Nikolaj Ehlers

[NucksCup2015]

Wow, honestly buddy it’s not even worth my time to reply to that…..but I’m bored at work, so I’ll bite

Only reason I brought up my past hockey is because you seem to think only people who’ve played the game understand player development. Am I bitter? Sure, not as much as a few years ago, but why wouldn’t I be. I knew after I walked off my team in midget it was going to be an uphill battle (coach was an idiot). If you don’t believe I played with Raymond in Camrose I could care less, it honestly doesn’t prove I’m more knowledgeable in scouting young talent anyway.

Here’s the difference between you and me. (with regards to drafting) You are set on one player. You pretend like you’re not but anytime someone throws out an argument against your player “ehler” you get extremely defensive and start putting down the other players. I like Nylander. But if canucks decided to draft a different player that’s when my allegiance to him ends and I’ll support who’ve the canucks end up draft. Why because canucks scouts have a better handle on predicting a players future success. Scouts don’t just watch, they talk to the player/teammates of the player/coaches/ other team coaches and get a way better handle on the player than any of us fans can.

If the canucks happen to pick Ritchie 6^th overall and Ehlers goes 7^th, You are likely going to hold a grudge on Ritchie for the very reasons that you’ve been posting about him on the previous page. If Ritchie takes a bit longer to develop and Ehlers has a strong first season you will likely be up in arms with are management over there decision (very similarly to what has happened with Kassian since the trade). If canucks don’t pick Nylander and he turns out to be a star, I’m not going to gloat as my depth on all the players this year is limited to what I’m able to read and rarely see. And honestly it would have been just a lucky guess on my part.

grudge? lol sorry I actually think Ehlers is a better player and my experience in hockey tends to tell me I am a good judge of that, choose to believe it or not. Moreover, I just want the Canucks to get better, and a strategic person can look at their future team needs and easily assesses what is lacking. Who knows who will be better, both could bust, neither could, or one could.

Moreover, clearly your comments and constant worries about whether some anonymous person on the internet believing you played with Mason Raymond or not mean a little too much to you, which again signifies either you are incredibly insecure or, you never played a damn thing and are trying to constantly pretend you did in order to lend legitimacy to your views.

I could care less who you are or are not.

[NucksCup2015]

You won't believe this because you lack perspective but I know of three ex NHL players who use this site, one of which uses his own name as his username, as well as half a dozen high profile members of the media.

Just because you have no associations in those circles doesn't mean no one else does.

You've already demonstrated to me to have an inaptitude toward reading comprehension and, as such, your opinion is found wanting.

that's nice, I don't care what you believe, that was the point

lack perspective hey, that's an interesting comment, your opinion really hurt me, my experience tells me otherwise

No assocations in those circles hey, pretty big assumption Does an NHLPA email address count?

High profile media types? Who Botchford? Probably does post on here given his lack of hockey knowledge lol

[theminister]

Wow, honestly buddy its not even worth my time to reply to that..but Im bored at work, so Ill bite

Only reason I brought up my past hockey is because you seem to think only people whove played the game understand player development. Am I bitter? Sure, not as much as a few years ago, but why wouldnt I be. I knew after I walked off my team in midget it was going to be an uphill battle (coach was an idiot). If you dont believe I played with Raymond in Camrose I could care less, it honestly doesnt prove Im more knowledgeable in scouting young talent anyway.

Heres the difference between you and me. (with regards to drafting) You are set on one player. You pretend like youre not but anytime someone throws out an argument against your player ehler you get extremely defensive and start putting down the other players. I like Nylander. But if canucks decided to draft a different player thats when my allegiance to him ends and Ill support whove the canucks end up draft. Why because canucks scouts have a better handle on predicting a players future success. Scouts dont just watch, they talk to the player/teammates of the player/coaches/ other team coaches and get a way better handle on the player than any of us fans can.

If the canucks happen to pick Ritchie 6^th overall and Ehlers goes 7^th, You are likely going to hold a grudge on Ritchie for the very reasons that youve been posting about him on the previous page. If Ritchie takes a bit longer to develop and Ehlers has a strong first season you will likely be up in arms with are management over there decision (very similarly to what has happened with Kassian since the trade). If canucks dont pick Nylander and he turns out to be a star, Im not going to gloat as my depth on all the players this year is limited to what Im able to read and rarely see. And honestly it would have been just a lucky guess on my part.

Don't worry about it. It's not worth responding to him.

