6th Pick: 2014 NHL Entry Draft

[Warhippy]

One of the main reasons I can see us taking Ritchie is in fact our division.

Him Kassian Lain and Grenier/Archibald, Sestito all on our roster for a full season or two, all large big bodies that are not afraid to just beat other players to a pulp; will serve notice to our division and the league that touching anyone at any time on the ice in a Canucks uniform could result in a significant loss of chiclets or a busted nose.

Knowing that the 2015 and 2016 draft are both reportedly supposed to have a much higher quality of forwards I would have NO issue taking a big guy like Ritchie just to cement that fear in our division.

And let us be honest, the idea of Kassian Lain and Ritchie on a line against LA, San Jose or Anaheim....is kind of sexy really when you think about the absolute amount of damage that line could cause. That's almost 700+ pounds of forward line that will drop the mitts with anyone.

Having that kind of physicality and a reputation with it on this team would go a long ways in regards to protecting any of the smaller more skilled players we would draft develop or trade for.

As a shorter or smaller player knowing that there is a hulking beast over your shoulder to protect you has to be a confidence boost.

[Hedman]

Question yourself on how the story would even arise in a USA today article if it did not exist?

That's a great source man!

[Smashian Kassian]

Mantha was actually ranked in the top 10 in central scouting (so was Shinkaruk).

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=88636

Mantha fell to 20th, because he was considered a very streaky player and lacked the physical aspect of the game. *cough* Perlini *cough*

I think Mantha's issue was his work ethic/character was really in question, he had all the skill in the world & the size but when you get into character issues thats when prospects can get risky.

I don't think Perlini is the same, he's a good player, but his game is just lacking aspects to make him a high pick like 6th overall IMO. (I think 10-17 is more his range). Mantha had all the ability it was just a matter if he wanted to use it or not.

Ehlers will be there at 10th for us with Ottawa's pick

I highly doubt it.

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.

If he build's like Raymond he will be fine.

Raymond's downfall is the style of game he plays, not his size. Ehlers plays a much better style of game with his work ethic & willingness to go the dirty areas to make things happen, not a perimeter game like Raymond.

Stylewise he gets Kane alot, but I see Nyquist type potential in him, which to me is an outstanding player, and a great pick at 6th overall.

[Goal:thecup]

If you add Ritchie, Nylander, Ehlers, Virtanen, and say Kapanen to the top 5, who do you think in this top 10 would be the most likely to play in the NHL the soonest?

I think Ekblad, Reinhart, Bennett, and Ritchie (in no particular order) due to their size, Ekblad and Ritchie, and due to their talent/maturity, Reinhart and Bennett.

One more reason to take Ritchie at 6th overall; we may get to use the player in the lineup a year or two or even three before most of the others.

[TOMapleLaughs]

That's a great source man!

Frankly, even if his attitude were exemplary, like Coho's when he was drafted, lol, there are other valid concerns about him to knock him down the draft rankings. He is also a guy you cannot expect to lead your team unless your team is weak. Skilled, but mostly for the power play, and completely one-dimensional and not a physical factor at all. He, like the vast majority of the players in this draft, including all top prospects, are long-term projects. Really, the expectations for all the guys we're blabbering about need to be toned way down.

[theminister]

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.

It's not more accurate. It's a bias towards a prognostication. It's impossible to be accurate about events which have not transpired.

Countering a poorly informed appraisal with an equally poorly informed appraisal does not make it more accurate. It makes it equally uninformed. If you stopped making counter arguments about his game play without substituting your own guesses, which are patently wrong for anyone who has watched him play at all, then you might be able to form a valid opinion. Instead what you are doing is playing devils advocate.

Not so. I watch a lot of junior throughout the year because I have access to the CHL archives and go to every Giants game. I mostly watch WHL and OHL which is why I don't comment on Q players very often. I don't have a bias toward any single player. I watch them all and then make an assessment. I follow the scientific approach whereby I gather information before forming a theory. You're following the zealot approach where you jump to conclusion and then look for a confirmation bias.

[theminister]

Question yourself on how the story would even arise in a USA today article if it did not exist?

If it's in the media then it must be taken as sacrament?

Strange to hear you say that.

[Merci]

I was blabbering about the Kassian trade the day it happened.

Knowing this season would come in his development, knowing 2 seasons from now would come in his development.

Ritchie is the same damn thing.

[Warhippy]

Frankly, even if his attitude were exemplary, like Coho's when he was drafted, lol, there are other valid concerns about him to knock him down the draft rankings. He is also a guy you cannot expect to lead your team unless your team is weak. Skilled, but mostly for the power play, and completely one-dimensional and not a physical factor at all. He, like the vast majority of the players in this draft, including all top prospects, are long-term projects. Really, the expectations for all the guys we're blabbering about need to be toned way down.

This has been my major knock against Nylander as well.

One dimensional, soft and scores on the PP. While we need scoring, his Even Strength scoring numbers are subpar and the last thing I want to do is keep hoping for a PP specialist when we already have 4 supposed PP specialists in Kesler Burrows and the twins.

We need a guy that can score in all situations. not just on the PP. And scoring multiple points on the PP against powerhouse teams in the U-18 like...the Slovaks....

Is not impressive enough for me to want to risk a 6th overall on a guy like Nylander

[TOMapleLaughs]

It's not more accurate. It's a bias towards a prognostication. It's impossible to be accurate about events which have not transpired.

Countering a poorly informed appraisal with an equally poorly informed appraisal does not make it more accurate. It makes it equally uninformed. If you stopped making counter arguments about his game play without substituting your own guesses, which are patently wrong for anyone who has watched him play at all, then you might be able to form a valid opinion. Instead what you are doing is playing devils advocate.

