6th Pick: 2014 NHL Entry Draft

[Warhippy]

plus he is really young, 8 months younger than reinhart, and he is bigger and just as good a goal scorer

that room to grow

[missioncanucksfan]

Loved Virtanens 2nd goal of the game.....instead of becoming involved in the typical passing clinic....he took it upon himself to wire it....

[Derp...]

Wish Ritchie was on the u18 team.

Did he not get selected? I know some people were added late, but Ritchie wasn't??

[Rollieo Del Fuego]

Wish Ritchie was on the u18 team.

Did he not get selected? I know some people were added late, but Ritchie wasn't??

He is 18.

[Smashian Kassian]

Kapanen has the defensive abilities to be a 3rd line forward like Hansen at worst and at best he can be a Marian Hossa with great two-way abilites and offensive instincts.

Virtanen doesn't have defensive abilities to rely on, he can be a good energy guy at worst and at best I could see him as a Dustin Brown, 2nd line RW PWF.

This! exactly how I feel. +1

Virtanen has been a +25 in his 2 seasons.....can hardly call him a defensive liability

He's not as good defensively as Kapanen, and +/- isn't exactly the best stat to use.

plus he is really young, 8 months younger than reinhart, and he is bigger and just as good a goal scorer

that room to grow

Kapanen is less than a month older than him.

Plenty of room for him to grow aswell.

[baumerman77]

Once you make a comparison of a prospect with an NHLer you unconsciously reframe the way you think about such a prospect. Case-in-point: Virtanen. By saying he plays like Dustin Brown now you limit him to Brown attributes (strengths and weakness). I think it is really dangerous way of thinking about prospects.

People like to say Scout X said Player Y plays like NHLer Z. Scouts only make the player comparison for public consumption so that you can get the general idea of the player. They however do not say such things to GMs (other scouts, hockey ops, etc). If anyone is so inclined to look into the academic literature on said topic a good starting place is to look up: reporting bias.

[Goal:thecup]

Time marches on and the power forward like Dustin Brown 5 years ago(6' 207) is more likely to be like Backes today (6'3" 221).

The Canucks cannot afford to risk the possibility that this year's draft pick is wasted hoping some small player is so good that his size deficiency becomes irrelevant.

This is purported to be a weak draft and, other than the top 3 or top 5, the prospects are rated pell-mell all over the place as if all the pundits threw darts at the board.

You don't give up talent for size when you draft a player like Ritchie over a player like Ehlers; you give up talent-you-hope-will-be-exceptional-enough for size.

When the small player's talent is undeniable, and therefore no longer as big a risk, the "smaller players" are rated in the top three i.e. Bennett and Reinhart. (Even they are 6 foot and 6 foot one, respectively.)

If one or two of the top five slip, take them, otherwise pick a talented power forward like Ritchie.

[S N Y P E R S 7]

Nikolaj Ehlers.

[theminister]

I'll say it again, I think Nylander is the best pick at 6th.

I completely expect the Canucks to take Ritchie and I understand why they would. It's not a bad pick and extremely difficult for a scouting staff to pass over.

We are going to take a good player. Our prospect pool will be even better after this offseason from our picks in this draft and any subsequent moves.. I'm confident of that.

[theminister]

Once you make a comparison of a prospect with an NHLer you unconsciously reframe the way you think about such a prospect. Case-in-point: Virtanen. By saying he plays like Dustin Brown now you limit him to Brown attributes (strengths and weakness). I think it is really dangerous way of thinking about prospects.

People like to say Scout X said Player Y plays like NHLer Z. Scouts only make the player comparison for public consumption so that you can get the general idea of the player. They however do not say such things to GMs (other scouts, hockey ops, etc). If anyone is so inclined to look into the academic literature on said topic a good starting place is to look up: reporting bias.

This is absolutely true. Making comparisons to other players is folly but it's a natural tendency every one will do. I'm certain even professional scouting staffs do it even though it's understood that it's a poor practise.

Every player is different. Analogies are just extremely useful tools to encapsulate pure data.

"Darmok, when the walls fell."

[R3aL]

Nikolaj Ehlers.

