If we had the 4th overall pick.

[stawns]

13 minutes ago, McHortanen said:

100% agree our D isnt bad. However, unless Tryamkin or Hutton reach full potential and become a bonafide #1 Dman we are not going to win the cup. We need that franchise Dman and adding 1 of the top 4 Dmen in this draft to our cupboard would be great. Im not half as worried about our D as others on here as I have A LOT of faith in Tryamkin, but its still the biggest question mark surrounding our future.

there is no projected franchise dman in the draft, so why waste a pick on a #2-3 dman?

[aGENT]

24 minutes ago, stawns said:

there is no projected franchise dman in the draft, so why waste a pick on a #2-3 dman?

There may not be a projected 'franchise' #1D in the top 10 (I somewhat disagree FWIW as Juolevi and Sergachev both have that ceiling IMO, even if not 'projected') but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at getting a good top pairing/#2D (which all three could attain).

 

We lack somewhat top 4 but especially top pair projecting D in our prospect pool. We've got loads of low ceiling 4-8 projecting guys but that's not going to scare any one. And you can't keep hoping/relying on finding later round gems to turn in to top pairing guys. If it happens great, we'll have an embarrassment of riches. Can't plan for winning the lotto though.

 

It's quite likely past picks 3/4 that any of the forwards available will be good 2nd line forwards/maybe borderline 1st liners. How is that better than solid #2/3 guys maybe #1D's?

 

It's not.

[stawns]

1 hour ago, J.R. said:

There may not be a projected 'franchise' #1D in the top 10 (I somewhat disagree FWIW as Juolevi and Sergachev both have that ceiling IMO, even if not 'projected') but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking at getting a good top pairing/#2D (which all three could attain).

 

We lack somewhat top 4 but especially top pair projecting D in our prospect pool. We've got loads of low ceiling 4-8 projecting guys but that's not going to scare any one. And you can't keep hoping/relying on finding later round gems to turn in to top pairing guys. If it happens great, we'll have an embarrassment of riches. Can't plan for winning the lotto though.

 

It's quite likely past picks 3/4 that any of the forwards available will be good 2nd line forwards/maybe borderline 1st liners. How is that better than solid #2/3 guys maybe #1D's?

 

It's not.

you think it's not.  I'm not saying that the dmen in the top 10 aren't going to be good, but the Canucks will be picking top 6, I don't thin they are as good as any of the top 6 fwds.  You don't use your top 6 pick to choose by position.

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, stawns said:

you think it's not.  I'm not saying that the dmen in the top 10 aren't going to be good, but the Canucks will be picking top 6, I don't thin they are as good as any of the top 6 fwds.  You don't use your top 6 pick to choose by position.

Top 3, maybe 4 forwards, I completely agree. I'm not suggesting Juolevi at #2 over Laine, Puljujarvi etc.

 

After that top 3, maybe 4 though, it's a whole other ball of wax. The D are just as likely to be as good (or better) than any of the forwards there.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

Top 3, maybe 4 forwards, I completely agree. I'm not suggesting Juolevi at #2 over Laine, Puljujarvi etc.

 

After that top 3, maybe 4 though, it's a whole other ball of wax. The D are just as likely to be as good (or better) than any of the forwards there.

If the Leafs pick 2 or 3, IMHAO there will be a FINN available at 4.  The Leafs will take Tkatchuk after Matthews.  

[stawns]

12 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Top 3, maybe 4 forwards, I completely agree. I'm not suggesting Juolevi at #2 over Laine, Puljujarvi etc.

 

After that top 3, maybe 4 though, it's a whole other ball of wax. The D are just as likely to be as good (or better) than any of the forwards there.

You won't see any dman drafted, in a Canucks uni, for 3-4 years.  All things being equal, I'd rather see Tkachuk, Dubois or Nylander who could step next year or the year after.

[aGENT]

Just now, stawns said:

You won't see any dman drafted, in a Canucks uni, for 3-4 years.  All things being equal, I'd rather see Tkachuk, Dubois or Nylander who could step next year or the year after.

So we can be even further behind in developing them...? 

 

I would like us to have a some top 4/first pair capable D  available when we're hoping to start being competitive for a cup in those 3-4 years.

 

So you've got a decent set of forwards and a bunch of #3-8 D men in three years?

 

 

 

 

[stawns]

Just now, J.R. said:

So we can be even further behind in developing them...? 

 

I would like us to have a some top 4/first pair capable D  available when we're hoping to start being competitive for a cup in those 3-4 years.

 

So you've got a decent set of forwards and a bunch of #3-8 D men in three years?

 

 

 

 

I think they need scoring more than they need a dman in 4 years, who will likely be 6 from making an impact.  Tkachuk, Dubois or Nylander will be contributing long before that.

 

Dman can be traded for it signed as Ida.

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, stawns said:

I think they need scoring more than they need a dman in 4 years, who will likely be 6 from making an impact.  Tkachuk, Dubois or Nylander will be contributing long before that.

 

Dman can be traded for it signed as Ida.

You need BOTH. And we're horrendously behind on getting the D, who you yourself admit, take longer. How you don't see that as an issue is beyond me...lol

 

And you can sign/trade forwards MUCH easier than top 4/2 D.

[Seven pounds soft]

I think we can all agree that we need to take a Defenceman if we drop out of the top three. It's not a popular opinion with all the great looking forward prospects but it's the right move. 

