TGokou

Cool thanks! Any idea where he might fall? I'm assuming a player of his stature would be 4-5th round

I have a feeling Draisatl will fall out of the top 5 over concerns that he's too slow etc. I'd personally prefer Dal Colle myself if either of them fell out but I find that I really know nothing about either of their games. Can anyone (without referring to NHL equivalents) tell me a little bit about their game? I'm looking more specifically how well developed their intangibles are such as grittiness, hitting, defensive play and consistency issues.

LOL, I think our sarcasm flew over your head because we really weren't trying to compare them just to show the fallacy of your argument that because Ehlers played with Drouin you think none of his points that he had with him are valid. I agree that it's likely that Ehlers points would most likely decrease without Drouin in the lineup and that he would most likely end up with 85-100 points with the current icetime he is getting. I then added in that Ehlers would likely get more points to make up for that shortfall because he would get extra icetime. Remember, Ehlers got 104 points and Drouin had 108 points so if your unwilling to attribute Ehler's points because he got them from Drouin then you have to look at it in reverse and say that Drouin had less points because he played with Ehler.

I don't like Nylander. I don't know what it is, I've never seen him play but several things scream bust to me. I don't think he is the type of player that has the heart to play North American game. Yes his height is a factor and you may wonder why I support Ehlers. I just think Ehlers has the heart to play through the rough stuff. Some people question why take Ehlers instead of Nylander when it's quite clear that Nylander has more skill. That may be true but both have elite skill and there comes a point where you have to look at the other factors and how they will translate to the North American game. Second of all he had a ridiculous amount of points at the tournament but most of those points were in meaningless games. People have also mentioned that he looks like a girl and even though that is not really a valid point for not taking him I question his ability to block a shot, take a puck to the face (not that I recommend anyone do that ) or do the 'hard' things that hockey players do. Factor in the point about his dad micromanaging his career, and the fact that he sounds like a prima donna and ya I don't want him.

I don't have any names to offer but was hoping someone could help me out. I'd be interested in drafting a kid with some serious skill but plays a really gritty hard nosed game. Obviously a player like this would go early so Im more interested in a player that is maybe 5'10'' or even 5'11'' and could fall to 3rd or 4th round. Basically a Brad Marchand prototype. Any names?

Nathan Mackinnon had 75 points to Drouins 105. Mackinnon was in on 27 of Drouins 105 points and vice versa. So does this mean that Mackinnon really only had 50 points because Drouin carried him along? What a bust....Mackinnon shouldn't have even been drafted. Oh and Ehlers sample size of 25 points in 17 games is a small sample size but it's not as if it's the only thing we have to work with. He scored 104 points over the entire season so reasonably without Drouin he would've had likely around 85-100 points. However, don't forget that if Drouin wasn't playing, Ehlers would get greater ice time and therefore more points.

I'm not quite sure what your talking about but I think Absent Canuck has done a really good job explaining only the facts.

I don't believe Ehlers can because he plays in the QMJHL but I may be wrong.

It's actually a good point you brought up Hemsky because he scored 100 points back in 2000 when the average top 10 point getters in the league equated to approximately 125 points per player. Furthermore the 10th leading scorer in the league had 113 points a full 13 points more than him. I can't find scoring statistics from that far back but he would probably be somewhere between 10-15th leading scorer of the league back then. Just as a comparison the last 3 years in the QMJHL have averaged 95-98 points for the top 10 leading scorers...a drop of 30 points. The QMJHL is a lot tougher to score now than it was 13-14 years ago. Another reference is that 2002-2003 the year Steve Bernier posted 101 points he was 9th leading scorer and the average point total for the top 10 scorers was 105 points. Btw, Hemsky was drafted 13th overall for being 10-15th leading scorer, I'm sure Ehlers will be drafted much higher for being 4th leading scorer (Just as a comparison then I'll extrapolate that Ehlers if playing at that time would likely have 140 points vs Hemsky's 100. Hemsky had 36 goals Ehlers extrapolated would've had 64 goals.

