6th Pick: 2014 NHL Entry Draft

[theminister]

Two months of this.

I repeat, two months of this.

Our conversations will solve nothing but to entertain us. The only thing that will change the discourse will be traded picks in the top 10.

[Merci]

Most of us already have our minds made up

6th Ritchie

10th Virtanen

Get Anaheim or Carolina's pick at all costs.

[Smashian Kassian]

Two months of this.

I repeat, two months of this.

Our conversations will solve nothing but to entertain us. The only thing that will change the discourse will be traded picks in the top 10.

Atleast its not the never ending Luongo trade thread. This does have an end.

[73 Percent]

Atleast its not the never ending Luongo trade thread. This does have an end.

virtanen doesnt pass ehlers is too small ritchie is too big nylander looks like a girl.

cant wait till this is over

[thad]

I see where you are coming from with Ritchie.

I agree (although I think Kassian is tougher than him, and Ritchie is more of a skill PWF than Kassian). Ritchie is the one big guy I wouldn't have any problem getting cause he's dynamic offensively that he should be a good 2nd liner if his wrist shot doesn't translate as well as it is in junior, he's still got the hands to fall back on, and he would be good to have with Kassian. I would still lean to a high skill player myself cause its rare we get these picks & we could really use high end skill. But yeah I wouldn't be unhappy if we take Ritchie (unless a top 5 guy is available)

Its just Virtanen I want to stay away from. (and Perlini to a lesser extent)

Yeah the way I look at it is, you have a chance to get that rare breed right now. That crazy tough power forward that's one of the biggest top six players in the nhl. That guy you wish you could have had but he went 6th overall.

Get him now, you got plenty of time to grab skilled guys in future drafts. Hell, maybe you score Fiala in the early second round. So many skilled guys fall in drafts. Shinkaruk was ranked 12th or something in the deepest draft.

Build that contagious confidence foundation I'm talking about this year with the 6th overall(unless someone slips of course). You're never going to have a better chance to do it than adding Nick Ritchie to Kassian.

Now 5'11 doesn't look too bad in every round after and every draft after this one. You're setting the foundation for the next nick Ehlers to succeed... There's Ehlers in every draft, Ritchie is a freak of nature that doesn't come around this often ranked as the 6th best 18 yr old in the world.

[westcoast]

People keep talking about Ritchie using his size to dominate juniors,but something has to also be said about the fact he can move fast enough at that size to have the success he does.

[sting]

I think everybody tries to paint the bruins as a team of goons because of their toughness. In reality they are just a perfect mix of exactly what you said size skill speed and rolling 4 lines. The best in the nhl actually.

They aren't a bunch of talentless goons that punch their way to victory night in and night out. They play hard, tough, confident and skilled hockey.

If anything we should be following their model. They have it all(not just toughness) and roll 4 lines with ease. Every guy not only makes plays and tries to score, but plays tough and with authority. Nobody backs down.

This is why I think drafting a guy like Ritchie would be a huge step in the right direction. We don't have to keep adding more nick Ritchie's but just one more guy that is even tougher than Kass with offensive skill is perfect. This allows Kassian to consistently play tough, not have the odd timid night.. He doesn't take a night off because Ritchie's not taking a night off. Ritchie isn't taking a night off because Kassian isn't.

That kind of confidence is contagious. Now Bo Horvat thinks he's 2 inches taller, hunter shinkaruk thinks he's 2 inches taller. Cole Cassels? You know damn well that gritty SOB is going to think he's 5 inches taller... Now you have a team that steps onto the ice every night and says this is our frackin ice!... Not just with their fists, but they are damn ready to fly if you even look at Bo, Nicky or Hunter, but also with their God Given Skills.

All the sudden when you're drafting those small skilled guys that fall to the late first round, you're not so concerned with "jeez I don't know if his size will be able to handle the nhl". He's going to step into a team that demands respect and gives him the room he needs to succeed.

All the sudden Jordan subban has a bright future ahead of him as a high point man in the NHL.

Just my two cents... In my opinion your not going away from speed and skill by drafting toughness, your giving the speed and skill you do draft, confidence and the absolute best chance at having success at the nhl level.

Well said...+100

[Goal:thecup]

Honestly if we got another top 10 pick.