Not so. I watch a lot of junior throughout the year because I have access to the CHL archives and go to every Giants game. I mostly watch WHL and OHL which is why I don't comment on Q players very often. I don't gave a bias toward any single player. I watch them all and then make an assessment. I follow the scientific approach whereby I gather information before forming a theory. You're following the zealot approach where you jump to conclusion and then look for a confirmation bias.

Ugh, he's not as fast or as skilled as Nash was. He's not as tough or as physical as Lucic was. These aren't inaccurate statements at all.

Whatever scientific approach you take is meaningless unless you have a bar of comparison that portrays what the reasonable expectations should be. And they should not be Nash/Lucic. That is all. There's nothing wrong with expecting Clowe with Ritchie. Pyatt would be a disappointment, but if Ritchie is rushed like Pyatt was, the risk of that happening is there.

If you're not committing to a comparable, then that's a cop out, imho.

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

If we select Ritchie I hope in all the earth he becomes nothing like Hugh Jessiman. That would be my greatest fear.

[theminister]

Ugh, he's not as fast or as skilled as Nash was. He's not as tough or as physical as Lucic was. These aren't inaccurate statements at all.

Whatever scientific approach you take is meaningless unless you have a bar of comparison that portrays what the reasonable expectations should be. And they should not be Nash/Lucic. That is all. There's nothing wrong with expecting Clowe with Ritchie. Pyatt would be a disappointment, but if Ritchie is rushed like Pyatt was, the risk of that happening is there.

If you're not committing to a comparable, then that's a cop out, imho.

Absolutely not. All players are unlikely to reach their ceiling, that's their odds. It doesn't always happen that way.

You say potato, he's says potato. It's still just potato.

Why do you feel that your comparison is more useful than actually watching him play? That's silliness of the highest order.

Regardless, TOML, so many of your statements about his skills are wrong because you haven't watched him. We should all show humility and caution when projecting a prospect. Just at least be honest with yourself about what you do and do not know.

[Monty]

Honestly, I'd be happy if the Canucks ended up picking Virtanen, Ritchie, Nylander, or Ehlers. All have their strengths over the other. The likelihood of any of them being ready to step in next season is incredibly slim, so it all depends on their development. Personally I'd prefer Nylander, but I see the benefits of the other favourites available.

[Scorevat]

Honestly, I'd be happy if the Canucks ended up picking Virtanen, Ritchie, Nylander, or Ehlers. All have their strengths over the other. The likelihood of any of them being ready to step in next season is incredibly slim, so it all depends on their development. Personally I'd prefer Nylander, but I see the benefits of the other favourites available.

I'm the exact way, and I have full trust that management will make the right decision. Plus Tsn have a little chat about every pick and they're gonna hype up whoever we pick pretty good.

[asian player]

Everybody automatically thinks Ritchie lacks skill because of his size...

[TOMapleLaughs]

Absolutely not. All players are unlikely to reach their ceiling, that's their odds. It doesn't always happen that way.

You say potato, he's says potato. It's still just potato.

Why do you feel that your comparison is more useful than actually watching him play? That's silliness of the highest order.

Regardless, TOML, so many of your statements about his skills are wrong because you haven't watched him. We should all show humility and caution when projecting a prospect. Just at least be honest with yourself about what you do and do not know.

It's fine that I don't know everything. Nobody does. But at least i'm putting out a half-decent opinion, (which is based on other opinions from a collection of scouts and reviews btw and not coming straight out of my ass), and not holding my cards secret for nobody to see.

What exactly do you see in Ritchie anyway? He's big and not overly slow, but still I'm not all that impressed. Something is lacking. He looks out of shape to be honest. Not sure if he's a top-6 prospect this year. Probably top-10. Not sure. But he'll need work, which is all I've been saying. Will you at least admit that?

[Roflcawptur]

112 pages for 2 months is impressive.

[Blömqvist]

One of the main reasons I can see us taking Ritchie is in fact our division.

Him Kassian Lain and Grenier/Archibald, Sestito all on our roster for a full season or two, all large big bodies that are not afraid to just beat other players to a pulp; will serve notice to our division and the league that touching anyone at any time on the ice in a Canucks uniform could result in a significant loss of chiclets or a busted nose.

Knowing that the 2015 and 2016 draft are both reportedly supposed to have a much higher quality of forwards I would have NO issue taking a big guy like Ritchie just to cement that fear in our division.

And let us be honest, the idea of Kassian Lain and Ritchie on a line against LA, San Jose or Anaheim....is kind of sexy really when you think about the absolute amount of damage that line could cause. That's almost 700+ pounds of forward line that will drop the mitts with anyone.

Having that kind of physicality and a reputation with it on this team would go a long ways in regards to protecting any of the smaller more skilled players we would draft develop or trade for.

As a shorter or smaller player knowing that there is a hulking beast over your shoulder to protect you has to be a confidence boost.

If we indeed draft Ritchie and he makes the team next year along with Horvat (IMO it's a waste for Horvat to spend another year in junior) we should make a third line of Ritchie - Horvat - Kassian. That line would be fun to watch and can create damage physically and on the scoreboard.

[Warhippy]

If we indeed draft Ritchie and he makes the team next year along with Horvat (IMO it's a waste for Horvat to spend another year in junior) we should make a third line of Ritchie - Horvat - Kassian. That line would be fun to watch and can create damage physically and on the scoreboard.

No argument there.

but that only brings into question the following.

Are we rushing our players into the league because they're physically ready even if their skills could use refining?

and

Isn't this hihglighting exactly the issue with picking smaller players is that we cannot just bring them right into the league?

[Absent Canuck]

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.

He does have the frame to travel at Raymonds 180, which is the same as MacKinnons weight.