Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Recommended Posts

Many gave their opinion but how many of you have seen playing Brisebois ????

We have Training Camp/this season to watch him :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Height does not equal size. If he is tall but skinny he ends up being more like Tanev in that we worry about this ability to stand up to NHL punishment. Leadership and decision making are great too, but he hasn't really shown proven execution of hockey skills for me, not really beyond any other pick we could have made.

Where I worry more though is he doesn't have anything approaching elite level. That's absolutely fine if we don't expect him to be a top 1 or 2 defenceman (which we shouldn't) but the connotation a lot of posts around Brisebois have is he has all the tools and will be a steal for us as a sure fire NHL'er.

There's still a lot that might not go well for these prospects, even with lower risk. But they're found so late in the draft because they lack the higher end upside (which Dunn has over Brisebois for instance). At some point we should aim a little higher than someone who at best might become a 3-4 D but is more likely to be a 6-8 guy.

Maybe he's a steal, and I'm very interested to follow his progress as I am with all our prospects, but I'm just not so excited to think we're finding top end talent with these picks just yet. I'm taking a measured approach until I see something more substantial.

You are right. Not a very exciting prospect. That said, neither was Tanev.

If he can skate, has good reach, works hard and is solid positionally he could end up being a good player for us. Another example of a new breed stay-at-home defender.

He was ranked 48 by TSN. As high as 41, low as 67 overall so selecting him at 66 makes him a solid selection there.

I didn't like the selection at first and would have preferred Speers but I think overall he was a good selection.

Not sold on Neill or Gaudette, but they were 5th round picks so the chances of either of them panning out into an nhl player is only around 25%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Height does not equal size. If he is tall but skinny he ends up being more like Tanev in that we worry about this ability to stand up to NHL punishment. Leadership and decision making are great too, but he hasn't really shown proven execution of hockey skills for me, not really beyond any other pick we could have made.

Where I worry more though is he doesn't have anything approaching elite level. That's absolutely fine if we don't expect him to be a top 1 or 2 defenceman (which we shouldn't) but the connotation a lot of posts around Brisebois have is he has all the tools and will be a steal for us as a sure fire NHL'er.

There's still a lot that might not go well for these prospects, even with lower risk. But they're found so late in the draft because they lack the higher end upside (which Dunn has over Brisebois for instance). At some point we should aim a little higher than someone who at best might become a 3-4 D but is more likely to be a 6-8 guy.

Maybe he's a steal, and I'm very interested to follow his progress as I am with all our prospects, but I'm just not so excited to think we're finding top end talent with these picks just yet. I'm taking a measured approach until I see something more substantial.

Its possible to teach muscle, but its not possible to teach 6'3''... And even harder to teach 6'3'' guys to have an effortless powerful skating stride, agility, quickness, good hands and a knack for reading and making plays.

I might be off base, but I recall Bryan Allen being 6'5'' and skinny when he came to his first camp here?

It may be true that Dunn has more upside. Uhm, scoring ability if he makes it. But that does not make him a better prospect. Look, Dunn is a good prospect. But he will have other roadblocks. In the 3rd round, if a guys has a lot of those fundamentals and appears likely to make the NHL; its probably a pretty good pick?

edit: And I would like to reiterate a statement I have made many times. Because you have alluded to getting a guy with more upside than a top 3 or 4 guy being reasonable? I hate this fallacy that you can draft top tier NHL D in late rounds. Because Subban, and Chara and Keith are Norris winners drafted in late rounds? I suppose you can. But there are what, 1, 2 NHL all stars drawn from a 2knd round in any year? And only 20% that actually have a 200 game NHL career is what I have read. 20% is 6 in 30 & one, maybe two become top tier guys. At that rate you have to draft guys for 15 to 30 years before you get said top tier guy. Hardly reliable! I say go for the guy with the best combination of fundamentals! At least you get 1 in 6...

And if you have the fundamentals really right more...

I say draft guys you hope to be top pairing, potential all stars in the first round! Less likely to be disappointed...

Edited by Canuck Surfer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its possible to teach muscle, but its not possible to teach 6'3''... And even harder to teach 6'3'' guys to have an effortless powerful skating stride, agility, quickness, good hands and a knack for reading and making plays.

I might be off base, but I recall Bryan Allen being 6'5'' and skinny when he came to his first camp here?

