Using #5 to pick a Dman (Discussion)

[J.I.A.H.N]

Now I know the majority of you want to pick one of Tkachuk or PLD, but the more I think about this, the more I am convinced that we should be taking a dman not only a #5, but at #33 as well.

 

We continually hear that it takes longer to develop defensemen than forwards, and that we need a OPMD in the worst way, I suggest if we want one we will have to pick our own, so the time is now, where we get the choice of taking the best one, because of our position.

 

Further to the argument of whether we take a damn, is the fact that over the past several years, we have seen many forwards at the upper end of the draft, which leads me to think there are more elite forwards earlier in the draft and that there are dmen, therefore easier to find one in a draft, just by looking at our past few drafts, we can see that to be true, as the year we picked Jake, there were many Offensive forwards we could have picked instead of Jake. Basically, we can get one any year.

 

Falling back to the Dman argument and the fact is it takes longer to develop them, so taking that into consideration, it stands to reason, that we should be picking some now.....I would suggest that having a offensive dman would increase our current forwards scoring ability.

 

I would choose Juolevi over Chychrun, but it would be one of these young men, the one Benning thinks is a better fit to accomplish that goal.

 

I would then turn to picking a second dman in the 2nd round...............Clague maybe

 

I know this is not a popular thought, but a reasonable alternative to never having a high end dman,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Guest]

We should pick a D-man after round 1, but we need a left wing too.

[Jaku]

There isn't a defender who the 5th pick should be used on, why not take someone who has a top line potential rather than a #2 or #3 defenseman? #33 should be used to draft a d-man, no argument there, but at number 5? No way. There are going to be one or two players that the Canucks should absolutely not pass up on at number 5 and they're not going to be defensemen. 

[billabong]

If the oilers use their 4th pick than they will surely take tkatchuk and that leaves Dubois as the best player available so that's who you pick 100% of the time 

[chon derry]

8 minutes ago, billabong said:

If the oilers use their 4th pick than they will surely take tkatchuk and that leaves Dubois as the best player available so that's who you pick 100% of the time 

i agree with that, they can either keep tkachuk or trade to phx for a player off phx's roster or swap picks  providing phx is at all interested in tkachuk, edm, has some options with them taking tkachuk.

[Fanuck]

At the 5 spot you take bpa every time imo.  That's not going to include a d man this year.   Only way I see them getting a d in the first round is if someone wants to overpay JB to swap picks with us.  Even then,  I doubt JB trades down out of the top 10-12 or so imo. 

 

We need d,  yes, but not at the sake of passing on better players.

[Mackcanuck]

57 minutes ago, Stamkos said:

We should pick a D-man after round 1, but we need a left wing too.

We need a LW but Shinkaruk was supposedly not needed. so we traded him for a #4 or #5 Center

We need to take either Dubois or (LW)Tkachuk or maybe even Brown

We need to draft a potential #1 Center, we may not draft this high again for another 10 years

[Crabcakes]

59 minutes ago, Jaku said:

There isn't a defender who the 5th pick should be used on, why not take someone who has a top line potential rather than a #2 or #3 defenseman? #33 should be used to draft a d-man, no argument there, but at number 5? No way. There are going to be one or two players that the Canucks should absolutely not pass up on at number 5 and they're not going to be defensemen. 

People are going to argue that they should trade down then.  I say no to this because they need to take advantage of their high pick and take the best player they can.  Quality over quantity.

 

 

[Jaku]

21 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

People are going to argue that they should trade down then.  I say no to this because they need to take advantage of their high pick and take the best player they can.  Quality over quantity.

 

 

I agree, the Canucks should stand pat and take the best player available and I guarentee it won't be a d-man that is the best available at 5. 

[Crabcakes]

2 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Now I know the majority of you want to pick one of Tkachuk or PLD, but the more I think about this, the more I am convinced that we should be taking a dman not only a #5, but at #33 as well.

 

We continually hear that it takes longer to develop defensemen than forwards, and that we need a OPMD in the worst way, I suggest if we want one we will have to pick our own, so the time is now, where we get the choice of taking the best one, because of our position.