I would lean towards getting another one of the skill guys (Kapanen/Nylander/Ehlers)

Ritchie would get some consideration for me, but adding two high end skill players like that would really be a huge add to what I think is our biggest weakness.

I'm most interested to see where Ehlers is at the combine, if he's 170 or higher, then he could become the guy I want most again or atleast a 1B situation for me with Kapanen stilll as 1A.

These aren't 2nd tier skill players, there are 1st tier skill players we are talking about. Those are harder to get than 2nd tier big bodied players like Virtanen & Perlini. Ritchie has an a chance to be a 1st tier one more so than the other 2, but I would project more as a good 2nd liner than a 1st liner at this stage.

He's actually got the willingness to play a two-way game, with his far superior speed & skating ability, when he's not scoring/doesn't have the puck, he can still be a useful player on the backcheck or on the forecheck. I think he's more dynamic than Virtanen.

But they are 2nd tier; Bennett and Reinhart are the 1st tier skill players in this draft.

If they were 1st tier, they wouldn't be all over the board in terms of their ranking, they would be firmly in the top 6 or 7.

The other top tier players are big, Ekblad, Dal Colle, Draisaitl, Ritchie.

Why do people believe you have to be small to be skilled?

Forgetting Mario? Jagr? Iginla? Thornton? Bertuzzi?

Why intentionally ignore a significant part of the total package player?

Just to have a little guy? Afraid a Naslund or StLouis will slip past us?

Little guys are not the only players with talent.

The top 4 big guys have lots of talent.

We can't afford to waste our 6th overall pick on guys that might be almost as good as say Pat Kane (if they don't also have good size).

Similarly, any team should use their 6th overall pick on a player that might be as good as Kane.

Top tier players like Kane are ranked very highly by most pundits because they are a better risk.

The further down the list, and the more skattered the opinions, the less likely they are to pan out; sounds obvious because it should be obvious.

[theminister]

This ^^^ is right on.

This is the new NHL Playoff reality. Get used to it. Players and teams are getting bigger and bigger. And these bigger players can still skate and shoot and score and knock your block off.

The playoffs, where you see the same team up to 7 games in a row, are a battle, unlike the regular season where you can get away with little things without having to face the same beast the next night. And the damage is cumulative; there is no time for recovery. Look at the Canucks at the end of the '94 and 2011 Cup runs; they were beat up and broken down. We need to do the beating up and breaking down and we need to stop being the victim.

My position is not, as Plum suggested, a knee-jerk reaction to Boston beating us in 2011.

I have wanted the big player over the Mason Raymond player for over 50 years of watching hockey.

I like Mario over Wayne, Lindros over Gilmour, Jagr over StLouis for example.

If Gretz didn't have Semenko and other large dudes protecting him, he would have had a much less successful and a much shorter career.

Other posters on here have suggested that those of us who appreciate a big tough talented hockey player/team have had our day and now the Canucks are bigger and tougher and it has not worked post-2011. Well, for one thing, this position is indicative of a very short time-frame suggesting a young poster who has watched hockey for only 5 or 10 years and thinks the team got bigger and tougher after 2011. It has not yet. The new big tough talented Canucks are still in the pipeline and yet to be drafted or traded for. The roster this last season still had the Sedins, Burr, Hansen, Higgins, et cetera, as well as Richardson, Santo, Weber, Tanev etc. There has not been a replacement of the smaller/weaker players with a bigger/tougher roster yet. The plan has not failed; it has not been brought to fruition or even tried yet. We still have to put the players in the pipeline before they can even get on the team. That is why we cannot afford to waste the 2014 #6 overall pick hoping some little fellow is just so very under-rated that his performance will make all the reasons for drafting a big talented player irrelevant.

I also believe that this is just a step in the evolution of hockey and that 5 years from now the teams are going to be even bigger.

Look at how many players are now about six and a half feet tall and over 220 lbs; there used to only be one or two in the whole league.

Old power forwards like Iginla and Brown are dwarfed by the new power forwards like Backes and Benn.

Sure, when you put the 2013/14 Canucks up against the Sharks or the Ducks or the Kings they look small and get chased off the ice but just look into the future, the discrepancy is going to get bigger. If we do not make a multi-year commitment to skill-with-size, we are going to look like mice in an old growth forest.

