(Article) Canucks could roll the dice on William Nylander in draft

[DeltaSwede]

The original article isn't overly impressive. Comparing William Nylander to his dad and saying William is better seems like a rather lukewarm endorsement.

Michael Nylander was a good but hardly a great NHL player.

All in all, if the Canucks were to look to a skilled forward, Ehlers seems a better pick, he's played in North America and should have a better grasp on the game.

I don't understand the idea of Europeans not adjusting to the "North American" game. If you are good at hockey, you are good at hockey. It is more of a transition for goalkeepers with different angles, and going from a North American sized rink to a European sized rink in my opinion. I feel that the european players require little time to adjust to smaller rinks. Can I remind you that a lot of european world junior teams have won gold on North American soil and done so against Canadian and American teams on smaller rinks.

Really rubs me the wrong way because there are so many European prospects that step right in to the NHL and excell straight away, same with "he's 6'4 and can hold a hockey stick so he is automatically the new Milan Lucic". I like to think of it as the Don Cherry syndrome.

[SamJamIam]

I don't understand the idea of Europeans not adjusting to the "North American" game. If you are good at hockey, you are good at hockey. It is more of a transition for goalkeepers with different angles, and going from a North American sized rink to a European sized rink in my opinion. I feel that the european players require little time to adjust to smaller rinks. Can I remind you that a lot of european world junior teams have won gold on North American soil and done so against Canadian and American teams on smaller rinks.

Really rubs me the wrong way because there are so many European prospects that step right in to the NHL and excell straight away, same with "he's 6'4 and can hold a hockey stick so he is automatically the new Milan Lucic". I like to think of it as the Don Cherry syndrome.

It depends on the position but for goalies, the angles are very different depending on the ice size. Offensive players get more space to go around defenders, and defenders have to play a different style to maintain proper gaps. Generally this means a lot less hitting as well.

That said, I agree that claiming a player is less likely to succeed just because they've played on big ice is dumb. More relevant is whether they depend on those qualities of big ice play to succeed. That sort of judgment is very much a case by case thing, but then that means people actually have to have watched a player to make that assessment which is too much effort for casual fans.

[SamJamIam]

I don't understand the idea of Europeans not adjusting to the "North American" game. If you are good at hockey, you are good at hockey. It is more of a transition for goalkeepers with different angles, and going from a North American sized rink to a European sized rink in my opinion. I feel that the european players require little time to adjust to smaller rinks. Can I remind you that a lot of european world junior teams have won gold on North American soil and done so against Canadian and American teams on smaller rinks.

Really rubs me the wrong way because there are so many European prospects that step right in to the NHL and excell straight away, same with "he's 6'4 and can hold a hockey stick so he is automatically the new Milan Lucic". I like to think of it as the Don Cherry syndrome.

It depends on the position but for goalies, the angles are very different depending on the ice size. Offensive players get more space to go around defenders, and defenders have to play a different style to maintain proper gaps. Generally this means a lot less hitting as well.

That said, I agree that claiming a player is less likely to succeed just because they've played on big ice is dumb. More relevant is whether they depend on those qualities of big ice play to succeed. That sort of judgment is very much a case by case thing, but then that means people actually have to have watched a player to make that assessment which is too much effort for casual fans.

[Langdon Algur]

Too bad that Nylander was born in Calgary and raised in the US.

But he plays hockey in Sweden and identifies himself as Sweddish. That being said not all Euro picks have worked out for the Canucks. Mats Froshaug, David Hoznik, Ilja Kablukov, Daniel Rahimi, Sergei Shirokov, Kiril Koltsov, Fedor Federov.

[elvis15]

Where in my post did I mention size?

Oh... Right... Nylander is a little kid. Sorry.

Do we realize that a lot of non-undersized guys in the draft have comparable skill too?

Define 'comparable' - I don't think we have the same definition.

But he plays hockey in Sweden and identifies himself as Sweddish. That being said not all Euro picks have worked out for the Canucks. Mats Froshaug, David Hoznik, Ilja Kablukov, Daniel Rahimi, Sergei Shirokov, Kiril Koltsov, Fedor Federov.

Not all North American/Canadian picks have worked out either. Patrick White, Yann Sauve, Prabh Rai, Taylor Ellington, Andrew Sarauer, Alexandre Vincent, Matt Butcher, Marc-Andre Bernier, Brandon Nolan, Brett Skinner, Nathan Smith, Brandon Reid, Josh Holden, etc.

