6th Pick: 2014 NHL Entry Draft

[Absent Canuck]

He played in North America until 2011.

Yes he did. And he did a whopping job of it too. However, he was 14 years old at the time. I was thinking more along the lines of junior hockey and now in his mens league.

But yes, you are right.

[granpappy]

I'm not going to deny that Nylander's defensive game needs some work and that he does shy's away from the physical game. He has flaws, I can admit this unlike some Ehler supporters. I just see an unreal amount of skill in him and that's what excites me. He has great vision and is extremely smooth when he controls the puck. I see a lot of Backstrom in his game. But it really depends on what this team feels we need.

I also like virtanen a lot. He brings a lot more overall game. He hit's, he's fast, he's got a good shot.

I think we can all agree that outside the top 5 it's down to Ritchie, Virtanen, Nylander, Ehlers, and some could even put in Kapanen. We should be happy with who ever this team picks as all kids have great potential.

not skinny euros. the big thing about him is he becomes very small when compare with ritchie and none of the euros and even ehlers will be canadian, that means no brave heart and no champions ring only wound licking and crying, virtanen tough boy and he beat up all his friends, ritchie have eyes in the backs of his head and they looking in front too! nylander cant spell his name and ehlers will help him

[Absent Canuck]

Bernier had over 100pts in the qmjhl in his draft year. Pierre-Marc bouchard had 140pts in the Q in his draft year and never really amounted to that much (couple 60pt seasons). So what Ehlers also put up 100pts.

Judging a player solely in the quantity of points he put up in Junior to prove he will be a guaranteed success in the NHL is flawed.

Looking at everything that player does and relating it to whether it will translate to the NHL is better than posting statistics. Not saying Ehlers is a bad pick at 6 but stating that he put up 100pts isn't a worthy argument for justifying the pick.

I think you might be looking at the wrong stats . We are talking about post lock out. As in 2005 and beyond. A whole pile of folks put up 100 points pre lockout.

The players who have put it up since the lockout are Crosby, Brassard, Giroux, Huberdeau Drouin, and now Ehlers. Not an easy task anymore to say the least. 6 guys in the last 10 years.

You may have guessed that was the case due to the fact the first guy on the list did it in ........well 2005.

Perhaps you werent aware of that when it was stated about 30 pages ago and repeatedly since.

Jumping the gun and running to tell someone you think you found a flaw in their post before you found out all the facts is presumptuous at best. Then to furthermore claim its the only reason why anyone would want to draft Ehlers alone is outright disingenuous

But I guess that is the price you pay when you shift your interest from the topic into trying to find a 'gotcha' moment in someone elses post and then assign a conclusion to what their motives are.

In fact, I want the 2 min I wasted replying to your post back.

But instead, lets turn it into something constructive.

You stated that Ehlers isnt a bad pick at #6. Why do you think so ?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

I think you might be looking at the wrong stats bud. We are talking about post lock out. As in 2005 and beyond. A whole pile of folks put up 100 points in the

" His most productive junior season came in his draft year, 2002–03, when he scored 49 goals and 101 points, ninth in league scoring. "

Why does post lock out matter? It wasn't like the Q had a lockout. Now your cherry picking and manipulating numbers to make a person look better. I can say the same type of thing and say no Dane has never put up more than 25 goals in a year before, Therefore he’s in a weak group of company and it’s not looking good for him.

Your putting way too much emphasis on this 100 points in his draft year. Scouts obviously don’t think that highly of it as most mock drafts have him ranked between 6-13^th and not in the top 5.

Mackinnon didn’t make that important 100 point club and was taken 1^st overall. It just shows that Mack had way more to his game and that it’s not just about points. If Ehlers was flawless, he would be ranked 1^st overall and not past 6^th.

[Absent Canuck]

But then there's Naslund, Morrison and other players we've had that have had success. Gretzky comes to mind as an undersized player as well. Clearly they're all different, but to discount a player purely based on his size is a little shortsighted.