Although I really like Ehlers as a pick, I am starting to see the wisdom in drafting Ritchie and he is probably ahead in my own rankings now. I've come to realize that almost all the teams that have won the stanley cup post lockout have not done so because they had 90+ point players on their team. In fact if you look at the top scorers for each team I believe only Selanne and Patrick Kane were 80+ players in the last four years. In fact, Boston only had 2 60 point players when they won the cup that year. Most teams now have 5-6 60-80 point players and can succeed. Based on this fact, I've come to realize that we do not need an elite skill level player to succeed. This now brings me to my main point about why we should take a chance on Ritchie. He will likely never reach 70+ points but I can realistically see him in the 20-30 goal range throughout his career with about 30-35 assists. However, besides his point production he can also create space for his teammates such as Shinkaruk who is on the lighter side. When it comes to forward lines I truly believe the best combo is a power forward/playmaker(big is a plus)/speedy sniper. With Kassian developing the way he is I believe he is ready to hit the 40-50 point mark next year and with Ritchie in development we could potentially have 2 power forwards with one on each of the top 2 lines. A few additional points to add his value: 1.) Since he already has a brother that will likely play in the NHL I believe that they will push each other to succeed especially since they play the same role. Yes, players should be motivated to play in the NHL but this will further Ritchie's motivation to beat his brother 2.) Hodgson was developing quite nicely when he was traded for Kassian who had proven nothing. This just goes to show you how deeply the GMs value their power forwards. If Ritchie for whatever reason was not working out for the Canucks, they could always trade him for a proven goalscorer down the road with potential. Nobody could've anticipated Hodgson to suck so badly after being traded to Buffalo and most expected him to hit 60-70 points consistently. My point is he has a high intrinsic value for trading should the need arise. 3.) At his current weight of 230 he would most likely need to shed a few lbs to be effective in the NHL. In addition he is currently 6'3'' and will likely be at least 6'4'' when he's done growing. What this means is his speed will improve and his conditioning will get better allowing him to play without taking shifts off. One misconception I've heard is that he is fast. That isn't true when we're talking straight line speed but he has good acceleration with a long reach and that will allow him to win 10-15 ft puck battles. Scouts say he already has a quick release and an NHL ready shot so that is one thing he won't have to work on. 4.) This is a plus or negative depending on how you look at it but people are mostly afraid of his injury problems. Yes this is a risk but I'm sure scouts have factored in his injury risk when they made their final lists. If he truly is ranked 6th than I believe he would be ranked 4th or 5th if not for his injury problems in the past. Lastly he's had a full season with no injuries and that is a huge plus. With proper conditioning I am confident he can put his past behind him. After all is said and done, I really believe Ritchie may not even be available because either Edmonton/Calgary/NYI could go off the board and draft Ritchie. Obviously if this is the case than one of the top five will drop to us but if not, Ritchie definitely makes an intriguing case. He is not a sexy pick but I don't believe the Canucks necessarily need it.

I think because most people criticize his size, Ehlers will need to learn to play gritty hockey and not be afraid of the hard areas. If he does that, he can overcome his size. There is nothing worse than a forward that is unwilling to go to the hard areas on a regular basis. Since we all know he has unbelievable skill, I would place most of my emphasis on his attitude and work ethic and whether he is willing to make the big play after being played hard. Conversely does the guy shy away from the play after being hit etc. in which case there will be huge question marks. From what I've read about him he has a great work ethic and is not shy of reaching those hard areas even after being hit and that is a HUGE plus in his favor.

Yeah so many made up statements. I don't mind having an argument about whether or not we draft Ehlers. I'm not saying he's the most physical/tenacious etc. but to make up statements to suit your cause is worse than just stating the facts. Also, to compare him to guys like Nikita Filatov or whoever is just wrong. How can you compare someone if they just left the league. There was no denying that he could play but his heart wasn't in it.

I'm not the best person to answer this or give you an example but it's kind of hard to create something out of nothing without speed in the NHL. Look at the Sedins, when are they 'ever' able to create a good scoring opportunity on their own? You can use skill to dangle around a defender but you still need speed to blow past them after getting around them.