Some have from both groups too though. Can't really try and cherry pick names considering how few draft picks make it.

[Langdon Algur]

The original article isn't overly impressive. Comparing William Nylander to his dad and saying William is better seems like a rather lukewarm endorsement.

Michael Nylander was a good but hardly a great NHL player.

All in all, if the Canucks were to look to a skilled forward, Ehlers seems a better pick, he's played in North America and should have a better grasp on the game.

Given that everyone keeps saying how weak this draft class is if we can get a more than 650 points in the NHL I would be pretty happy.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Define 'comparable' - I don't think we have the same definition.

Hmmm, really? Okay.

1 goal in 22 SHL games isn't much to go on though. Maybe if he did better there I can at least begin to see the worthiness of the hype.

[GB5]

Given that everyone keeps saying how weak this draft class is if we can get a more than 650 points in the NHL I would be pretty happy.

Can't argue with that, that would put him in the top 10 all time Canucks scorers for a career.

The thing I keep thinking is who is available that can do more than score points in the regular season....essentially lead the team deep into the playoffs.

Maybe at number 6 all the leaders are gone and looking more for complementary players. I'm not undervaluing guys like this, the Geoff Courtnall's and Alex Burrows types are essential to every team .I concede that most fans would hope for more but the reality is this is a weak draft.

[elvis15]

Hmmm, really? Okay.

1 goal in 22 SHL games isn't much to go on though. Maybe if he did better there I can at least begin to see the worthiness of the hype.

That's not much of anything definitive to say someone else has the same comparable elite skill level that Nylander's projected to have. And before you say it I know you've noted you don't think Nylander has that level of skill, but I'm pretty sure there's very few prospects that aren't undersized and have that skill level available to us in this draft.

Maybe you should list some of those non-undersized guys that have a comparable skill level to Nylander.

[Piggy Bank]

With how down our city is these days, we have to take Nylander. Could be our next Naslund, or single Sedin. He is someone we can sell our fans on again. He could easily become just like Zetterburg. High praise yes, but bust or boom. 30 NHL teams means 90, atleast, first line players. Average career of a first liner in the NHL is say 15 years. That means that 6 first liner's retire, and 6 are born on average each draft to become a first liner eventually. He could be one of those six.

[Tangelos]

I'm on he nylander bandwagon now. We actually have a lot of size in our prospects. We need high end talent, and Nylander fits the bill

[TOMapleLaughs]

That's not much of anything definitive to say someone else has the same comparable elite skill level that Nylander's projected to have. And before you say it I know you've noted you don't think Nylander has that level of skill, but I'm pretty sure there's very few prospects that aren't undersized and have that skill level available to us in this draft.

Maybe you should list some of those non-undersized guys that have a comparable skill level to Nylander.

All I am saying is that Nylander's skill is overstated. And I think the reason is because he's undersized. There are plenty of comparably-skilled guys who aren't though, from what i've seen. They are all familiar to us by now. And we could argue about what is elite skill, transferability, legit upside, valid comparisons etc. until the cows come home. But here's the thing, if Nylander was the most-skilled player in the draft (he's not, but some people here believe he is) then why isn't he the consensus #1 pick in this draft?

Surely this elite skill if it were there would put him at the top regardless of all other issues, right?

I sense a shill job. The kid is years away in terms of development, is small, and doesn't know how to play without the puck. Even if he had elite skill, these are massive hurdles for him to overcome.

Considering the skill levels of the picks around him are probably more transferable, we have to weigh that in. Bigtime. Besides, we have Shinkaruk.

[saucypass]

Our Prospects with size and/or grit:

Kassian

Matthias

Gaunce

Jensen

Horvat

Grenier

Mallet

Our Prospects with pure skill:

Shinkaruk

I think we should draft size and grit since we already have Shinkaruk who is undersized and skilled.

This means we don't need more light-weight midgets on our team

Nylander would be a bad choice since 5'11 and 181 lbs. is waaaay too small for the NHL.

I mean Zach Parise? The dude is 5'11 and 185 lbs. that guy is so undersized that he'll never succeed in the NHL.

Or how about Claude Giroux? That guy is a feather! 5'11 and 172 lbs. Man, he's probably one of the worst players in the league! Would never take him on my team!