I know that's not the only argument you've made on the subject, but you and absent are going to go round and round on this one if you can't acknowledge he does have a high level of skill. Whether that's enough for him to succeed in the NHL or if it makes him worthy of a top 5/6 pick is another story, same with Nylander, and same with the opposite effect to bigger players like Ritchie and Virtanen.

That is the reason I dont even bother to reply to the guys posts. He is riddled with vitriol. He enjoys fighting with people while hiding behind the internet using a fake name.

I myself think Ritchie and Virtanen make excellent pros. I think they both deserve to be drafted in the top 10. I would prefer Ehlers and if not then Nylander for us at #6.

The amount of people who get bent out of shape over the concept that others want someone other than who they want is beyond anything that could be defended as reasonable adult behavior.

We want Ehlers . So what? They dont have to cry a river over it. They want Ritchie or Virtanen. Good for them.

[Absent Canuck]

" His most productive junior season came in his draft year, 2002–03, when he scored 49 goals and 101 points, ninth in league scoring. "

Why does post lock out matter? It wasn't like the Q had a lockout. Now your cherry picking and manipulating numbers to make a person look better. I can say the same type of thing and say no Dane has never put up more than 25 goals in a year before, Therefore he’s in a weak group of company and it’s not looking good for him.

Your putting way too much emphasis on this 100 points in his draft year. Scouts obviously don’t think that highly of it as most mock drafts have him ranked between 6-13^th and not in the top 5.

Mackinnon didn’t make that important 100 point club and was taken 1^st overall. It just shows that Mack had way more to his game and that it’s not just about points. If Ehlers was flawless, he would be ranked 1^st overall and not past 6^th.

Because we were looking back 10 years. The lock out is a pretty cut and dry period where a lot of discussion on a whole range of topics since then. Its not the end all be all. Its just the last 10 year look back. We have been quite clear on it for about 30 pages or so.

You just forgot ? You just NOW clued into that?

Let me get this straight. You figured Sidney Crosby was the FIRST guy in QMHJL in 2005? First in history to get 100 points in his draft year? Thats impossible. You cant possibly be that stoned.

What I want to know is why do I have to keep explaining ,and re explaining all these facts to you guys. At some point you sound like guys who dont even care anymore what the discussion is. You just want to continue to argue. Argue over anything.

This forum and this topic is not about you hiding behind a computer using a fake name trying to 'prove some else wrong' and get into never ending arguments.

You are wasting your time. You have wasted mine for the last time.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Because we were looking back 10 years. The lock out is a pretty cut and dry period where a lot of discussion on a whole range of topics since then. Its not the end all be all. Its just the last 10 year look back. We have been quite clear on it for about 30 pages or so.

You just forgot ? You just NOW clued into that?

Let me get this straight. You figured Sidney Crosby was the FIRST guy in QMHJL in 2005? First in history to get 100 points in his draft year? Thats impossible. You cant possibly be that stoned.

What I want to know is why do I have to keep explaining ,and re explaining all these facts to you guys. At some point you sound like guys who dont even care anymore what the discussion is. You just want to continue to argue. Argue over anything.

This forum and this topic is not about you hiding behind a computer using a fake name trying to 'prove some else wrong' and get into never ending arguments.

You are wasting your time. You have wasted mine for the last time.

No i’m just continuing to point out how dumb you look cherry picking stats that have no relevance to how good a players nhl career will be, yet you continue to through this crap out like it means something. keep on throwing out the good old “100point in draft year” Who cares. You have no other argument than that. Even mock draft don't agree with your assumptions but you continue to defend your stance.

You are probably one of the worst posters on this forum and once you make your mind up about something you won't even open the door a crack to see what's on the outside.

No one is try to say Ehlers sucks. All people are doing is weighing the pro's and con's on each prospect with “relevant” stats and information. Not manipulated information to make someone look better. This isn't the Ehlers thread.

