlers/Horvat/Kass and it was pretty damn effective
5. I see a pretty small player in Patrick Kane on the wing in Chicago, he sucks ya.
-
I do like Ehlers for what he might posses in the future but with this high pick and for whats there i would rather take a chance on a Canadian we seem to want the cup more than any other Nation just my opinion thanks for taking the time to respond A C.
Datsyuk sure as hell wanted a cup
Chara sure as hell wants another cup
Zetterberg sure as hell wanted a cup
Forsberg sure as hell wanted a cup
Lidstrom sure has hell wanted a cup
Fedorov sure as hell wanted a cup
Elias sure as hell wanted a cup
Larionov sure as hell wanted a cup
Jagr sure as hell wanted a cup
Holmstrom sure as hell wanted a cup
Zubov sure as hell wanted a cup
oh and guess what, all of those names were pretty instrumental parts of their team's winning a cup or more
shall i keep going?
lmao....
such a stupid comment man
-
1
-
-
It says he is slow in Beach's 2008 player profile right at the bottom not a great skater.
Now you see Ritchie he skates well for a big player and has agile feet.
skates well for a big player = average skater
regardless the point is size does not = guarantees! talent, skill, and speed are typically more valuable, especially when you look at our prospect pool and realize we have alot of 2 way players with size, but lack gamebreakers....which i have now said 27 times
-
1
-
-
Alot of people were yelling about Kyle Beech because he was a big BC boy a few years back...
Alot of people were focused on size, point totals quite close to Vertanen and Ritchie
Where's the Beach?
wow sounds like he had a game alot like Virtanen, and is bigger...hmm
and yet Jordan Eberle fell to 22 the same draft year because of concerns over size In fact Eberle's numbers in his draft year aren't even close to Ehlers, even if you adjust for WHL / QMHJL scoring differentials.
You want comparables folks there they are
Take Ehlers
-
2
-
-
He made a mistake in syntax. He has put up the most goals in QMJHL by a rookie since Crosby. Crosby did it as a 16 year old and Ehlers was 17 which also makes a big difference.
thanks, that dude is just a troll but yes it was an error...he's the highest scoring rookie since crosby, and the point is not he's as good as crosby but CLEARLY he has offensive talent that is elite
-
3
-
-
I have put some thought into this question because it was intriguing. Guys this size are never projected in the top 10 because they are considered too big and slow for the position.
The most recent was Kyle Beachwho was just drafted at #11 which is not top 10 but we are really splitting hairs in this case.
I did some research to find effective power forwards in the NHL who are this size regardless of where they were drafted and as you can imagine it is virtually non existant.
Martin Hanzal and Blake Wheeler are two but they are both 6ft 5 and both have slimmed down to 215. Alex Ovechkin tried to play at 230 pounds but he couldnt pull it off. He is 6ft2 and cant play any heavier than 220 and be fast enough to challenge defenders.
In our own case, Zach Kassian is 6ft 3 and he was trying to lumber around at 220 and even that makes him too slow in todays NHL. Lucic is 6ft 4 so he is able to play at 220.
So in the end I bet we see Ritchie shave down to try to play at 215. 220 is probably pushing it considering his foot speed isnt the best.
we don't need slow and big, that's easy to find, alot of slow big players with hands end up being career ahl'ers....speed kills in the nhl, we can see it....we lack it, speed/elite skill is one of the biggest issues we will have in our future group
as long as ehlers doens't have mayray disease which is pretty easy to assess, he should be taken if available(assuming Dal Colle, Reinhart, Bennett are gone, and Ekblad clearly will be)
-
2
-
-
But, but he's Bure 2.0, you're gonna upset Absent Canuck.
there's no doubt there's risk man, but people are assuming that Ehlers who is the same size as naslund has more risk than Virtanen just because of size...think about this
1. All else being equal of course you take a player with size, but operative words here are all else being equal, things never are equal right, that's the trick in drafting!
2. So there are tradeoffs. But posters here seem to imply that just because a player has more size (even if he has less skill, speed, or hockey iq, that the size translates into some sort of certainty that such player won't bust, or has less probability of busting that said 5'11 player).
3. This argument is so incredibly silly its beyond belief. NO ONE can predict which players will succeed or not. There are many many many players of all sizes who have busted in the first round, size is not the sole determining factor in NHL transition, if it were well there would be No one under 6'1 in the NHL
4. While it is an important factor it is no more important that the others I mentioned, along with many many other factors.
5. When in a position to draft elite skill (which has not been the case for about ten years for us), it is probably logical, strategic, and smart, to look at your FUTURE lineup needs and address those and take the most gifted offensive player available, given the size in the future lineup is certainly not lacking but pure skill is.
6. I am not saying Ehlers will be Giroux part II, nor will Virtanen be Iginla part II, what I am saying is people need to think about everything in balance vs cherry picking constantly because they have a chubby for a certain player. None of us know who will pan out, but in my view, any kid who is 5'11 and has scored the most goals as a rookie in the Q since a kid named Crosby did in his rookie year should not be 'dismissed' as many here are suggesting. If you've played the game you'd realize what kind of feat that is, ask yourself, would Virtanen or Ritchie have done the same? Unlikely. Who may have? Reinhart and Bennett...he's simply in that class.
-
4
-
-
I have a feeling the islanders are going to draft Ehlers at #5.....Canucks will draft dalColle in that case.
no loss either way for us...