There is always room on a team for a super-talented little guy and there always has been.

But that little guy has to be protected and that takes a tough team around him.

And there is only room for one or two of this type of player on the team, not a half-dozen or more.

I know, I am an old dinosaur, still like fighting, and still love a clean open-ice hit.

I still believe in the beat 'em in the alley, beat 'em on the ice thing and Ogie Oglethorpe and the Hansen brothers are my favorite players in Slapshot.

My favorite Canucks include Harold and Gino and Delorme and Fraser and Kurtenbach and Hunter and Rypien et cetera.

We don't need "offensive" little guys, we need offensive big guys like Ritchie who will score and drop the mitts and win fights.

There are no loser points for the battle that is the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Even though I like Nylander, i agree with this. This is probably the thinking of the Canucks and most NHL clubs.

I also often like to point out the question of how many true PWFs have the Canucks ever had? Kurtenbach, Bertuzzi, Neely? Then there's the secondary tier like Paiemont, Fraser, Momesso and Courtnall. Ritchie, if developed well, could be a very unique player in our franchise history.

Linden, from his own experience, knows that there can be room for smaller guys like Ronning and Craven to help a club. He also knows that those players need to be surrounded with as much physical support as possible.

Loading up on big talented wingers is a good strategy for the Canucks right now IMO. We may need help at centre but that can be addressed at another time or in another way. By loading up on the wing the Canucks can ensure that is one position that they are set for the future if they remain patient. Having a strong group of young wingers will open up room from other positions for other players to succeed. There is always more room for extra bigger guys in a line-up than smaller guys. You can't have a roster too big but you can have it be too small.

Generally, I am an advocate of building from the net out through up the middle so what I am saying may sound counterintuitive but the Canucks are not in a complete rebuilding stage as of yet. We still have viable options at the other positions at the NHL and prospect level. Enough so that we can consider it a foundation to build upon. We may lack a top end prospect at centre and defense but when we do acquire one they will ideally be big bodied as well as talented. This trend is not going to reverse.

I am always amazed when i read posters use terms like 'redundant' with regards to certain play types. There is no such thing especially if they have size and can play on multiple lines. If the Canucks are the title of the team with the biggest group of forward prospects on the league one day it would be the first time that has ever been the case. Variety is important after many years of rebuild but in a retool like we are in now then being the best at something in the league is important.

[Kooner91]

People keep talking about Ritchie using his size to dominate juniors,but something has to also be said about the fact he can move fast enough at that size to have the success he does.

You won't know until you put an NHL D man against him. Every player outside the top 5 has risks involved. His size advantage is what could define him from either being a 1st line power forward, or a 4th line energy player.

Aside from Shinkaruk, the Canucks don't have 1 prospect that is known to be a wizard with the puck. We have many big prospects, but no one that will set the plays up and get the goals. Last time I checked, that's been our biggest issue since 2011.

[theminister]

People keep talking about Ritchie using his size to dominate juniors,but something has to also be said about the fact he can move fast enough at that size to have the success he does.

Most of his goals are not muscled. He is very good at getting to open ice and having a quick and accurate release.

His feet are above average and he can get to where he needs to be in time. He may even trim up and become a better skater.

He is big and physical enough that he can help create time and space for himself and line mates. In junior he is a distraction for defences on the ice but that could easily be the case in the NHL too.

[Smashian Kassian]

One of the things about Ehlers (that was brought up on HF) is that his point production really rose to Drouin like numbers as he went along and got adjusted to the NA game, cause remember this was his first season in NA.

Someone posted that his numbers as the season went along broke down to be something like this. (not neccisarily exact, but something like this)

1st 20- 1PPG
2nd 20- 1.5PPG
3rd 20- 2PPG
last 10- 2.25PPG

And he has over 2 PPG in the playoffs so far.

So to think, if this wasn't his rookie season, perhaps he could have put up 2PPG. He has been compared to Drouin. And he has comparable stats to Drouin aswell as guys like Mackinnon, Giroux, and Huberdeau at the same age. And he has had a better season than Anthony Mantha did at that age and it wasn't really that close.

Huberdeau at the same age had 1 more point in 4 more games.