And the part about using a fake name, it's called a user name, If your parents named you "absent canuck" I can see there are more issues for you, then this forum. Lots of people on this forumn know my actual name. I'm sorry a computer is the means to communicate, should we meet in person and have this discussion over coffee... Get over yourself....

[coyotecanuck]

Watching these playoffs, and past playoffs, it is clear to me that you need guys who can fight through the cluthing and grabbing. Because every year it gets worse earlier.

Obviously you can point to Kane and JT and say that they are able to fight through it, but they are special players and I don't think any so called skilled players in this draft has their skill and compete level, and come next round it will be tougher against a big Pacific team.

So despite some good arguments for NYlander and EHLers, I say Ritchie is the clear choice, you simply can't pass on that combination of size, quickness and shot, especially when you are rebuilding and will probably have a chance to snag some high end talent next draft.

[messier's_elbow]

They are lying about Ehlers to make their prospects seem better. Golden rule; if you cant make your prospect look good enough compared to the other prospects, then rip apart the others to drag them down so your guy looks better.

This is one of the rare posts where someone has the gall to put forth an objective point without using hyperbole or subjective bias. Good for you. +1

It is true we have Shinkaruk. They are very similar players. Agreed. Ehlers is taller and is faster, but it could be argued that Shinkaruk has has a better shot and is a pure goal scorer.

I dont believe you pass a prospect up just because you already have another scoring winger as a prospect. If you honestly have apples to apples a better the same level prospect at center or a defenseman, it would be a compelling argument to take the center first, then the defender and then winger.

In this case our choice is to take .............another winger. According to the same logic we already have Ritchie in the form of Kassian.

Virtanen would be a kind of hybrid between Ehlers and Ritchie. So using that line of logic we already have Shinkaruk and Kassian but we have no Virtanen.

So if Virtanen is the same quality of prospect as Ehlers, then take Virtanen. But he isnt. He has the speed, and shot that Ehlers does. He even has more size than Ehlers does and is 6 months younger. However, to be fair he does not have the skills or hockey IQ that Ehlers has. Ehlers scored more goals in fewer games and got a whopping 33 more points in fewer games.

So instead we could choose neither. We could pick William Nylander. This kid is a center / winger. If he is as good as everyone says he is, He will be a bigger version of Claude Girouix. Unfortunately Nylander has never played the North American game and it becomes a risk as his game revolves around maneuvering in open ice..

These are all thing that I am sure the Canucks are pondering. I appreciate the OP making an unbiased point and laying off the hyperbole and other useless insults.

I like Ehlers, he could be a star one day after a few years of sculpting that slight frame. But they arent going to take him for the reasons I stated. If you want Ehlers you are going to have to poison Shinkaruk or get Linden to trade him. They are taking Ritchie or Virtanen id bet money on it. This is an unbiased opinion , I dont care who they pick as long as its not Nylander, I was high on him till I heard the "rumors"

[theminister]

I'm not going to deny that Nylander's defensive game needs some work and that he does shy's away from the physical game. He has flaws, I can admit this unlike some Ehler supporters. I just see an unreal amount of skill in him and that's what excites me. He has great vision and is extremely smooth when he controls the puck. I see a lot of Backstrom in his game. But it really depends on what this team feels we need.

I also like virtanen a lot. He brings a lot more overall game. He hit's, he's fast, he's got a good shot.

I think we can all agree that outside the top 5 it's down to Ritchie, Virtanen, Nylander, Ehlers, and some could even put in Kapanen. We should be happy with who ever this team picks as all kids have great potential.

This is basically exactly where I fall as well.

Nylander, albeit not without risk, has huge game potential. His skill level tops the board on average against the rest of the players outside of the top 5. I also find his international experience, and his ability to raise his game each time, to be a great indicator of his top end potential. Despite TOML's assessment, he has been able to do this consistently against his peers for 3 years and showed his best hockey. He doesn't shrink he raises his game.