FWIW, I'm on exactly the same page. I prefer Nylander as the best player outside of the top ranked 5 but am content that Canucks will likely choose Ritchie. Both are excellent prospects, as is Ehlers, Kapanen, Virtanen, Perlini, Fleury, et al who may be drafted there.

In the end we all are more likely to have more misses than hits, especially when factoring later picked players, but it is a drawn out process. With regards to Junior A, part of the factor is that there are less positions to be drafted from those leagues every year, usually 6-12 per league at most. It was always a long shot. Even with regards to junior, I always recommend players use their educational credits for these reasons.

/ Also, apparently your hockey card goes for $2.50 on the web. But then again so does AJ Nelson's.

[theminister]

that's nice, I don't care what you believe, that was the pointlack perspective hey, that's an interesting comment, your opinion really hurt me, my experience tells me otherwiseNo assocations in those circles hey, pretty big assumption Does an NHLPA email address count?High profile media types? Who Botchford? Probably does post on here given his lack of hockey knowledge lol

You should have used your educational credits.

So why not just tell us who you are? ForsbergTheGreat did.

[asian player]

that's nice, I don't care what you believe, that was the point

lack perspective hey, that's an interesting comment, your opinion really hurt me, my experience tells me otherwise

No assocations in those circles hey, pretty big assumption Does an NHLPA email address count?

High profile media types? Who Botchford? Probably does post on here given his lack of hockey knowledge lol

Grow up... he's not saying this to hurt you and you respond in a way to show your immaturity. This is a message board where we all have different opinions, yet your condescending attitude just makes you look like a fool, considering the points you make are stupid

[Vancanwincup]

As I said I could careless if we take ehlers, Ritche,Nylander or who ever at 6th. If canucks take Ehlers at sixth good i'll be happy, I trust that our scouting staff knows way more about the upcoming players than everyone on CDC. I find if funny that people believe their own created hype so much that they make up false facts (as Nuckscup2015 did or outdated scouting reports, as you did in the other thread) to support their claim, On top of this, people completely right off other players in the consideration and dismiss the same arguments being made for their current claim.

It's like "If the canucks don't take Ehlers at 6th and they take ____whoever instead they made a terrible mistake" If canucks take _____ over Ehlers at 6th, it's because they know something you don. All these threads have turned into a draw a line in the stand and stick with it type arguments, all it doesn't is bring immediate negativity onto our selected player as people will pout that "their" player wasn't selected. Just like happened with the Kassian trade, instead of being excited for what kassian brings to this team they write him off and still worship hodgson, now that is ridiculous...

Yes, but "how can you not agree with me attitude" is what makes discussion fun!

Although lots of false facts being spread around.

A lot of people are also influenced by friends and family as to what the Canucks need. You have the big bad fan base that loves the big mean hockey player; that love calling the Sedins "sisters"( stupidest most clueless statement). They will always go with size even though the smaller player is the better overall player.

Then you have the fans base that loves speed and elite skills all they care about is points.

The fan base that can see a mix is needed; they know taking the best player available is the best option, unless your organization is badly missing a certain element in their prospect pool.

Drafting or scouting players has many levels that many people over look. Just to list a few people over look;

1) Stats evaluation can be broken down into many sub stats:

A) age of player when points were put up

level of players playing with and against

C) are the points spread out and even against all level of teams

D) transition between another league

and a lot more...

When evaluating players skating the most over looked aspect is:

1) Can they pivot equally on both legs ( turn left and right)

2) Are they able to go from forward skating to backward skating without trouble.

3) Lateral mobility or only good skating straight a head.

4) Balance

and a lot more...

I do not think most people understand the scouts have to watch a game totally different than a fan does. A whole game is spent watching one player and only that player not the game. They watch how they are on the bench, without the puck, the whole focus is on the player. This is why scouting reports are so important.

So it is important to look at placing of players on scouting reports, but then again it is just opinions of strangers really. We are hoping these scouts are not lazy and not only going off the scouts that are trying to do their jobs. I do believe that an eye for talent is rare.

What I'm getting at is no one really knows how a player is going to turn out not even the people that get paid to do so.

[Tangerines]

I think it would be great to draft Elhers at 6th (If the big 5 don't fall), and maybe a guy like Tuch at 10th (if we trade Kesler) to balance it out. I would rather do that then pick up Ritche at 6th, and Nylander at 10th, but either would be pretty sweet I guess. I just think having a big centerman would be more ideal. I think Tuch is in the same mold of a guy like Bujugstad. Big, power centerman with a good all around skillset.