I think we need more players with size/grit, although we have x7 the amount of prospects with size/grit, we need more of those kind of players and less slightly undersized skilled players.

[End of Sarcastic Post]

[Tystick]

Gotta say I'm quite impressed and am leaning more towards him than others at this point

[elvis15]

All I am saying is that Nylander's skill is overstated. And I think the reason is because he's undersized. There are plenty of comparably-skilled guys who aren't though, from what i've seen. They are all familiar to us by now. And we could argue about what is elite skill, transferability, legit upside, valid comparisons etc. until the cows come home. But here's the thing, if Nylander was the most-skilled player in the draft (he's not, but some people here believe he is) then why isn't he the consensus #1 pick in this draft?

Surely this elite skill if it were there would put him at the top regardless of all other issues, right?

I sense a shill job. The kid is years away in terms of development, is small, and doesn't know how to play without the puck. Even if he had elite skill, these are massive hurdles for him to overcome.

Considering the skill levels of the picks around him are probably more transferable, we have to weigh that in. Bigtime. Besides, we have Shinkaruk.

Ah, but that's a completely different question. Nylander doesn't have the all around game of Reinhart or Bennett, nor the size, defensive ability and physical game of Ekblad. We aren't talking about if he's the complete package, if he'll reach his potential or if the skills are perfectly transferable, we're just talking about the skill level he presents and why we'd pick him at 6th (or not, depending on who you ask).

It's very easy to see why a player with a similar skill level in Reinhart (I'd say slightly lesser than Nylander, but still very good) that has a more complete game is ranked higher in the draft.

So maybe the additional question is what do you define as skill level? Are you just talking about whatever overall talents a particular player has for their game? Or would you consider it as a player's individual skill, more particularly weighted to offensive ability and creativity? The latter is what the scouts are talking about with Nylander, where you're referring to the former and knocking points off for risk and other things that don't need to enter a pure skill conversation.

Does Nylander have his faults? Sure, and some add to risk over other prospects we'd have available to pick. That's where each person's opinion and criteria for what they'd like to see happen will factor into who they think the best pick is, not into a discussion about whether one player's skill is comparable to other players.

There isn't a similarly skilled player that has any significant advantage in size that we'd realistically have available to pick at 6th overall. The only players I'd even put in that category compared to Nylander are Reinhart, Draisaitl, and perhaps Bennett, but then we're not likely to be drafting them so why try and knock Nylander down because those players share the same draft year?

[coastal1]

Attitude can be fixed with being around great leaders like the Sedins and Bieksa. Linden would also be of a great influence in Nylanders professionalism if this is a concern for him. I like that he plays with confidence and thats quite the praises coming from other NHLers.

You can't ignore the fact that he led the U-18's in scoring.

Look at how the Sedins and Bieksa have fixed Kassian's attitude, now he is probably the hardest working player in the league, non-stop.

[coastal1]

Truth is this European draft picks have always turned out better than the North American draft picks. Sedins, Ohlund, Edler, Hansen History can have anything to do with it

I know what you mean, the north american draft picks have been the shits: Kesler, Bieksa, Linden, Schneider, Corrado.

[the.hockey.guy]

i say we take someone like virtanen at 6th then try to get the 10th overall pick and get nylander then

[ForsbergTheGreat]

All I am saying is that Nylander's skill is overstated. And I think the reason is because he's undersized. There are plenty of comparably-skilled guys who aren't though, from what i've seen. They are all familiar to us by now. And we could argue about what is elite skill, transferability, legit upside, valid comparisons etc. until the cows come home. But here's the thing, if Nylander was the most-skilled player in the draft (he's not, but some people here believe he is) then why isn't he the consensus #1 pick in this draft?

Surely this elite skill if it were there would put him at the top regardless of all other issues, right?

I sense a shill job. The kid is years away in terms of development, is small, and doesn't know how to play without the puck. Even if he had elite skill, these are massive hurdles for him to overcome.

Considering the skill levels of the picks around him are probably more transferable, we have to weigh that in. Bigtime. Besides, we have Shinkaruk.

He was ranked #2 going into the year. A slow start had him drop and a strong second half left him at the 5-7 range.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

i say we take someone like virtanen at 6th then try to get the 10th overall pick and get nylander then

Virtanen is more likely to be around at 10 than Nylander is. You do it the other way around.