It's my belief that he also will be champing at the bit to get to NA even if it means some time in the AHL. He has experience living on this side of the pond so his adjustment to the off ice conditions will be smooth. Whether he can translate his game to NA rink size and opponents is the same question everyone will have for him. I believe this is overstated. His previous education on smaller rinks, where he learned to play hockey , is no worse than any Euro prospect. In fact, by these indicators it should be better.

As with Ehlers, I don't put stock in the argument that he can't play in the NHL or Pacific because of his size. That issue will be dictated by his will, off ice training, and support network. In this regard I consider the Canucks organization a great fit. The positional fit is good, the mentorship is in place, and he had a good group of young players to grow with to compliment his game. He currently has defensive questions, which I factor about 3/4 of skilled draft eligible players to have, but he has more than enough time to shore this up and possibly turn it into a positive mark in the ledger.

Will he take time? I think so. Two years more of SEL and an apprenticeship in the AHL for half a season. Then one would expect him to step onto a scoring line in the NHL. Worst case scenario for development curve would be to add another year to this IMHO. 3.5 seasons before becoming a top 6 in the NHL. There is some bust potential there, but not as much as is being stated I think, and there is huge boom potential.

Ultimately I think his future will depend greatly on the team that drafts him. If he goes to an organization with a poor history of development like Edm or Tor I think the risk is increased. If he goes to a team that handles him correctly he could be a major diamond and should one day be the in the conversation of best players outside the NHL.

[messier's_elbow]

This is basically exactly where I fall as well.

Nylander, albeit not without risk, has huge game potential. His skill level tops the board on average against the rest of the players outside of the top 5. I also find his international experience, and his ability to raise his game each time, to be a great indicator of his top end potential. Despite TOML's assessment, he has been able to do this consistently against his peers for 3 years and showed his best hockey. He doesn't shrink he raises his game.

It's my belief that he also will be champing at the bit to get to NA even if it means some time in the AHL. He has experience living on this side of the pond so his adjustment to the off ice conditions will be smooth. Whether he can translate his game to NA rink size and opponents is the same question everyone will have for him. I believe this is overstated. His previous education on smaller rinks, where he learned to play hockey , is no worse than any Euro prospect. In fact, by these indicators it should be better.

As with Ehlers, I don't put stock in the argument that he can't play in the NHL or Pacific because of his size. That issue will be dictated by his will, off ice training, and support network. In this regard I consider the Canucks organization a great fit. The positional fit is good, the mentorship is in place, and he had a good group of young players to grow with to compliment his game. He currently has defensive questions, which I factor about 3/4 of skilled draft eligible players to have, but he has more than enough time to shore this up and possibly turn it into a positive mark in the ledger.

Will he take time? I think so. Two years more of SEL and an apprenticeship in the AHL for half a season. Then one would expect him to step onto a scoring line in the NHL. Worst case scenario for development curve would be to add another year to this IMHO. 3.5 seasons before becoming a top 6 in the NHL. There is some bust potential there, but not as much as is being stated I think, and there is huge boom potential.

Ultimately I think his future will depend greatly on the team that drafts him. If he goes to an organization with a poor history of development like Edm or Tor I think the risk is increased. If he goes to a team that handles him correctly he could be a major diamond and should one day be the in the conversation of best players outside the NHL.

Nylander is way to big of a risk at number 6. He might turn into a star but thats not a risk Id be willing to take if they "rumors" about him not being a team player and being soft are true.

[theminister]

Nylander is way to big of a risk at number 6. He might turn into a star but thats not a risk Id be willing to take if they "rumors" about him not being a team player and being soft are true.

I disagree. The risk is overstated IMHO.

The only reference I've seen for rumours of troubles have been from one USA Today article. Have you seen more that aren't directly related to that one? I haven't.

If the risk is his attitude, which I'd agree would not be insignificant if substantiated, then there would require additional information to affirm. What are the mitigating factors? What are the particulars? What is his statement on the subject? When were they last detailed? All of these questions would need to be investigated before I let it sway my in game assessment.