[Absent Canuck]

Just a couple of points...You guys do realize that this year was Ehlers' first year in NA, don't you? For anyone (European or Russian) to come over to NA and have the season that Ehlers did their FIRST year speaks volumes! And, as the year progressed, and his adjustment to the ice and to the game grew, so did his performance. This guy is an incredible talent.

And as far as the idea that his numbers are inflated due to playing with Drouin...I think some people were saying the same thing about Drouin (playing with McKinnon!).

If the Canucks choose Ehlers, I expect he will be playing another season in Juniors. Probably without Drouin. That will be fun to watch!

None of this advances the narrative they want to put forward so it will be utterly ignored.

Also, Ehlers played on a separate line than Drouin but that is also systematically ignored in the attempts to troll.

Another telling stat about Ehlers coming from europe. There is another guy who came from Europe who played one year in the QMJHL for his draft year.

Jacob Voracek came from the Czech Republic but he was only able to put up 86 points. Ehlers put up 104. Voracek was drafted 6th overall I do believe.

NHL.com now has Ehlers listed as 176 pounds . Some sites say 5ft 11 , some say 6ft and one says 5ft 11 1/2

So 5ft 11 1/2 and 176 as an 18 year old simply is not small. Its big enough.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Don't worry about it. It's not worth responding to him.

FWIW, I'm on exactly the same page. I prefer Nylander as the best player outside of the top ranked 5 but am content that Canucks will likely choose Ritchie. Both are excellent prospects, as is Ehlers, Kapanen, Virtanen, Perlini, Fleury, et al who may be drafted there.

In the end we all are more likely to have more misses than hits, especially when factoring later picked players, but it is a drawn out process. With regards to Junior A, part of the factor is that there are less positions to be drafted from those leagues every year, usually 6-12 per league at most. It was always a long shot. Even with regards to junior, I always recommend players use their educational credits for these reasons.

/ Also, apparently your hockey card goes for $2.50 on the web. But then again so does AJ Nelson's.

Haha top dollar, I didn't even know I had one. I had a bad rep with attitude back then, although I felt it was just because I always wanted to win. Best route would have been to continue on in NCAA, I have lots friends that did that and ended up playing in Europe making decent salaries. Hockey is such a crap shoot, you either need to be an unreal talent or have everything somehow go your way, (good coaches, good line mates, scouts showing up to the right game). As an example if Mackinnon got sent back this year and Drouin also started the season in Halifax, Ehlers might not have got that shot to show what he has, He could have been stuck on the second line or not have been called on to play such an important role on the team.

Yeah I really like Nylander talent wise, the biggest knock on him is attitude. I know far too well about that. But in my opinion as long as his desire to win is higher than his own personal achievements, I’m ok with it. Richards and Carter also had attitude problems and they have a cup and gold medals, Patty Kane and Seguin also have bad reps. If a coaching staff knows how to deal with it shouldn’t be a problem. Skill and vision he has clearly shown he has, plus he is already playing against men. But, like you said, I’m ok with whoever, all have good chances of being good additions to our roster.

[Tangerines]

I still can't figure out why it's in Canucks Talk.

Baffling.

Because he will become a Canuck on draft day 2014

[Absent Canuck]

For this guy to be a worthwhile pick at 6 you have to be convinced he will be an elite scorer in the NHL, as in less than 25 goals a year is disappointing. If he's gonna be a ~20 goal top 6 guy, I'd rather take one of the big north american wingers. Most little guys that are impact players in NHL have junior numbers that are off the charts, like briere, ronning.

In his favor I will say he has better numbers than Giroux at the same age for what it's worth. He's approx the same size too, but the fact he plays with Drouin and is European count against him, Also I don't think he has Giroux's mean streak.

Your post mixes your own subjective beliefs with hyperbole . Lets stick to the facts.

Nobody knows if Ehlers will score 60 goals or 10 goals a year.Nobody knows if he will turn into Matt Cooke or Kyle Wellwood .

Odds are he is none of these scenarios.

However, we do have the objective facts of those who came before him accomplished under the same circumstances.

He accomplished only what Crosby , Girioux , Brassard, Huberdeau and Drouin accomplished. This is an objective fact.

And only Brassard and Huberdeau are taller than Ehlers so he is not some minuscule case out of the above list.

