Merci Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 He has a lethal shot. Kassian has always looked to pass first before releasing his shot for whatever reason. If we add Ritchie, I believe next year's draft is loading up with tons of skill. If we get Benning, I can see us taking Virtanen or Ritchie. I'm more so leaning on Ritchie due to our OHL scouts having a bit of a better track record, but if we continue on our WHL swing of things after Shink pick, Virtanen can very well be coming home. I wouldn't mind either. I envision our 3rd line being Ritchie Horvat and Kassian With Horvat and Kassian just dishing Ritchie for the open spot he finds with his big body. Those 2 just need to be as defensively reliable as Horvat and we'll have a stupid good 3rd line. Kassian's progress should be the barometer for the rebuild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absent Canuck Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 The Hockey Writers top 150: http://thehockeywriters.com/2014-nhl-draft-rankings-war-room-april-edition/ Ehlers at #6. Its a win win for us. If he goes up higher then 1 of the big 5 fall to us. Good to note that Ehlers has now grown to 6ft. He needs to put on 15 pounds to get up to exact MacKinnon size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merci Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Ehlers at #6. Its a win win for us. If he goes up higher then 1 of the big 5 fall to us. Good to note that Ehlers has now grown to 6ft. He needs to put on 15 pounds to get up to exact MacKinnon size. Ehlers will be there at 10th for us with Ottawa's pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absent Canuck Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Ritchie is not going to become a clone of Lucic. More like a Ryane Clowe/Rick Nash hybrid. Not as fast as Nash, not as slow as Clowe but he ought to be good for 20-25g 30-35a 100PIM seasons once he hits his prime. Good post. I agree. His ceiling is lower but his floor is at least a solid 3rd liner who should play 400plus NHL games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Honestly, Merci, you get yourself worked up into scenarios which have a minimal chance of happening. I like Ritchie as well but you're hyping him in your own mind. You are alone in the wilderness here. Be happy if he can play 12 consistent minutes at 21 years of age. Anything before that would be a bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Nash was bar none the best prospect of his draft year. Ritchie's speed and skill is nowhere close to that. His 'sick dangles' and what-not are of the ho-hum variety and really, he's not all that impressive an offensive force. Clearly overweight and not much of a fighter, he takes a ton of penalties. Dumb penalties. He's not an elite physical force like Lucic. Not even close. He'll be a 2-3yr project in the minors, not a saviour. With an upside of a Clowe or a Pyatt. Don't rush him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpennyCanuck Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 He's constantly moved to wing in Sweden, so chances are he'll be one in the NHL until he improves his two-way game, of which he has a very limited ability. But at wing he'll be pulverized on the boards in the NHL.In this regard, along with reported attitude issues, he kinda reminds me of Coho. An ultra-entitled right-shooting LW that needs to be fed the puck and sheltered while you don't expect him to play defensively.There is a lot of skill there though. Esp. for the powerplay. So a team will roll the dice on him, but at 6th overall? Doubt that.Thanks!Cheers,Spenny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Nash was bar none the best prospect of his draft year. Ritchie's speed and skill is nowhere close to that. His 'sick dangles' and what-not are of the ho-hum variety and really, he's not all that impressive an offensive force. Clearly overweight and not much of a fighter, he takes a ton of penalties. Dumb penalties. He's not an elite physical force like Lucic. Not even close. He'll be a 2-3yr project in the minors, not a saviour. With an upside of a Clowe or a Pyatt. Don't rush him. You've never seen him play. Your assessment is so wrong, and based off of so little information, it's painful to read. Watch him play 20 full games and get back to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merci Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Nash was bar none the best prospect of his draft year. Ritchie's speed and skill is nowhere close to that. His 'sick dangles' and what-not are of the ho-hum variety and really, he's not all that impressive an offensive force. Clearly overweight and not much of a fighter, he takes a ton of penalties. Dumb penalties. He's not an elite physical force like Lucic. Not even close. He'll be a 2-3yr project in the minors, not a saviour. With an upside of a Clowe or a Pyatt. Don't rush him. Nope He'll pretty much be a straight across Lucic, and a 20% better Kassian and a 20% worse Nash He plays a lot like Nash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedman Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 He's constantly moved to wing in Sweden, so chances are he'll be one in the NHL until he improves his two-way game, of which he has a very limited ability. But at wing he'll be pulverized on the boards in the NHL.In this regard, along with reported attitude issues, he kinda reminds me of Coho. An ultra-entitled right-shooting LW that needs to be fed the puck and sheltered while you don't expect him to play defensively. There is a lot of skill there though. Esp. for the powerplay. So a team will roll the dice on him, but at 6th overall? Doubt that. please provide a link of Nylanders "reported attitude issues", or Hodgson's for that matter when he was drafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millerdraft Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 He's confusing possession hockey with two-way hockey. Ritchie's strength would be to hold the puck along the boards. But without the puck I'd question his effectiveness. I don't have a big problem with players like him, but i'm not sure if he's worth a 6th overall selection. We'd be adding another