Ehlers is more skilled than Nathan Mackinnon I think. People will argue this but the reason WHY Mackinnon was drafted 1st overall was because he is more of the complete package. A Jonathan Toews if you will. Nathan Mackinnon will likely never be a Steven Stamkos in terms of goal scoring. That's why Mackinnon was drafted over Drouin. Drouin had way better stats but is more offensive and less of a complete two way player. Ehlers is more inbetween Mackinnon and Drouin with his skill and better skating than both. Btw, it's a ridiculous argument to say "Well if he was that skilled then why is he not first overall?". You can be the most skilled player in the draft but scouts look for intangibles such as size, two way ability, speed, hockey iq., desire to crash the net etc. It's likely that Ehlers is not the complete package in some of these aspects plus his size and that is why he is ranked lower than some. Once again I feel I have to repeat myself about his draft ranking at #13. Those were before the playoffs and he is most likely in the top 10 now based on his playoff performance. Also when 12 hockey scouts avg Ehlers to be ranked 6th (according to Bob Mckenzie) that just tells you how far he's moved up since then. Also its bad logic to say let's draft BIG and SKILLED in Ritchie rather than SMALL and SKILLED in Ehlers. If their skill level were the same then Ritchie should've had 150 points rather than 75 points. Their skill level is not even comparable, Ehlers is superior in that aspect hands down. I came across a few interesting articles that don't apply to Ehlers specifically but are interesting articles nonetheless because in one they compare Drouin and Mackinnon and I think to a lesser extent it shows you why Ehlers might be drafted either in top 5 or just outside. The other article shows you that unless you draft highly skilled players that scored a lot (points wise) in junior, it's unlikely they will ever turn out to be top 3 material in the NHL. Of course there are exceptions such as players that are more of a complete package or they develop a lot after their draft but it was quite an eye-opener. (I tried looking for this article again but couldn't find it..sorry). http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/cage-match/5669-jonathan-drouin-vs-nathan-mackinnon

Just thought I'd mention that Bob McKenzie on draft lottery tsn ranked Ehlers as 7th behind Ritchie and in front of Virtanen. If anything McKenzie's draft list is more accurate because he uses the average of 12 pro scouts to rank the prospects. I think I'd be happy with either Ritchie or Virtanen IF that is what Canucks scouts do decide to choose though.

Ok, I had made my opinion on Ehlers earlier but I am more prepared to make a better argument now that I have more time on why Ehlers is not a bad choice at all. *Warning - Long Read* First let's tackle whether we should pick him at #6. A lot of argument is being made that Ehlers is not 'worth' being drafted 6th overall when he is ranked 13th overall. I can guarantee you right now that central scouting which had him at 13th is no longer accurate after these playoffs. Ehlers will be ranked in the top 10 I'm pretty sure after 'so far' contributing 20 points in 9 games. Don't forget those final rankings were prior to the playoffs. Either way your looking at 2 points per game, in the playoffs I might add, which is actually quite comparable with Jonathan Drouin in his draft year. Another major consideration about draft order is that it's not like there's a huge gap from 6th-10th in terms of order. So to say that we shouldn't draft a guy because he's ranked 10th is absurd logic. That's why we have teams drafting the 10th in ranking at #6 or a player drops from 6 to 10. Fact is that not all teams will rank a player the same. Perhaps a team is more interested in size, they will draft higher/lower based on player available. So please, no more "We shouldn't draft him because he's ranked 10th" Second, let's look at total production over his rookie season. Ehlers came over from Europe and you can expect to see some transition period from the open ice to a smaller ice surface. This is quite evident if you look at his production from Sept-Dec/Jan-March. In his first 36 games Ehlers had 22 goals 28 assists 50 points for a respectable 1.38 ppg. His last half of the season, after presumably adapting to North American ice, he had 27 goals 27 assists 54 points in 27 games for an eye-popping 2 ppg. I think that if Ehlers didn't have to adapt to the North American style he would have been posting an average 2 ppg over the course of the season for around 120 pts. Once again I point out that in the playoffs he has maintained this 2 ppg average. I realize that points are not all scouts look for as there are a lot of intangibles such as size, attitude, work ethic, ability to play defensive hockey, as well as position. So let's just look at the closest comparable which is in my opinion Jonathan Drouin. Drouin is also 5'11' but weighs 192. I am unclear whether that was his draft weight or his current weight. In his draft year, he was able to post 105 points in 49 games good for 2.14 ppg and in the playoffs 35 pts in 17 games. If Ehlers didn't have a transition period and we can assume he is able to post 1.9-2.0 ppg then I think we can agree that Ehlers is almost on a similar skill level as Drouin. I think we can also argue that if Ehlers weighed 20 lbs more he would easily be a top 3 pick. However, one skill that Drouin does not have compared to Ehlers is speed. Ehlers is according to most scouts the fastest player in the last two drafts. This skill will be critical for Ehlers success because he does have a smaller frame but that can be filled out. Lastly, I wanted to point out that after the consensus top 5 there is likely going to be only a few impact players if any. As many previous drafts have shown, drafting from 6th-10th is a crapshoot at best and is almost no better than drafting 10th-15th. Furthermore, most players that do make it into the NHL are serviceable players at best posting .4 - .5 ppg good enough for a second line player. If we were to select anyone else, this is the kind of player we are likely to get. However I think Ehlers is an exceptional talent that is worthy of taking a high risk/high reward play for as he could be a Claude Giroux and I think most would agree that having a superstar would be better than having a serviceable player.