Who is that? sounds made up

[Silfverberg Snipes]

I think this poll is kind of skewed with Dal Colle and Draisaitl being included. Of course they could be available but then they would be consensus picks.

[baumerman77]

The one common criticism I hear about Virtanen is that: (1) he doesn't use his teammates enough and (2) he doesn't have a (relatively) high Hockey IQ. I am not too worried about these criticisms as they are common for a shoot first offensive winger. It is almost by the structure of the position itself that he has a lower hockey IQ and that he doesn't use his teammates enough.

Why doesn't he use his teammates? He likes to shoot, he knows he can get himself in shooting position, and he knows he is good at it. This is common in junior with a talented winger. The guy knows that he can facilitate a scoring opportunity himself more often than relying on a less skilled teammate. This won't be a problem at the next level because he will be playing with guys that have more skill and that can play-make a lot better than his junior teammates.

Relatively low hockey IQ. This is somewhat tied to the first point about using teammates (he shot instead of passing to a teammate). What do scouts mean by hockey IQ? Essentially it means the ability to see the ice, anticipate plays, and implement an optimal response to any given anticipation both offensively and defensively. By design this is criterion favours centermen because they are the ones with more defensive responsibility and the ones who care the puck through the neutral zone and are suppose to facilitate offense. I would say that when scouts say he has a lower hockey IQ it isn't his ability to see the ice or anticipate the play but rather his decision not to implement the optimal response. My hypothesis why he does not do this: (1) in the defensive zone it is probably because he is thinking offense and (2) as my aforementioned point alluded to he doesn't trust less skilled linemates to get the job done.

I don't see either of these claimed weaknesses to be a problem at the NHL level. These weakness can be overcome by playing with better players and a little more direction from coaches.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Who is that? sounds made up

Forget eelers. Go to the peelers?

Watch yet another top player fall to the Ducks. Fowler fell. Getzlaf fell from 5th to 19th? Good Christ.

[JE14]

Pick Ritchie since there are more skilled centers next year than power forwards.

[R3aL]

Forget eelers. Go to the peelers?

Numero cinq orange

The one common criticism I hear about Virtanen is that: (1) he doesn't use his teammates enough and (2) he doesn't have a (relatively) high Hockey IQ. I am not too worried about these criticisms as they are common for a shoot first offensive winger. It is almost by the structure of the position itself that he has a lower hockey IQ and that he doesn't use his teammates enough.

Why doesn't he use his teammates? He likes to shoot, he knows he can get himself in shooting position, and he knows he is good at it. This is common in junior with a talented winger. The guy knows that he can facilitate a scoring opportunity himself more often than relying on a less skilled teammate. This won't be a problem at the next level because he will be playing with guys that have more skill and that can play-make a lot better than his junior teammates.

Relatively low hockey IQ. This is somewhat tied to the first point about using teammates (he shot instead of passing to a teammate). What do scouts mean by hockey IQ? Essentially it means the ability to see the ice, anticipate plays, and implement an optimal response to any given anticipation both offensively and defensively. By design this is criterion favours centermen because they are the ones with more defensive responsibility and the ones who care the puck through the neutral zone and are suppose to facilitate offense. I would say that when scouts say he has a lower hockey IQ it isn't his ability to see the ice or anticipate the play but rather his decision not to implement the optimal response. My hypothesis why he does not do this: (1) in the defensive zone it is probably because he is thinking offense and (2) as my aforementioned point alluded to he doesn't trust less skilled linemates to get the job done.

I don't see either of these claimed weaknesses to be a problem at the NHL level. These weakness can be overcome by playing with better players and a little more direction from coaches.

Yea those are strong points

I really wont be upset if we pick Virtanen at all, I just want 1 of the top 4 forwards or Ritchie/Virtanen, no matter what I think we will all be pleased in June can feeeel it in my plums!

Although I am feeling a Sam Bennett present, I do not think even SNYPERS would be sad with that

[S N Y P E R S 7]

I'd be completely content picking Blake SPeers next year. I'd be so stoked to get him.

[Smashian Kassian]

Time marches on and the power forward like Dustin Brown 5 years ago(6' 207) is more likely to be like Backes today (6'3" 221).