It may be true that Dunn has more upside. Uhm, scoring ability if he makes it. But that does not make him a better prospect. Look, Dunn is a good prospect. But he will have other roadblocks. In the 3rd round, if a guys has a lot of those fundamentals and appears likely to make the NHL; its probably a pretty good pick?

edit: And I would like to reiterate a statement I have made many times. Because you have alluded to getting a guy with more upside than a top 3 or 4 guy being reasonable? I hate this fallacy that you can draft top tier NHL D in late rounds. Because Subban, and Chara and Keith are Norris winners drafted in late rounds? I suppose you can. But there are what, 1, 2 NHL all stars drawn from a 2knd round in any year? And only 20% that actually have a 200 game NHL career is what I have read. 20% is 6 in 30 & one, maybe two become top tier guys. At that rate you have to draft guys for 15 to 30 years before you get said top tier guy. Hardly reliable! I say go for the guy with the best combination of fundamentals! At least you get 1 in 6...

And if you have the fundamentals really right more...

I say draft guys you hope to be top pairing, potential all stars in the first round! Less likely to be disappointed...

You make it sound so easy....especially the last part. You act like players are nhl ready after the draft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right. Not a very exciting prospect. That said, neither was Tanev.

If he can skate, has good reach, works hard and is solid positionally he could end up being a good player for us. Another example of a new breed stay-at-home defender.

He was ranked 48 by TSN. As high as 41, low as 67 overall so selecting him at 66 makes him a solid selection there.

I didn't like the selection at first and would have preferred Speers but I think overall he was a good selection.

Not sold on Neill or Gaudette, but they were 5th round picks so the chances of either of them panning out into an nhl player is only around 25%.

Try like 10%

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its possible to teach muscle, but its not possible to teach 6'3''... And even harder to teach 6'3'' guys to have an effortless powerful skating stride, agility, quickness, good hands and a knack for reading and making plays.

I might be off base, but I recall Bryan Allen being 6'5'' and skinny when he came to his first camp here?

...

Allen wasn't that skinny. The best I could find was an article from three years after the draft where he was listed at 6'4", 215. He didn't put on 40 pounds between 18 and 21.

...

It may be true that Dunn has more upside. Uhm, scoring ability if he makes it. But that does not make him a better prospect. Look, Dunn is a good prospect. But he will have other roadblocks. In the 3rd round, if a guys has a lot of those fundamentals and appears likely to make the NHL; its probably a pretty good pick?

edit: And I would like to reiterate a statement I have made many times. Because you have alluded to getting a guy with more upside than a top 3 or 4 guy being reasonable? I hate this fallacy that you can draft top tier NHL D in late rounds. Because Subban, and Chara and Keith are Norris winners drafted in late rounds? I suppose you can. But there are what, 1, 2 NHL all stars drawn from a 2knd round in any year? And only 20% that actually have a 200 game NHL career is what I have read. 20% is 6 in 30 & one, maybe two become top tier guys. At that rate you have to draft guys for 15 to 30 years before you get said top tier guy. Hardly reliable! I say go for the guy with the best combination of fundamentals! At least you get 1 in 6...

And if you have the fundamentals really right more...

I say draft guys you hope to be top pairing, potential all stars in the first round! Less likely to be disappointed...

You contradict yourself, first stating Dunn has more upside and then ending with saying to draft guys with top pairing, all star potential (albeit specifying the 1st round). But then how many first rounders have we had, and how deep in the draft order, and which of those were used on defencemen? As has been said, that sounds like it's so easy everyone must be doing it! You can and should aim to get players with higher upside if they are available - especially if you don't have opportunities to do so in the 1st or even 2nd round.

If you want to talk percentages, what would be the percentage of drafting a player who's maybe more sure to make the NHL but not as a top line/pairing player yet still be in the upper levels of their peers for that role? How often can you draft someone (Bolland or Malhotra for example as premier 3rd line centers) that will excel as a depth or role player? How did we get Tanev, or Bieksa, both of who have played excellent supporting roles despite not being elite talents?

You can pick for roles later in the draft, but I think the mindset for your first few picks should be to look for BPA and factor in upside as a strong consideration. If you can't develop depth players then they're much more easily available through trade and free agency then the top talent is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right. Not a very exciting prospect. That said, neither was Tanev.

If he can skate, has good reach, works hard and is solid positionally he could end up being a good player for us. Another example of a new breed stay-at-home defender.

He was ranked 48 by TSN. As high as 41, low as 67 overall so selecting him at 66 makes him a solid selection there.

I didn't like the selection at first and would have preferred Speers but I think overall he was a good selection.

Not sold on Neill or Gaudette, but they were 5th round picks so the chances of either of them panning out into an nhl player is only around 25%.

And he could end up being a solid player. Or he could not make it, or only be a depth defenceman. But what's less likely is that he somehow blossoms into a top tier defenceman. We did have riskier but more likely options in that respect available, but I don't have any issue with playing it safer and finding a dependable players as we get deeper in the draft. Where I do have issue is playing it safer earlier on a majority of the time and then not taking many risks in the later rounds as well.