After hearing all the differing opinions on most of the prospects in our range I would say definitely pick one of the top five if still available but after that I'm starting to really see the argument in drafting Ehlers. To be honest we are not likely to get top impact player from this draft so I would be willing to take a chance on the most high risk high reward player. I also dont believe that it is redundant to draft Ehlers because Shinkaruk has not proven he will play in this league. Dont forget the kid moved over from Europe and adapted extremely well to smaller ice surface. I give him extra points for that. He is a smaller frame but if he even grows one inch he will already be at 6'. It is way easier to gain 20 lbs of muscle than it is to develop elite skill.

I want to believe that this kid can someday become our #1 or #2 centre but I'm not entirely sold on his stats in junior. He is less than a point per game in the OHL in his second year where players such as Cody Hodgson was greater than point per game in his second year in the OHL. I realize that stats aren't everything and that the playoffs were much better for Horvat where he was playoff MVP. I also realize that Bo Horvat supposedly played tougher minutes against opposing top lines. This is why I believe Gillis selected him. To basically grow as a shut down centre and eventually gain enough confidence and skill to supplant the #2 or #1 spot in the future. To me he is a pretty safe pick to play in the NHL but with potential to still be an effective point producer if he pans out.

You can count me in on that too. Never been a soccer fan in my life. Went to 3 games last year and now I'm hooked. Way more excited about the caps than I am about the Canucks. In case anyone missed it, check out Kobayashi's goal against Columbus. Won goal of the week and Rennie said it was the nicest goal he's seen since being in MLS.

LOL I think you guys are missing my point. I'd rather Kassian try to power his way to the net and be a net presence than to just pass like Henrik. Otherwise his size advantage is wasted, and we might as well have another Henrik. Not saying that Thornton isn't a good player but I think we can all agree he's uneffective in the playoffs and I'd prefer Kassian to be more like Lucic, less Thornton in that respect.

I hope he doesn't become a pass-first player. I don't want another Joe Thorton. Power forwards as most effective when they crash the net and cause goals.

Haha first thing I did when I came on the boards was look for this thread! Epic fail...in a way, I almost congratulate clutch for this awesome thread....actually naww. Go burrows!

It deserves it. For as long as Burrows is an amazing player (basically as long as he's signed here...and the sedins, this post will continue to be bumped.

I am very very very disappointed with you posters. I expected this to jump from 70 pages to 100 pages in one night. Anyways, bump...just because ;-)

I think Luc Bourdon in heaven gave Alex Burrow superhuman powers and now he's gonna be a 50 goal scorer this year