Kassian. That can be either good or bad. The more guys like Kassian the better, imo. He's big, strong, sees the ice very well offensively and is deceptive with his shoot-or-pass decisions. The only thing missing is defensive IQ, endurance conditioning and quality offensive linemates. A line of Shinkaruk-Horvat-Kassian might just have it all and then adding Ritchie onto another similar line with Cassels and Jensen might just be magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Ehlers at #6. Its a win win for us. If he goes up higher then 1 of the big 5 fall to us. Good to note that Ehlers has now grown to 6ft. He needs to put on 15 pounds to get up to exact MacKinnon size.Unfortunately Ehlers doesn't have the frame for it. Height isn't the issue. Width is. His shoulder-to-shoulder length is narrow. He'll build like Mason Raymond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goal:thecup Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 There is no box unchecked for Ritchie. He is the complete package.The only thing he isn't is small. (Still don't know why some of you think a player has to be small to be good. Didn't like Mario? Jagr?)If you watch any of the playoffs this year, you must conclude that talent with size and toughness is the order of the day.I think if any of the little guys had a better chance of going early in the draft, they would be ranked in the top 6 way more often than just once.That is, it seems like only one pundit has Nylander in the top 6, only one has Ehlers in the top 6, et cetera.If there was a better chance that these guys would develop into a player worthy of a high pick, more pundits would have them ranked top 6 than just once here or there.When most posters here finish their analysis, they want to have more picks!That's because they still want to pick these little guys but cannot reasonably argue to pass up on a universally highly-rated complete player like Ritchie.When I think of having more picks, I wish there were more than one Ritchie!Or I start to look at others like Virtanen that bring the talent with the power and size.There is no basis to the "we already have Kassian, or Sestito, or whomever" argument; there is no doubt that the Canucks have fallen behind in the trend to large teams.I'm glad we have Sestito, Kassian, and all the other young players and prospects with good size but we still need more and we will continue to need more and more, and for more than just this year.There are so many teams with huge players coming in waves, line after line, the playoffs are such a physical grind, injuries and suspensions take players out, and you need a full complement of this type of player to succeed.The team can support a couple smurfs but not before we have the physicality to protect them.If we have a first or second overall pick, and some little guy projects to be the next great little guy, then we can take him.But we cannot waste high draft picks on longshots until we're fully bulked up.Merci, you are not alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 You've never seen him play. Your assessment is so wrong, and based off of so little information, it's painful to read. Watch him play 20 full games and get back to us.So... More like Nash? Or Lucic? lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 please provide a link of Nylanders "reported attitude issues", or Hodgson's for that matter when he was drafted. Google it yourself. And do you really want to turn this into a Coho thread? There are more comparables to Nylander than just attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 So... More like Nash? Or Lucic? lol. I don't like making comparisons. Every player is an individual. Regardless of whether Merci is getting worked up on his own prejudices it doesn't reflect the inaccuracies of your posts on an equal level. You're flip sides of the same coin. Any other comparable doesn't make yours more correct because you obviously have the same access to the same information and are salting it with your own bias. There is no difference. Ritchie is an excellent prospect. If you actually had ever watched him play you'd know that. Unfortunately you're equally talking about something you don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedman Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Google it yourself. And do you really want to turn this into a Coho thread? There are more comparables to Nylander than just attitude. Well that way, i guess you haven't got any proof that there are any attitude problems. Then tell me about these comparables instead of just talking bs. Hodgson and Nylander are in no way similar players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Google it yourself. And do you really want to turn this into a Coho thread? There are more comparables to Nylander than just attitude. One USA today article. Not exactly the authority on junior hockey prospects. Anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I don't like making comparisons. Every player is an individual. Regardless of whether Merci is getting worked up on his own prejudices it doesn't reflect the inaccuracies of your posts on an equal level. You're flip sides of the same coin. Any other comparable doesn't make yours more correct because you obviously have the same access to the same information and are salting it with your own bias. There is no difference. Ritchie is an excellent prospect. If you actually had ever watched him play you'd know that. Unfortunately you're equally talking about something you don't know.Fair enough, but other people do. And Nash/Lucic is ridiculous. Clowe/Pyatt more accurate, based on what's reasonable. There simply is no inside information to counter that, and if you're watching the kid for that long a period, chances are you've fallen into a state of bias about him yourself. He is a fair prospect, but a guy who will require time. Likely time in the minors. You have to know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 One USA today article. Not exactly the authority on junior hockey prospects. Anything else?Question yourself on how the story would even arise in a USA today article if it did not exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.