The Canucks cannot afford to risk the possibility that this year's draft pick is wasted hoping some small player is so good that his size deficiency becomes irrelevant.

This is purported to be a weak draft and, other than the top 3 or top 5, the prospects are rated pell-mell all over the place as if all the pundits threw darts at the board.

You don't give up talent for size when you draft a player like Ritchie over a player like Ehlers; you give up talent-you-hope-will-be-exceptional-enough for size.

When the small player's talent is undeniable, and therefore no longer as big a risk, the "smaller players" are rated in the top three i.e. Bennett and Reinhart. (Even they are 6 foot and 6 foot one, respectively.)

If one or two of the top five slip, take them, otherwise pick a talented power forward like Ritchie.

Thats why I want Kapanen.

High end skill, complete player, no size/softness issues. Low risk/high reward.

And the draft is supposed to drop off the 2nd round. There is a clear edge in the top players like any year, but from from 5-15 I think there is another level of prospects, then from there on out your get your regular late 1st/2nd round type prospects.

I'll say it again, I think Nylander is the best pick at 6th.

I completely expect the Canucks to take Ritchie and I understand why they would. It's not a bad pick and extremely difficult for a scouting staff to pass over.

We are going to take a good player. Our prospect pool will be even better after this offseason from our picks in this draft and any subsequent moves.. I'm confident of that.

What is it about Nylander that makes you confident that his skills will translate well and that he might become a star?

[Goal:thecup]

Thats why I want Kapanen.

High end skill, complete player, no size/softness issues. Low risk/high reward.

I think you may have missed my point Smash.

I do not think the Canucks should waste the #6 pick on a player like Kapanen (6'180) hoping his talent will overcome his small stature in the modern (6'4" power forward) NHL.

I have not seen Kapanen rated higher than 15th, therefore he is riskier than 6 foot players like Bennett who are consistently rated in the top 3 or top 5.

If the smaller player is not a sure thing, we cannot afford to take the risk that he will end up not good enough to overcome his small stature (Mason Raymond, Cody Hodgson, Jordan Schroeder).

Since Bennett and Reinhart are the only likely smaller players to be sure picks and they are likely to be gone by the number 6 pick, we have to take the safer pick and that pick is safer because it also has modern power forward size.

No to any small players except Bennett and Reinhart; no to Kapanen, especially at number 6.

If you really have to pick some small player, wait until the pick equals the risk, like later rounds this year or perhaps #16 overall next year.

I think Ritchie might be "man enough" to crack the lineup this year in a limited role for a short time with the Sedins for example and more time spent on the 3rd/4th this year.

I cannot see Kapanen in the lineup for quite some time and perhaps, like Anton Rodin, he never does play in the NHL. Can't take that risk.

These modern day big players are not the Stojanovs or Polaseks of past drafts, they skate very well and have a very high degree of skill.

[theminister]

Thats why I want Kapanen.

High end skill, complete player, no size/softness issues. Low risk/high reward.

And the draft is supposed to drop off the 2nd round. There is a clear edge in the top players like any year, but from from 5-15 I think there is another level of prospects, then from there on out your get your regular late 1st/2nd round type prospects.

What is it about Nylander that makes you confident that his skills will translate well and that he might become a star?

He has the best vision and hockey sense of the remaining players and, possibly, of the entire draft. He generates offensive chances in so many different ways. He has that innate inability that is obvious when you see it.

What makes him enticing is that he has the skills to go along with that. His passing, skating, quickness, and hands are all top notch. Not only does he have the desire to do it but he has has the skills to back it up. I believe he is the type of player that will get the most out of his line mates. He can raise his ability in big games and already has sown that he one of the best on the biggest stages. I expect that to continue.

Does he have holes? Yes. His defensive game needs work but he has all of the tools to overcome that. He could get used to NA style of hockey but he also isn't a stranger to it and I think he can adapt.

Ultimately, I think he is going to make huge strides in the next two years to the point that he will be included in 'the best players outside of the NHL' conversation. Long term I think he'll be a special player. Better than Granlund, IMHO, and that's a good place to start.