On top of this, there was another guy who came from Europe to play is draft year in the QMJHL . Voracek came and got 86 points. He was drafted 6th overall and its fair to say he has come along quite nicely.

Ehlers got 104 .

You can try to then put your own feelings and bias' into these objective facts but it will not change them. It stands to reason that Ehlers will turn out to be some mixture of what those other 4 players become (5th is Crosby)

There is nothing wrong with not wanting Ehlers because you want the young, strong local kid (Virtanen) or the big power forward in the making -hopefully. (Ritchie)

However, its not reasonable to have to try to knock Ehlers down to accomplish the goal of showing how great these other prospects are. Its a sign that deep down you know we might take Ehlers. This accomplishes nothing. It just leads to juvenile fights and wasted time.

We Ehlers fans have no need nor do we need to knock Ritchie or Virtanen down. Ehlers can stand on his own. If you want to behold these other prospects then do so without trying to spin negatives about Ehlers.

[NucksCup2015]

Your post mixes your own subjective beliefs with hyperbole . Lets stick to the facts.

Nobody knows if Ehlers will score 60 goals or 10 goals a year.Nobody knows if he will turn into Matt Cooke or Kyle Wellwood .

Odds are he is none of these scenarios.

However, we do have the objective facts of those who came before him accomplished under the same circumstances.

He accomplished only what Crosby , Girioux , Brassard, Huberdeau and Drouin accomplished. This is an objective fact.

And only Brassard and Huberdeau are taller than Ehlers so he is not some minuscule case out of the above list.

On top of this, there was another guy who came from Europe to play is draft year in the QMJHL . Voracek came and got 86 points. He was drafted 6th overall and its fair to say he has come along quite nicely.

Ehlers got 104 .

You can try to then put your own feelings and bias' into these objective facts but it will not change them. It stands to reason that Ehlers will turn out to be some mixture of what those other 4 players become (5th is Crosby)

There is nothing wrong with not wanting Ehlers because you want the young, strong local kid (Virtanen) or the big power forward in the making -hopefully. (Ritchie)

However, its not reasonable to have to try to knock Ehlers down to accomplish the goal of showing how great these other prospects are. Its a sign that deep down you know we might take Ehlers. This accomplishes nothing. It just leads to juvenile fights and wasted time.

We Ehlers fans have no need nor do we need to knock Ritchie or Virtanen down. Ehlers can stand on his own. If you want to behold these other prospects then do so without trying to spin negatives about Ehlers.

slow clap, well said

ps I sure hope Gilman liked what he saw when he went out to Halifax

[TOMapleLaughs]

None of this advances the narrative they want to put forward so it will be utterly ignored.

Also, Ehlers played on a separate line than Drouin but that is also systematically ignored in the attempts to troll.

Another telling stat about Ehlers coming from europe. There is another guy who came from Europe who played one year in the QMJHL for his draft year.

Jacob Voracek came from the Czech Republic but he was only able to put up 86 points. Ehlers put up 104. Voracek was drafted 6th overall I do believe.

NHL.com now has Ehlers listed as 176 pounds . Some sites say 5ft 11 , some say 6ft and one says 5ft 11 1/2

So 5ft 11 1/2 and 176 as an 18 year old simply is not small. Its big enough.

The fully story never seems to arrive in these posts.

Ehlers does a lot on the power play. He plays with Drouin on the power play. They also load up often and have played together lots in the playoffs. This is often ignored.

Voracek was 17 when he logged 86pts. He also didn't have the luxury of playing 2nd fiddle to a top-drafted star like Drouin.

NHL.com had him at 162 lbs 3wks ago. It also has him as 5'-10" now, meaning he either shrunk or there's little accuracy and much secrecy involved with the actual numbers leading up to the draft. But if you look using your eyeballs, you'll notice that he's small and he plays small too. Great in open ice, but not quite shifty enough against tight checking for deep in the zone unless he's on the power play. At least that's what I've noticed in that final series the Mooseheads were in, where I watched him extensively.

Oh, NHL.com also ranks him 13th. Not even close to 6th.

I'd be surprised if the Canucks took Ehlers that early. Same with Nylander. It will go against what Linden's been talking about thus far, for starters. Ritchie may be a 'big' option but there's concerns with injuries and intensity.

NHL.com has Jake Virtanen ranked 6th, up from 9th. 6'-0" 199lbs. Perhaps the scouts know something here? Perhaps we should trust the scouts?