[Merci]

Watching these playoffs, and past playoffs, it is clear to me that you need guys who can fight through the cluthing and grabbing. Because every year it gets worse earlier.

Obviously you can point to Kane and JT and say that they are able to fight through it, but they are special players and I don't think any so called skilled players in this draft has their skill and compete level, and come next round it will be tougher against a big Pacific team.

So despite some good arguments for NYlander and EHLers, I say Ritchie is the clear choice, you simply can't pass on that combination of size, quickness and shot, especially when you are rebuilding and will probably have a chance to snag some high end talent next draft.

A big reason I want Ritchie is because I think we miss the playoffs again next season, and with another top 5 pick we can really pick an agile sniper.

WE can't pass on the talent that exists in that 235lb body, the kid can snipe in one timers and make full speed saucer passes.

Do Not Pass on that

[Absent Canuck]

I like Ehlers, he could be a star one day after a few years of sculpting that slight frame. But they arent going to take him for the reasons I stated. If you want Ehlers you are going to have to poison Shinkaruk or get Linden to trade him. They are taking Ritchie or Virtanen id bet money on it. This is an unbiased opinion , I dont care who they pick as long as its not Nylander, I was high on him till I heard the "rumors"

Your post is hyperbole about Ehlers frame , then projecting your wants onto the teams new president without any evidence (if thats even possible) then you move onto predicting the future based on nothing but your own wishes to finally declaring your neutrality in it all.

Instead of writing the above nonsense , why not just , tell the truth? ;

........I cant deny Ehlers has talent but I want to point out that he is smaller than Ritchie and Virtanen , and it will take years for him to gain weight on his whispy frame before he has a chance............If you want Ehlers well then I set that bar for drafting him an impossible threshold of killing our other highly skilled scoring winger because I have declared you cant have two scoring wingers as prospects.......and by this deduction we arent killing Shinkaruk ergo we arent taking Ehlers.

.......I have decided to speak for Linden like I know him personally and what I say is fact..I have decided to project onto Trevor my thoughts and simply call them his. I believe you will buy this if I also am willing to throw in the idle threat of hiding behind the internet with a fake name and bet currency with you. That will show you I mean business.........

..........after I have told you how the Canucks management will proceed even though I have no association to them and they dont know I exist, I will then proceed to declare that I have no subjective opinion on the matter. I am just relaying the message to you from the powers that be.............

.........and to further punctuate my objectivity , thus my credibility, I will have the temerity to suggest to you that in spite of all my posting , continual arguing for weeks on end, and my latest attempt at melancholy, .......I dont mind either way who the Canucks draft.

You have lost the ability to be honest. And with all due respect, I am not interested in it.

Here is how you write an honest post.

-I have no idea who Linden or the Nucks will draft. I want Dal Colle or Draisaitl to fall. If not, I want Ehlers at #6. I would take Nylander if not Ehlers, and then I believe Ritchie would be the other alternative after that. I like Ritchie and Virtanen. I think Ehlers is the better prospect.

I would actually prefer to take both Ehlers and Virtanen. If we could get ahold of the #10 spot, i take him, even if Ritchie is still avail . I have been consistent on this. I dont begrudge you guys for wanting the other prospects. I dont begrudge you if you want any prospect or no prospect. Its fine by me.

Next time you want to caption one of my posts , give me the basic courtesy of telling the truth.

.......

[TGokou]

I also want to point out that maybe we should draft the guy that will make his teammates better. Virtanen may be a pure goalscorer but seems like he needs teammates that can make him better. Ritchie is either or to me because he can create space for his teammates and has decent passing skills. Ehlers appears to be a player that could make his teammates better by drawing defenders in due to his speed and excellent passing skills

[elvis15]

That is the reason I dont even bother to reply to the guys posts. He is riddled with vitriol. He enjoys fighting with people while hiding behind the internet using a fake name.