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Seven pounds soft said:

I think we can all agree that we need to take a Defenceman if we drop out of the top three. It's not a popular opinion with all the great looking forward prospects but it's the right move. 

Apparently we can't 

[Rollieo Del Fuego]

Fabbro looked better then Chychrun last night...Queenville looked better as well..so who do we take?

 

Joulevi may be my pick of the 3 top D prospects but Tkachuk is going to be a horse with heart...I just don't know who to pick.

[NEON.KNEE]

7 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Apparently we can't 

I can't believe that you would seriously consider skipping out on Tkachuk for one of these D-men...  Tkachuk is going to be a great NHL player.

 

These D-men will all be solid...but I don't believe Chychrun will be that #1 guy...I think he was an early developer and his play has flatlined...I like the progression and upward trajectory of Sergachev but would would still take Tkachuk at 4...all day eerr day

[aGENT]

Just now, NEON.KNEE said:

I can't believe that you would seriously consider skipping out on Tkachuk for one of these D-men...  Tkachuk is going to be a great NHL player.

 

These D-men will all be solid...but I don't believe Chychrun will be that #1 guy...I think he was an early developer and his play has flatlined...I like the progression and upward trajectory of Sergachev but would would still take Tkachuk at 4...all day eerr day

Well I stated top 3/maybe 4 (4 would be Tkachuk). After that it's all D IMO. And I'd be taking Juolevi or Sergachev first likely.

[NEON.KNEE]

6 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Well I stated top 3/maybe 4 (4 would be Tkachuk). After that it's all D IMO. And I'd be taking Juolevi or Sergachev first likely.

I misunderstood you then...I re-read your post and you were disagreeing with the guy say ing that WE COULD ALL AGREE that we need to draft a D-man if we don't get a top 3.....ok ok ok ok...sorry.

 

I'm in the Tkachuk at 4 camp and I would also then take either Sergachev or Julo in that order before I thought of Chychrun or Dubois (I don't see what everyone else is seeing in this guy...Career third liner in my eyes...Bigger Chris Higgins or Taylor Pyatt clone)

[Camel Toe Drag]

14 minutes ago, NEON.KNEE said:

I can't believe that you would seriously consider skipping out on Tkachuk for one of these D-men...  Tkachuk is going to be a great NHL player.

 

These D-men will all be solid...but I don't believe Chychrun will be that #1 guy...I think he was an early developer and his play has flatlined...I like the progression and upward trajectory of Sergachev but would would still take Tkachuk at 4...all day eerr day

Im in the same boat. All the forwards available in top 6 look like better forwards than defencemen do. I have faith Benning will be Benning and draft another solid D man in the later rounds as he's proven the past 2 drafts. Time will tell if Brisbois, Neil, and others will make the show but based on the junior showings they look like steals from where they were picked. The Canucks need Scoring just as bad as D in my opinion. Plus were forging a core that will need to be in place and coming into their prime when the Sedins retire in the next five season <.

 

I like the potential of Juo, and Serg even Chych but its a little risky in the top 6. if it was 8-12 Id have no problem, and to be honest I feel atleast one of those 3 will drop out of the top 10. I dont see enough reassurance other than size that their games will translate. 

 

Lets hope we're in the top 3 and its a no brainer

 

 

[stawns]

29 minutes ago, Seven pounds soft said:

I think we can all agree that we need to take a Defenceman if we drop out of the top three. It's not a popular opinion with all the great looking forward prospects but it's the right move. 

Not if you subscribe to bpa

[nergish]

6 minutes ago, NEON.KNEE said:

I misunderstood you then...I re-read your post and you were disagreeing with the guy say ing that WE COULD ALL AGREE that we need to draft a D-man if we don't get a top 3.....ok ok ok ok...sorry.

 

I'm in the Tkachuk at 4 camp and I would also then take either Sergachev or Julo in that order before I thought of Chychrun or Dubois (I don't see what everyone else is seeing in this guy...Career third liner in my eyes...Bigger Chris Higgins or Taylor Pyatt clone)

Dude this.

Dubois is nowhere slick enough to go that high. At 15, sure, but not top 5.

 

Tkachuk will be top 4. After that, so hard to say...

Chychrun, Juolevi, and Sergachev are such different Dmen. We could really use all three, obviously.

 

Probably Chychrun for me, just so we're a meaner, tougher team to play against. I also think he'll be solid at the pro level sooner. Not that we need to fast track this rebuild anyways.

 

Juolevi is hard to pass up though. If Hutton's development stalls for any reason, we'll regret not taking Juolevi. But I believe in Huts, and would take brute, crease-clearing strength to complement instead.

 

[NEON.KNEE]

6 minutes ago, stawns said:

Not if you subscribe to bpa

Sergachev and Juo are looking like the 2 I would take...I would want Logan Brown over Chychrun at this point...I just don't see enough from Chychrun....I think he developed early and is a great player, but these other D-men have somthing I don't see in Chychrun.  Juois better at being what Chychrun should be than Chychrun 

[Seven pounds soft]

The thing is, a forward is always going to be the sexier more appealing pick because they score the goals and get the glory. How can you take a Dman over (insert flashy forward name) is always going to be argued but when does it end? I'll tell you when. It ends with being the next Edmonton Oilers , and not being able to keep the puck out of your own net. Florida realized this and drafted Ekblad 1st overall instead of the flashy forward and are now contending for a cup 2 years later.