[Tangerines]

I hope we draft Ehlers. He would be my choice, but that's just a personal prefference. I don't discredit any of the other posters opinions, or players that may be available/chosen at #6 instead. I just really hope Our scouts/Gm chooses the right guy for this team because it isn't very often that we have the ability to draft in the 6th position of the draft. I pray we get a future superstar and not a bust. It would really shed some light on this injury hampered season, and almost make it worthwhile that we don't get to see our team competing for the cup right now. I'll try not to get my hopes up though.

[NucksCup2015]

The fully story never seems to arrive in these posts.

Ehlers does a lot on the power play. He plays with Drouin on the power play. They also load up often and have played together lots in the playoffs. This is often ignored.

Voracek was 17 when he logged 86pts. He also didn't have the luxury of playing 2nd fiddle to a top-drafted star like Drouin.

NHL.com had him at 162 lbs 3wks ago. It also has him as 5'-10" now, meaning he either shrunk or there's little accuracy and much secrecy involved with the actual numbers leading up to the draft. But if you look using your eyeballs, you'll notice that he's small and he plays small too. Great in open ice, but not quite shifty enough against tight checking for deep in the zone unless he's on the power play. At least that's what I've noticed in that final series the Mooseheads were in, where I watched him extensively.

Oh, NHL.com also ranks him 13th. Not even close to 6th.

I'd be surprised if the Canucks took Ehlers that early. Same with Nylander. It will go against what Linden's been talking about thus far, for starters. Ritchie may be a 'big' option but there's concerns with injuries and intensity.

NHL.com has Jake Virtanen ranked 6th, up from 9th. 6'-0" 199lbs. Perhaps the scouts know something here? Perhaps we should trust the scouts?

Dale Tallon has also raved about this kid, thats the thing man, no one knows

but we know this, alot of players have been said to be too small and taken later in the draft because scouts have the same size bias as many here

and again, this guy is not Briere/St Louis small, he is Yzerman, Naslund, Sakic size and will grow

the extreme views here are hilarious, small means he's steve kariya apparently, no small means he's not the 'optimal size' according to scouts approach to drafting which as we all know is highly imperfect.

do you know why a Hall of Famer from Burnaby named Joe Sakic fell to 15 in his draft year? He was said to be too small at 5'11 and his numbers in the WHL would never translate to the NHL

do you know why Claude Giroux fell to 20 something ish? Beacuse he was too small and played in the QMJHL a high scoring league and his numbers would never translate to the NHL

Yes there are 1000's of players without optimal 6'1 200 lb size that failed being drafted high, as there are just as many players with optimal size who failed as well, but you can't teach talent buddy

End of the day the draft is always a crap shoot, but remove the typical biases and think a bit, do you want to roll the dice on a kid with elite upside or average upside? because it is a dice roll

if its average upside why wouldn't you take that later in the draft when the elite upside isn't available?

and im sorry but anyone trying to claim a kid in the Q in his rookie year, and only kid since crosby to score as many points as a rookie does not have elite skill has never played hockey

that is not luck, that is not being a beneficiary of other players (Drouin, who he doesn't play with regularly other than PP), its very easy to dismiss players as people here do so they can support their own views. As one poster mentioned be objective and look at what the kid could bring vs trying to suggest he doesn't have talent when all indications are clearly he does.

The fact that Ehlers has elite skill cannot be argued, he has already proven it at the junior level, his point totals. People can argue that all they want but its a fact.

[theminister]

Haha top dollar, I didn't even know I had one. I had a bad rep with attitude back then, although I felt it was just because I always wanted to win. Best route would have been to continue on in NCAA, I have lots friends that did that and ended up playing in Europe making decent salaries. Hockey is such a crap shoot, you either need to be an unreal talent or have everything somehow go your way, (good coaches, good line mates, scouts showing up to the right game). As an example if Mackinnon got sent back this year and Drouin also started the season in Halifax, Ehlers might not have got that shot to show what he has, He could have been stuck on the second line or not have been called on to play such an important role on the team.

Yeah I really like Nylander talent wise, the biggest knock on him is attitude. I know far too well about that. But in my opinion as long as his desire to win is higher than his own personal achievements, I’m ok with it. Richards and Carter also had attitude problems and they have a cup and gold medals, Patty Kane and Seguin also have bad reps. If a coaching staff knows how to deal with it shouldn’t be a problem. Skill and vision he has clearly shown he has, plus he is already playing against men. But, like you said, I’m ok with whoever, all have good chances of being good additions to our roster.