 

Further to the argument of whether we take a damn, is the fact that over the past several years, we have seen many forwards at the upper end of the draft, which leads me to think there are more elite forwards earlier in the draft and that there are dmen, therefore easier to find one in a draft, just by looking at our past few drafts, we can see that to be true, as the year we picked Jake, there were many Offensive forwards we could have picked instead of Jake. Basically, we can get one any year.

 

Falling back to the Dman argument and the fact is it takes longer to develop them, so taking that into consideration, it stands to reason, that we should be picking some now.....I would suggest that having a offensive dman would increase our current forwards scoring ability.

 

I would choose Juolevi over Chychrun, but it would be one of these young men, the one Benning thinks is a better fit to accomplish that goal.

 

I would then turn to picking a second dman in the 2nd round...............Clague maybe

 

I know this is not a popular thought, but a reasonable alternative to never having a high end dman,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I want both

 

Obviously, they can't have both. 

 

How long until the Sedin's are no longer able to perform as 1st line players?  I'm thinking that after their present contract is up (2 more years), JB will need replacements ready.  Who?  A free agent?  Brock Boeser?  Jarred McCann?  There's nobody projecting to LW in the system and McCann has a long way to go.

 

What's the time line on D?  They have credible 1st liners in Edler (30 next year) and Tanev (26 next year) so maybe 4 years to replace Edler but they really need improvement asap on the back end.  I would argue that free agents who would improve the top pair aren't available and trading for top end talent is prohibitive (not saying they shouldn't pick up a 2nd pair RHD in free agency).  Trading Edler for a top line RHD is the best case but there aren't many teams who would consider that (maybe Florida).   Hutton and Tryamkin are looking good for players coming up in the system but do they project as 1st pairing players?  We really can't count on that.  Larsen and Stecher are unknown quantities.  I would like to think that Benning has the bottom end of the D corps well in hand after the Weber / Bartkowski experiment but it's the top end that is the concern.

 

 

 

[SedinMadness]

thachuk is ours. or we trade down. 

[oldnews]

I'm pretty sure you're aware of how redundant this thread is.

[JustABandwagoner]

Benning said hes not picking a D at #5. 

[Hairy Kneel]

This makes those first minutes after Edmonton selects as the most exciting point of the 2016 draft. Linden should wear roller blades so he can get to as many gm's table's as possible and field offers firsthand.

[PlanB]

2 hours ago, Mackcanuck said:

 we may not draft this high again for another 10 years

Hope you're right, but we may draft even higher next season.  It wouldn't take much, imagine if it was Daniel instead of Sutter out for essentially the season, and if Hansen didn't have a career year?  That's all it would take all other things being equal, scary thought. 

 

But anyway, I agree with the BPA philosophy inside of the top 10 and at #5 BPA doesn't include a d-man - it's pretty much a consensus.   Tkachuk is still on fire over there in London so his stock is just rising - playoff production is a very highly regarded aspect of a player's game.  Because of this I'm thinking more and more it's going to be PLD unless JB swings a deal to get a high caliber, young NHL ready d-man and trades down a few spots. 

[J.I.A.H.N]

You know guys, I understand the BPA, and I agree we need first line players, but there always seems to be a forward at BPA, so the question is when do we draft our #1 Dman?

 

PLD or Tkachuk could very well be 1st line players, or just 2nd line players. Where as Chychrun and Juolevi have both been slated as #2 Dmen, which are still starters..........

 

I understand our need to replace the Sedin's, but we have never had a #1 Dman, and will be using luck to find him in the 2nd or 3rd round....again they take longer to develop, so maybe we trade down?

 

Then again...what the heck! Let's take the BPA from January, which probably would have been one of the Dmen, the question is, who will be rated better 6 months from now?

 

hey, I will go with the crowd and pick the BPA forward, but you guys have to get me another late 1st or 2nd, because we need to improve our odds at getting a solid Dman

[The Canadian]

13 hours ago, Stamkos said:

We should pick a D-man after round 1, but we need a left wing too.

McCann can play 1st line left wing