I myself think Ritchie and Virtanen make excellent pros. I think they both deserve to be drafted in the top 10. I would prefer Ehlers and if not then Nylander for us at #6.

The amount of people who get bent out of shape over the concept that others want someone other than who they want is beyond anything that could be defended as reasonable adult behavior.

We want Ehlers . So what? They dont have to cry a river over it. They want Ritchie or Virtanen. Good for them.

I could have easily quoted one of your posts - you're not immune from the same criticism looking at a number of your posts in this thread.

But back on topic, I'm with ForsbergTheGreat and theminister because of Nylander's high end skill. I feel it's that much above anyone else we might have available, and only someone dropping from the consensus top 5 would give me pause. Of course, this is without access to interviews and combine results for these players and those kinds of things could greatly change anyone's opinion on who to pick.

[messier's_elbow]

Your post is hyperbole about Ehlers frame , then projecting your wants onto the teams new president without any evidence (if thats even possible) then you move onto predicting the future based on nothing but your own wishes to finally declaring your neutrality in it all.

Instead of writing the above nonsense , why not just , tell the truth? ;

........I cant deny Ehlers has talent but I want to point out that he is smaller than Ritchie and Virtanen , and it will take years for him to gain weight on his whispy frame before he has a chance............If you want Ehlers well then I set that bar for drafting him an impossible threshold of killing our other highly skilled scoring winger because I have declared you cant have two scoring wingers as prospects.......and by this deduction we arent killing Shinkaruk ergo we arent taking Ehlers.

.......I have decided to speak for Linden like I know him personally and what I say is fact..I have decided to project onto Trevor my thoughts and simply call them his. I believe you will buy this if I also am willing to throw in the idle threat of hiding behind the internet with a fake name and bet currency with you. That will show you I mean business.........

..........after I have told you how the Canucks management will proceed even though I have no association to them and they dont know I exist, I will then proceed to declare that I have no subjective opinion on the matter. I am just relaying the message to you from the powers that be.............

.........and to further punctuate my objectivity , thus my credibility, I will have the temerity to suggest to you that in spite of all my posting , continual arguing for weeks on end, and my latest attempt at melancholy, .......I dont mind either way who the Canucks draft.

You have lost the ability to be honest. And with all due respect, I am not interested in it.

Here is how you write an honest post.

-I have no idea who Linden or the Nucks will draft. I want Dal Colle or Draisaitl to fall. If not, I want Ehlers at #6. I would take Nylander if not Ehlers, and then I believe Ritchie would be the other alternative after that. I like Ritchie and Virtanen. I think Ehlers is the better prospect.

I would actually prefer to take both Ehlers and Virtanen. If we could get ahold of the #10 spot, i take him, even if Ritchie is still avail . I have been consistent on this. I dont begrudge you guys for wanting the other prospects. I dont begrudge you if you want any prospect or no prospect. Its fine by me.

Next time you want to caption one of my posts , give me the basic courtesy of telling the truth.

.......

Lol my point is they wont take Ehlers if Shinkaruk is in the system unless there is a trade in the works. You can never have enough scoring wingers, yes,but they are both the same position and the same finesse type player.We are in the west we cant have too many players like the especially in the same position. Do you honestly think they will take Ehlers? If they do im fine with it, but id be shocked. We could use a right shot with size in Virtanen or Ritchie would look great with Horvat and Kassian. Especially if we end up trading Kesler, we will need more size.

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

Im dreading the day when draft day comes cause whoever we select, all the fanboys for that player will be harping endlessly over their new found interest.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Im dreading the day when draft day comes cause whoever we select, all the fanboys for that player will be harping endlessly over their new found interest.

And somehow still blame Gillis over our selected pick

[Derp...]

Will anyone be unhappy if we select Michael Dal Colle at 6 if he falls? I just want to know so that we could potentially have a pick everyone can be happy with..

It's a dream I know, but I had a dream... wasn't about this at all, but that doesn't matter.