I'll give you an example that not many people would know…. Graham Black from Swift Current. He slipped to the 5th round in the draft despite being the best skater on the ice most nights. He has good hands, hockey sense and plays with urgency. So why did he not produce and fall in his draft year? Because he was undiagnosed with a medical condition that caused him to fatigue easily late in games and not keep on weight.

If it wasn't for a scout noticing something, and subsequently mentioning it to the player and his parents, he might never have gotten the help he needed. With this information NJ's scout took a chance on him while he struggled with the condition. Now he has received treatment and has it under control he has taken large jumps forward and now has a Pro contract.

If the draft was redone today he would rounds higher but if it wasn't for the scouts noticing something wasn't right, and encouraging his parents to get it looked at, he would have been passed over completely and no one would likely even know the main reason for it including Black himself.

/FWIW, I have never made a single negative statement about a single one of these prospects or doubted their ability to make it. Many, many variables still yet to play out.

[TOMapleLaughs]

and im sorry but anyone trying to claim a kid in the Q in his rookie year, and only kid since crosby to score as many points as a rookie does not have elite skill has never played hockey

that is not luck, that is not being a beneficiary of other players (Drouin, who he doesn't play with regularly other than PP), its very easy to dismiss players as people here do so they can support their own views. As one poster mentioned be objective and look at what the kid could bring vs trying to suggest he doesn't have talent when all indications are clearly he does.

The fact that Ehlers has elite skill cannot be argued, he has already proven it at the junior level, his point totals. People can argue that all they want but its a fact.

Crosby did it at age 16 though. Perhaps if Ehlers was 16, or even 17, he'd be more worthy of the hype.

A 13th ranking is fair for what he's done. There are other prospects to consider.

[theminister]

Crosby did it at age 16 though. Perhaps if Ehlers was 16, or even 17, he'd be more worthy of the hype.

A 13th ranking is fair for what he's done. There are other prospects to consider.

He was a mid '96.

What do you mean?

He's average in that regard.

[NucksCup2015]

Crosby did it at age 16 though. Perhaps if Ehlers was 16, or even 17, he'd be more worthy of the hype.

A 13th ranking is fair for what he's done. There are other prospects to consider.

crosby also played at shattuck st mary's growing up (a hockey factory) and this was ehlers first year in a new country and smaller rinks and he was simply a year older

and i was not comparing him to the level of talent of croby, the point AGAIN is that his talent is elite and the only reason he is lower in the rankings is because of the size bias of nhl scouts.

again please review my points on sakic and giroux and try to comprehend them

thanks

[Absent Canuck]

I also forgot to add another fun fact about Ehlers and Drouin.

The guys who want Ritchie also spun the non disprovable hyperbole about Ehlers playing with Drouin. Its difficult to disprove because how do you know the exact powerplay time or when you are behind late in a game you load up or what not. How much time is that together ?

Its not a lot . The team was so stacked they didnt need to 'load up' as they won quite a bit. The amount of time they would need to do this is negligible. The power play numbers i would attribute both of them to helping each other. So its reasonable to assume Ehlers had help from Drouin and vice versa.

To solve this, the Ehlers supporters just gave the doubters their way and looked for how Ehlers did without Drouin at all. Ehlers played 17 games this year without Drouin.

He got 25 points in 17 games without him. Its not a full season but a fair chuck. Large enough to form an opinion.

That translates into 93 points in 64 games. I have looked to see if Voracek had anyone else to play with and he had the same garden variety team as Ehlers did without Drouin. Not even a second round pick to play with.

So at the same age and same team mates Ehlers outscored Voracek 93 to 86.

As for his size, I went to NHL.com and even though the draft ranking are from March and therefore out of date, the bizarre thing is it has Ehlers at the 176 like I was informed, but only 5ft 10 ???? Nobody else has that . Not the scouts or anyone.

So I went to the moosehead site where they would know a lot more than anyone else and it lists him as 5ft 11 but only 162 pounds which I attest to measuring him at age 17 right after he got off the plane from Denmark.

So I went to the unusual extent to actually contact the Mooseheads directly . I talked to a guy in Halifax about this and he stated Ehlers is now 5ft 11.5 and 176 pounds. How he knew this to that kind of exact measure I have no idea.