Gaudette Celly Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 12 minutes ago, Scruffy05 said: Interesting enough, the fact that he mentioned the PPQB at all indicates that one of his 5 is either Lilejegren, Makar or Heiskenan which omits one of Glass, Mittelstadt or Vilardi... Unless they are rated 6-10 and he is using 'top 5' as a shorthand for 'best players' which happens a lot. Makes a perverse kind of sense when there is much scout disagreement and the players are this close and your top 5 contains 7 or 8 players that interchange depending on the weather it is fruitless to try to pick between them anyways. If what the guy recently posted from an alleged "insider" is valid, then their rankings would seem to be: 1. Patrick/Hischier 2. Patrick/Hischier 3. Mittelstadt 4. PPQB 5. another (true and projected) C -- perhaps Glass or Necas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Just now, kenhodgejr said: Boesser? He was a consensus 22nd overall pick. We lucked out and got him a 23rd overall pick. http://www.mynhldraft.com/2015-draft/prospect-consensus-rankings/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 13 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: 2016 took Juolevi because they wanted a young D. Meanwhile Tkachuk was ranked high on all 13 of 13 top ranking reports and they went with team need. http://www.mynhldraft.com/2016-draft/nhl-draft-rankings/ Are they bad picks? No, but they aren't necessarily maximizing the asset. We'd almost be better off just going with the general consensus on BPA than factoring in our team needs. Last year I think it was more they just weren't that interested in Tkachuk, and he said as much. Dubois was likely their first choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Not according to general scouting consensus reports. I wouldn't touch Makar in the top 5. Only 2 of the 13 top end reports have him in the top 10. Ever year we’ve had a top pick it’s been team need instead of taking BPA. 2014 took Virtanen because they felt the team needed size. Meanwhile Nylander was ranked high on 10 of 13 top end reports and they went with team need. http://www.mynhldraft.com/2014-nhl-draft-prospect-rankings/ 2016 took Juolevi because they wanted a young D. Meanwhile Tkachuk was ranked high on all 13 of 13 top ranking reports and they went with team need. http://www.mynhldraft.com/2016-draft/nhl-draft-rankings/ Are they bad picks? No, but they aren't necessarily maximizing the asset. We'd almost be better off just going with the general consensus on BPA than factoring in our team needs. You're far too focused on individual rankings (especially 'consensus'). Maybe not Makar (and that's arguable)...but Heiskanen I would. We didn't draft team need. Virtanen was in the same tier. Juolevi was in the same tier. According to your 'consensus' we still should/would have picked Ritchie ahead of Nylander/Ehlers and peopls STILL would have been bitching There is no true 'consensus' after 2 in this draft. Edited April 28, 2017 by J.R. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Just now, Hutton Wink said: Last year I think it was more they just weren't that interested in Tkachuk, and he said as much. Dubois was likely their first choice. That's true, but it's because we were focussed on team need. D and C rather than just taking BPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 26 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said: It's more that I don't see a defence corps with all three of Stecher, Makar, and Subban. I suppose they could pair each up with a Gudbranson type or even Juolevi, but that's projecting to be a pretty lightweight unit. All that being said, if a Makar is the BPA then you take him and resolve other issues it may cause afterwards. Yeah, I agree that you probably don't build your top-6 D around pairings that involve Makar, Stecher, and Subban. That said, you also don't avoid drafting Makar just because he might push Subban out of the mix. Subban really shouldn't be part of that equation. Like you said, if Makar is BPA (and I could see our scouts, if they're high on his potential, making that determination in the 3-5 overall slots), you draft him and let the chips fall where they may on the D chart and how our lesser prospects (no disrespect meant to Subban) might be affected. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenhodgejr Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 I am 2 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said: If what the guy recently posted from an alleged "insider" is valid, then their rankings would seem to be: 1. Patrick/Hischier 2. Patrick/Hischier 3. Mittelstadt 4. PPQB 5. another (true and projected) C -- perhaps Glass or Necas I find it interesting and promising that Mittlestadt is rated 3rd He would make a stud first line of: MIttlestadt Horvat Boesser or potentially make a good 2nd line center Beartchi Horvat Boesser Goldobin MIttlestadt Granlund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: That's true, but it's because we were focussed on team need. D and C rather than just taking BPA. The idea that there's only one, irrefutable 'BPA' at any given pick short of maybe 1st overall (and even that isn't true this year), is frankly silly and small minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 7 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: He was a consensus 22nd overall pick. We lucked out and got him a 23rd overall pick. http://www.mynhldraft.com/2015-draft/prospect-consensus-rankings/ And yet , if I recall, they had him ranked something like 14th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Just now, J.R. said: You're far too focused on individual rankings (especially 'consensus'). Maybe not Makar (and that's arguable)...but Heiskanen I would. We didn't draft team need. Virtanen was in the same tier. Juolevi was in the same tier. According to your 'consensus' we still should/would have picked Ritchie ahead of Nylander/Ehlers and peopls STILL would have been bitching Actually consensus was to take Nylander and Ehlers were both ranked ahead of Ritchie. All i'm saying is when 10 of the top 13 scouting agency are reporting something different than you are seeing, maybe you should take a second to reevaluate why. In the clip you post JB clearly said two areas he was excited about. It shouldn't be about team need, it should be purely BPA. We're letting our team need glasses cloud our judgment. No two players are ranked on par together, they may be close but that's why they make lists. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 19 minutes ago, Scruffy05 said: For Vilardi I think the concern is his feet- my understanding is that if he managed to tick up his first couple steps a notch he would be a lock for center but, if not, a guy his size banging down the wings is not a terrible thing to have. I believe centers need to be more quick than fast. Still, he is plenty quick for his size. Ya I hear ya Because Bo certainly couldn't pick up his skates when needed That was his knock. but Vilardi actually produced comparably to Horvat while being almost a year younger in his draft year is slightly taller and possibly better along the boards 2 of Horvats mold would not a bad thing at all IMO 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Just now, J.R. said: The idea that there's only one, irrefutable 'BPA' at any given pick short of maybe 1st overall (and even that isn't true this year), is frankly silly and small minded. Small minded is ignoring what the 13 of the top scouting agencies are reporting. When 13 others groups state your player choice is wrong, it might have some reasoning behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Actually consensus was to take Nylander and Ehlers were both ranked ahead of Ritchie. All i'm saying is when 10 of the top 13 scouting agency are reporting something different than you are seeing, maybe you should take a second to reevaluate why. In the clip you post JB clearly said two areas he was excited about. It shouldn't be about team need, it should be purely BPA. We're letting our team need glasses cloud our judgment. No two players are ranked on par together, they may be close but that's why they make lists. I was looking at Bob McKenzie's list (who creates a 'consensus' from multiple scouts), from the link you posted. 6-Ritchie 7-Virtanen 8-Fleury 9-Nylander 10-Ehlers No, we're recognizing that 3-10 are basically on par BPA and hence prioritizing other factors of otherwise 'equal' players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Small minded is ignoring what the 13 of the top scouting agencies are reporting. When 13 others groups state your player choice is wrong, it might have some reasoning behind it. 'wrong'. Most scouts last year flat out stated while they had MT ranked higher it's largely to him being a forward (more predictable) and more NHL ready. Nothing to do with actually being 'better'. Most also agreed they wouldn't be surprised if we took OJ who was basically MT's equal in value but a D (less predictable) and likely 2+ years away. In no way, shape or form does that constitute 'wrong'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruffy05 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 19 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said: If what the guy recently posted from an alleged "insider" is valid, then their rankings would seem to be: 1. Patrick/Hischier 2. Patrick/Hischier 3. Mittelstadt 4. PPQB 5. another (true and projected) C -- perhaps Glass or Necas Do you have a link to this insider? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camel Toe Drag Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Warhippy said: Not sure how Cm is a playmaking center when most scouts now have him pegged as a winger now as he enters the NHL. If we want a playmaking center it is Hischier or Glass 45 minutes ago, Scruffy05 said: I've only recently heard Mittelstadt being pegged as a winger, I am not certain where it comes from. He looks like a center to me but I am in no way a scout and will always defer to their judgement. He seems to have the right size and mobility for it. Do you know what it is? Is it his ability to backcheck down low or more of a fitness/endurance thing since centers generally need to skate so much more than wingers? At the very least he appears to have the brain for it... As of right now he definitely looks like a playmaking centre. And in regards to the video that J.R just posted, I fee he could be talking about Mittelstadt as well as Glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beary Sweet Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Ya I hear ya Because Bo certainly couldn't pick up his skates when needed That was his knock. but Vilardi actually produced comparably to Horvat while being almost a year younger in his draft year is slightly taller and possibly better along the boards 2 of Horvats mold would not a bad thing at all IMO This along with the fact that he shoots right handed which helps our team a lot since we can play the match up game with other teams. Like Kesler for the Ducks, he was tasked with keeping McDavid in check and playing a 200 ft game. That's what I see in Vilardi. Great in all 3 zones and along the boards. Really shifty player that would be a great pick if we pick say 3. He has a nice finishing touch also and can really burn opposition if you leave him all alone in a breakaway. Edited April 28, 2017 by Beary Sweet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 13 minutes ago, J.R. said: 'wrong'. Most scouts last year flat out stated while they had MT ranked higher it's largely to him being a forward (more predictable) and more NHL ready. Nothing to do with actually being 'better'. Most also agreed they wouldn't be surprised if we took OJ who was basically MT's equal in value but a D (less predictable) and likely 2+ years away. In no way, shape or form does that constitute 'wrong'. 13 of 13 top scouting agency would have picked tkachuk ahead of Juolevi. It may not be wrong but it definitely wasn't the censensus said Vancouver should have did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 8 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: 13 of 13 top scouting agency would have picked tkachuk ahead of Juolevi. It may not be wrong but it definitely wasn't the censensus said Vancouver should have did. It's the exact opposite of what Van should have did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Just now, J.R. said: It's the exact opposite of what Van should have did You're missing the point. With the latest reports that Casey isn't a NHL center and will be a wing. Should the Canucks completely scratch him off the list? i personally don't care if he's center or wing or d. If he's the BPA at the spot we are picking. He's the player we should take. Positional team need should not even come into consideration early in the draft. Take the player you think will have the better NHL career and worry about positional need later through trades and ufa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now