Giroux at the same age had 1 less point in 6 more games.

Giroux is still 5'11 172 & he's doing fine, Huberdeau was under 170 pounds throughout his draft season.

With this level of skill, if he does test well at the combine and is 170 (and maybe even 6'0, I've seen that on some sites) I think this is a kid we should really look at taking.

[Goal:thecup]

Even though I like Nylander, i agree with this. This is probably the thinking of the Canucks and most NHL clubs.

I also often like to point out the question of how many true PWFs have the Canucks ever had? Kurtenbach, Bertuzzi, Neely? Then there's the secondary tier like Paiemont, Fraser, Momesso and Courtnall. Ritchie, if developed well, could be a very unique player in our franchise history.

Linden, from his own experience, knows that there can be room for smaller guys like Ronning and Craven to help a club. He also knows that those players need to be surrounded with as much physical support as possible.

Loading up on big talented wingers is a good strategy for the Canucks right now IMO. We may need help at centre but that can be addressed at another time or in another way. By loading up on the wing the Canucks can ensure that is one position that they are set for the future if they remain patient. Having a strong group of young wingers will open up room from other positions for other players to succeed. There is always more room for extra bigger guys in a line-up than smaller guys. You can't have a roster too big but you can have it be too small.

Generally, I am an advocate of building from the net out through up the middle so what I am saying may sound counterintuitive but the Canucks are not in a complete rebuilding stage as of yet. We still have viable options at the other positions at the NHL and prospect level. Enough so that we can consider it a foundation to build upon. We may lack a top end prospect at centre and defense but when we do acquire one they will ideally be big bodied as well as talented. This trend is not going to reverse.

I am always amazed when i read posters use terms like 'redundant' with regards to certain play types. There is no such thing especially if they have size and can play on multiple lines. If the Canucks are the title of the team with the biggest group of forward prospects on the league one day it would be the first time that has ever been the case. Variety is important after many years of rebuild but in a retool like we are in now then being the best at something in the league is important.

Yes! I nominate theminister for our new GM. C'mon Trev, give him an interview.

[Smashian Kassian]

But they are 2nd tier; Bennett and Reinhart are the 1st tier skill players in this draft.

If they were 1st tier, they wouldn't be all over the board in terms of their ranking, they would be firmly in the top 6 or 7.

The other top tier players are big, Ekblad, Dal Colle, Draisaitl, Ritchie.

Why do people believe you have to be small to be skilled?

Forgetting Mario? Jagr? Iginla? Thornton? Bertuzzi?

Why intentionally ignore a significant part of the total package player?

Just to have a little guy? Afraid a Naslund or StLouis will slip past us?

Little guys are not the only players with talent.

The top 4 big guys have lots of talent.

We can't afford to waste our 6th overall pick on guys that might be almost as good as say Pat Kane (if they don't also have good size).

Similarly, any team should use their 6th overall pick on a player that might be as good as Kane.

Top tier players like Kane are ranked very highly by most pundits because they are a better risk.

The further down the list, and the more skattered the opinions, the less likely they are to pan out; sounds obvious because it should be obvious.

I don't see how Ehlers (who had a better offensive season than Bennett) and Nylander (said to have the highest pure skill level in the draft) are second tier players.

They both have first line upside, I think Kapanen might aswell, to me those aren't 2nd tier offensive players, to me a 2nd tier offensive player is someone like Virtanen, or Perlini or McCann or someone along those lines.

[Kooner91]

I don't see how Ehlers (who had a better offensive season than Bennett) and Nylander (said to have the highest pure skill level in the draft) are second term players.

They both have first line upside, I think Kapanen might aswell, to me those aren't 2nd tier offensive players, to me a 2nd tier offensive player is someone like Virtanen, or Perlini or McCann or someone along those lines.

I guess he think's they are second tier due to the higher risk they have than the top 5.

[NucksCup2015]

People are so focused on 'height' and weight

Sure we don't want a Schroeder size, unless the guy has elite skills like a Kariya or St Louis, but those players are hard to find/predict

That being said, players who are 5'10 and 5'11 are not small folks and they are 18 so likely to grow a couple more inches.

What matters is not 'height', what matters is the ability to play in traffic, to win battles.