I really like Ehlers but if somone takes him before us, as long as we're not stuck with Draisatl I'm happy from that group of six (worried about Draisaitl's skating)
-
I know that most of you aren't thinking virtanen is good enough for a sixth pick. But he seems like the kind of player that would be good in the playoffs as opposed to some of the others. It's also been mentioned he doesn't have good hockey iq. I don't know about that. He just might not try to use it. He always seems to be just charging for the net and trying to score. Coaching could get him to play a smarter game of the guy could calm down a bit. I really like what I've seen of him even though it's just youtube.
the point about hockey iq is important. he is a one dimensional player. its not that he 'isn't using it'.
if he played a 'smart game' it would be visible in his play. he simply plays one way and its a way that wont necessarily translate well against much bigger and faster professional players...
one dimensional players are easy to stop and its never a good idea to draft them unless they have the talent of a guy like bure, who could get away with it...this guy is not bure talent
-
2
-
-
Its called belligerent. You are arguing with guys who think its fun to hide behind the internet using a fake name to get into never ending argument. They actually get off on it.
Now I am hearing that Nylander might no longer be in play. From HF boards apparently his dad has Cody syndrome and his play is so far too inconsistent. Its coming down to Ehlers and Ritchie at number 6.
Some guys on there want to trade down to try to get Virtanen at #10 or 12 but my bet is he goes at #9.
Would be nice to get Ottawa''s pick so we can get both Ehlers and Virtanen.
I'd rather see Ehlers and Fleury personally....
Future of Tanev, Fleury, Corrado, Stanton is a nice top 4
-
Werent you one of the guys saying the exact opposite of this? Saying that the Sharks/Kings series is an example of why we shouldn't take Ehlers (insinuating that they were built on big players with size & whatnot).
you cant win with people who are revisionist in their own views of things man
-
3
-
-
I'm ok with this but. Torts did well with Kassian and Jensen. He is the right coach for building a young team. He shows you how to play the right way (how you have to compete in the league). Unfortunaly he does some things I disagree with
1) Sedin's on PK
2)Kassian (3rd line, for the most part)
3)Edler playing a lot
3) Chip puck in and chase it
4) playing Kesler and Sedin's almost 22 mins a night
5) shot blocking to some degree
1. Agree, especially since he had no depth so save their energy but he was also trying to set a tone on the team of everyone has to play a balanced game- i get it but he needed to adjust given circumstances, so yes good in theory, bad pragmatically
2. Kassian was developed/is developing the way he is BECAUSE he was on the 3rd line. You gave torts credit for Kass and Jensen then say he handled him wrong? He handled him right, he is developing into a much better 200 ft player because he needed to learn how to play in his own end first, how to play hard on the boards and use his body / size...playing a finesse game would not have brought that out. Again, you gave torts credit then say he did it wrong, disagree he handled Kassian Perfectly
3. He stuck with Edler to try and help Edler 'work out' of his funk and his problems. He needed Edler to be better and have to give Torts credit for understanding you don't correct a player's confidence and mental issues by getting in his head and making him more worried and sitting him. Handled him right, but the problem is with Edler
4. Chip the puck in - Big fallacy of fans about his system. Torts does not tell players dump it in and chase it all the time, but rather KNOW WHEN to carry and know when to chip and chase. Players implemented this wrong.
5. Kesler/Sedin Ice time - lack of depth and injuries, no choice - This is MG's fault
6. Shot blocking - every team in the NHL preaches getting in the shooting lanes, why do you think we miss the net so much from the point? Our dmen are not bad, other teams are simply effective at getting in the lanes. Stars on every team lay their bodies on the line in the playoffs, and this is what Torts wanted ingrained, but our pufters whine about it. Yzerman, Gilmour, on and on, stars who fought for cups blocked shots. The Sedins were not hurt blocking shots, Kesler was not hurt blocking shots, most of our players were not hurt blocking shots, another wonderful media simpleton view fallacy
-
I keep reading that torts couldn't/wouldn't adapt his coaching style to the players. Why can the players not play to a coaches style?
because torts wanted them to play hard, fight for pucks, win battles and not play a loosey goosey pufter game that doesn't work in the playoffs
oh..ya that didn't work well so its torts that is the problem, not that his players won't play hard lol
-
2
-
-
If Kesler is gone as well for a good trade I'll be ok with this
If Kesler had a hand in this from his prima donna attitude and stays I will not be happy with this
-
wow i can't believe the sharks choked on this one..
that team is going to have mental issues now...always choking then being up 3-0 and collapsing and losing 5-1 at home?
ouch...i actually dont mind the sharks, i like them better than LA that's for sure. I like Jumbo Joe and Marleau, both classy players....and always loved Torres
LA/Anaheim is going to be a war
-
Leadership is important, surrounding youth with vets like them would be beneficial for their development, and is not necessarily "getting older."
Although I wouldn't object to Linden and Bure in the lineup
lol...really linden and bure at 40 years old hey?
oh btw if you insert 2 older players (mitchell and manny), it means 2 spaces less for the youth we need in the lineup right?
-
Your clueless, how do you know trevor told farhan? It's not like farhan is the one firing torts. Your messed up man.
I never said trevor told Farhan mr clueless...i said Farhan was disrespectful by not allowing Trevor to do his job and then reporting it
-
Please not Mclellan, he's been coaching a team of chokers of infinite proportions
Nikolaj Ehlers
in Canucks Talk
Posted
If Ehlers goes before we pick, as long as Draisatl goes before as well I am happy. I am not big on him but any of the rest of the big 5 I'd be pleased with.
Dal Colle will be an effective winger, James Neal type with actually more finesse to his game
Bennett nothing needs to be said
Reinhart/Ekblad clear top 2
So if we can end up with Dal Colle or Bennett that would be great as they are highly talented players as well...
I do think there may be some surprises in the 3-5 range this year