[Nikolaj Ehlers]

I find it pretty amazing how people assume just because assume because a player has more size that they have better odds at being succesful

Firstly, that means size is the only factor that matters or the most important which it is clearly not

People yelling no to ehlers and yes ritchie/vertanen assume implicitly that size is the best predictor of success completely ignoring pure talent

Each player brings different things, but to suggest that one player has a better chance at success because of size is absurd. What about being a better skater? Better hands? Better hockey IQ? none of those factor into the basher argument do they, in regards to their amazing predictions!

Take a look at historical drafts people its always a crap shoot and size is no better a predictor of nhl success than any other factor this is a FACT

Therefore, if drafting a crap shoot, and you have a high pick, like any risk reward calculation, if your risk is arguably the same for any pick past number 2/3 then on a risk adjusted basis you take that opportunity with the highest reward = Ehlers because his ceiling is clearly the highest outside the top 5 and within the top 10.

There is a falacious assumption in many 'Ehlers bashers' that they can predict, with higher certainty, that Ritchie or Vertanen will develop better. This, is as I said, absurd and simply an opinion which is certainly not grounded in any sort of data, because if they looked at history, they would see as I said, that simply being bigger does not translate into NHL success.

You cannot teach skill, speed, and hockey IQ, size, but you can put weight on and gain strength.

I think you are the one who is making assumptions here...

First of all, I am not an "Ehler basher" like you seem to claim I am. I would be happy if the Canucks could aquire a #10 or #11 pick and draft him. I've never claimed to be an expert on Ehlers or Ritchie, but I did do some research, and based on that I feel Ritchie would be a better pick for us. I expressed my opinion, simple as that.

Second of all, when in my previous post did I ever mention size? I thought so. Ritchie's size is a point in his favor, but there are other aspects of his game that I like: his hockey IQ, he's got a wicked wrist shot, he stands up for teammates etc.

And lastly, I do realise that all draft picks are a crapshoot, I just that Ritchie is a better risk for the Canucks to take at #6. You like Ehlers, I get it, that's cool with me. But if Ehlers is such a pure talent, why does ISS rank him #11?

[Nikolaj Ehlers]

I have nothing against Ehlers, but IMO he seems to be a high-risk/high-reward type player, someone I wouldn't want to risk a #6 pick with. I'd rather draft someone like Ritchie at #6, or someone who has a higher chance of sticking in the NHL.

I agree that Ehlers has the potential to be a very good player in the NHL, but with the situation the Canucks are in when it comes to youth, they aren't really in a position to take that big a gamble with such a high pick. Of course this is all a moot point if one of the top 5 falls down to us.

[WcF: Chicago Blackhawks vs Los Angeles Kings]

I think LA takes it in 6.

[ECF: (4) Montreal Canadiens vs (5) New York Rangers]

Habs in 7, in OT. Gallagher with the winner.