What we need, and its clear is not just size, its creativity, speed and skill.

Would anyone here really pass on Patrick Kane because of his size? If he was in the draft and around our pick, I bet alot here would say no, too small.

Reality is the draft is a crapshoot you never know how a player will turn out, size or not. Ie Alex Stojanov had size didn't he?

We need a player who can be a game changer and make the players around him better. Sakic was 5'11 when drafted, so was Yzerman, as was Pavel Bure, were those guys too small at 5'11? Umm no

Take the best offensive player available, a kid who can play in traffic, a kid who is fearless, a kid who can skate, create, and has speed and skill.

Not suggesting we take a player that plays like MayRay, but if one of those Euro's (who I have not seen play) has elite skills, perhaps we need to consider it vs chasing after players that may turn into Booth 2.0 or play a heads down game like Kesler

You cannot teach skill...anyone think Shinkaruk is too small or can't make it? I seem to recall the way he played in the preseason, we had thoughts of Patrick Kane 2.0...

We have size folks, we don't have the skill we need around it, that's why we don't score.

Ehlers is 5'11 and light, he will put on weight.

he has 20 points in 9 playoff games

Concern is his stats are padded from playing in the Q and with Drouin. Last year, people said Drouin's stats were padded from playing with McKinnon, yet we saw they weren't

You cannot teach the type of offensive talent this kid has. If I am the Canucks, I draft this kid and hopefully in a side deal get another first rounder to get the 2/3rd liner with size and hands everyone wants here.

Would not be surprise to see him go top 5 either.

[NucksCup2015]

I don't see how Ehlers (who had a better offensive season than Bennett) and Nylander (said to have the highest pure skill level in the draft) are second term players.

They both have first line upside, I think Kapanen might aswell, to me those aren't 2nd tier offensive players, to me a 2nd tier offensive player is someone like Virtanen, or Perlini or McCann or someone along those lines.

exactly....

[baumerman77]

For everyone interested in the age issue between Virtanen and Ritchie here is a breakdown of their productions as 17 year olds:

Virtanen: GP 71, G 45, A, 26, P 71,

GPG .634, APG .366, PPG 1.0

Ritchie: GP 53, G 26, A 24, P 50

GPG .490, APG .453, PPG .943

[Tystick]

I really hope we trade up so we can draft either Bennett or Draisitl

Those are game changers right there!

[theminister]

People are so focused on 'height' and weight

Sure we don't want a Schroeder size, unless the guy has elite skills like a Kariya or St Louis, but those players are hard to find/predict

That being said, players who are 5'10 and 5'11 are not small folks and they are 18 so likely to grow a couple more inches.

What matters is not 'height', what matters is the ability to play in traffic, to win battles.

What we need, and its clear is not just size, its creativity, speed and skill.

Would anyone here really pass on Patrick Kane because of his size? If he was in the draft and around our pick, I bet alot here would say no, too small.

Reality is the draft is a crapshoot you never know how a player will turn out, size or not. Ie Alex Stojanov had size didn't he?

We need a player who can be a game changer and make the players around him better. Sakic was 5'11 when drafted, so was Yzerman, as was Pavel Bure, were those guys too small at 5'11? Umm no

Take the best offensive player available, a kid who can play in traffic, a kid who is fearless, a kid who can skate, create, and has speed and skill.

Not suggesting we take a player that plays like MayRay, but if one of those Euro's (who I have not seen play) has elite skills, perhaps we need to consider it vs chasing after players that may turn into Booth 2.0 or play a heads down game like Kesler

You cannot teach skill...anyone think Shinkaruk is too small or can't make it? I seem to recall the way he played in the preseason, we had thoughts of Patrick Kane 2.0...

We have size folks, we don't have the skill we need around it, that's why we don't score.

No one is discounting skill. That's not what anyone here is saying. We are talking about a player having the mix of both.

Size and reach are always going to be a concern because it is a physical reality of limited space on the ice. The ability to reach pucks and shield them is innately helped by size. As the league has gotten so much bigger so quickly being able to square off against your larger opponents is paramount. Size has always been important but the available ice is getting smaller.

We can't need to solve every issue in the prospect system with this single pick but we can help cement one aspect.