I'm just worried we won't find enough truly high end talent that can help all these character guys and leaders to win games post-Sedins. That doesn't really reflect specifically on Brisebois, as he's a reasonable pick, but more on our overall strategy.

Let's put this another way. I'm very happy about Cassels and his development. I'm also realistic to understand that doesn't mean he's suddenly a 1st line, elite center. Al it does is alleviate worries about risk and lessens the possibility of him not making the NHL. We still need to find that 1st line center (never mind elite!) post Henrik as it's a stretch for Horvat and McCann has a ways to go before we can realistically think he gets there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to get extremely lucky to draft a Allstar calibre defensemen in the 3rd round, the odds are stacked against you almost slim to none. Brisebois is still only 17 years, has good size, good skating, a good shot that was just majorly under utilized last year, and was the captain of his team at 17. He played for arguably the worst team in the CHL which is going effect his stats big time but also made the 2014 Ivan Hlinka team Canada. He is still young enough that he could develop into a really good defenceman for us. Is he the franchise defensemen everyone is desperately looking for, probably not. But he can still be a good piece of our defence core moving forward with tanev, corrado, and clendenning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all that, but I really think people need to temper their expectations of him. This is particularly true offensively since he hasn't really produced that much with any team at any level to this point despite having some skills that should translate into assists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Allen wasn't that skinny. The best I could find was an article from three years after the draft where he was listed at 6'4", 215. He didn't put on 40 pounds between 18 and 21.

You contradict yourself, first stating Dunn has more upside and then ending with saying to draft guys with top pairing, all star potential (albeit specifying the 1st round). But then how many first rounders have we had, and how deep in the draft order, and which of those were used on defencemen? As has been said, that sounds like it's so easy everyone must be doing it! You can and should aim to get players with higher upside if they are available - especially if you don't have opportunities to do so in the 1st or even 2nd round.

If you want to talk percentages, what would be the percentage of drafting a player who's maybe more sure to make the NHL but not as a top line/pairing player yet still be in the upper levels of their peers for that role? How often can you draft someone (Bolland or Malhotra for example as premier 3rd line centers) that will excel as a depth or role player? How did we get Tanev, or Bieksa, both of who have played excellent supporting roles despite not being elite talents?

You can pick for roles later in the draft, but I think the mindset for your first few picks should be to look for BPA and factor in upside as a strong consideration. If you can't develop depth players then they're much more easily available through trade and free agency then the top talent is.

There is no contradiction. I suggested its smarter to bet on getting a top 4 or top 6 d man in the 3rd round; rather than taking a risk on a lottery ticket hoping you get a top pairing guy. Honestly the odds are stacked against expecting a top calibre player in the late rounds. Don't see how you can argue that.

And I am plenty happy to get a productive NHL player with a 3rd round pick. Do that consistently, and you will have depth, and low priced guys on ELC's which afford you cap space. And are constantly in a position to acquire top end talent in other fashions; see Anaheim.

Read Dunns scouting report. A defensive liability, which is why he fell. In spite of good skills. Can he get over them? Maybe, but I find it easier to believe Brisbois, who is fast and agile, so obviously a good athlete, is a better bet to put on muscle in comparison to Dunn suddenly learning to play D. Both could prove me wrong, but it's better odds.

Edited by Canuck Surfer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Brisebois has tools that give him a chance to set his own ceiling. He has smooth skating, high hockey IQ, and decent hands. Those things already give him the opportunity to succeed. He has good height and good reach. He's still a matchstick right now, if he packs on more muscle, that will allow him to do even more. Chances are, he will be lucky to be as good as Tanev. However, he has to tools to be more. With some good coaching, training, and development, you never know. He sees himself as a Marc-Edourd Vlasic type of guy. If he can come close to being a Vladic, we just hit jackpot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a win if we even get a Vlasic-lite out of him. He has that kind of skill set I just haven't seen evidence of it being applied enough on the offensive end to get overly excited. He's got tools to work with though so here's hoping he can translate it to the ice.

...
Read Dunns scouting report. A defensive liability, which is why he fell. In spite of good skills. Can he get over them? Maybe, but I find it easier to believe Brisbois, who is fast and agile, so obviously a good athlete, is a better bet to put on muscle in comparison to Dunn suddenly learning to play D. Both could prove me wrong, but it's better odds.

So Dunn can't learn to play D but Brisebois will learn how to put up offence? They both have areas they aren't that strong, but for me it comes down to what we need most in our prospect pool.

Better odds, maybe, but lower ceiling most likely.

Edited by elvis15
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

So Dunn can't learn to play D but Brisebois will learn how to put up offence?

It's hard to put up points when you are a defenceman on the CHL's worst team. Put him on the London knights and I bet you its a different story. I'm hoping he gets traded to a contender this season and we get to see what he can do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...