R3aL Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, jmahyoung said: I expect the following: 3rd: Mittlestadt 4th: Vilardi 5th: Liljegren We'll end up with and excellent PP Defenceman, the best in the draft. Could have rivaled Nolan Patrick this year, if he was healthy. These guys don't grow on trees. Some complaints will float around, but great defense is what championship teams are built around. I really do not see the Aves taking Vilardi over Heiskanen Duchene/Mackinnnon/Jost/Compher/Grigorenko When the draft is flat between D and Forwards they taking a D for sure Dallas I could see taking either Vilardi or Heiskanen and if they take Heiskanen I wouldn't be surprised to see Aves take a winger or one of Liljegren/Makar Edited May 8, 2017 by R3aL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahyoung Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 8 minutes ago, R3aL said: I really do not see the Aves taking Vilardi over Heiskanen Duchene/Mackinnnon/Jost/Compher/Grigorenko When the draft is flat between D and Forwards they taking a D for sure Dallas I could see taking either Vilardi or Heiskanen and if they take Heiskanen I wouldn't be surprised to see Aves take a winger or one of Liljegren/Makar In that case Mittlestadt is an awesome consolation prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 32 minutes ago, J.R. said: No, it isn't. Consensus is an average of guesses and a bunch of assumptions that specifically take individual team criteria out of the equation and generally skews towards NHL readiness. It's a specifically designed as a generic list, IE: not reality. So a team that's looking a lot more long term (say 3+ years out, like the Canucks) is going to value a player like Tkachuck's closer NHL readiness lower on their list than other factors. If you gave those scouts a detailed outline on team situation/timeline, existing prospect depth/makeup, team priorities on personality, leadership, intelligence etc and ask those same scouts who they might take given that context, I bet a lot would have a different 'consensus'. Again, this is exactly why most mocks vary from 'consensus' lists First of all that's not even remotely true. Case in point, Ehlers was thought to be a few years out since he was going to have to put on weight. That didn't stop them from ranking him higher than Jake, who had a more NHL ready body. Craig button clearly states his list is build on what the players he believes will have the better NHL career, as are most lists.. A consensus is the average of what experts believe to be the correct decisions. If you asked 1000 canucks fans who the best canucks player was and 900 of the say bure, 50 say Linden, and another 50 say Naslund, You can come to the conclusion that the consensus believes Bure was the best canucks player, it could be right or wrong, but that's what the masses believe. If you asked 20 other NHL GM who they would have taken at 5 last year, and 19 of them state Tkachuk, you can come to a consensus that Tkachuk was the BPA at 5. You're team might have different criteria on individual rankings but that doesn't change who the consensus believes is BPA. Taking any other player is not taking the consensus BPA. There's no way around it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camel Toe Drag Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 21 minutes ago, messier's_elbow said: I rather have Heiskanen Too safe of a pick IMO. If we're taking a dman I'd rather role the dice on a higher ceiling with elite potential like TL. His skating alone makes me gush over him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 14 minutes ago, R3aL said: I really do not see the Aves taking Vilardi over Heiskanen Duchene/Mackinnnon/Jost/Compher/Grigorenko When the draft is flat between D and Forwards they taking a D for sure Dallas I could see taking either Vilardi or Heiskanen and if they take Heiskanen I wouldn't be surprised to see Aves take a winger or one of Liljegren/Makar I don't see the av's having an interest in taking a D at 5. Duchene is about to get traded, and Grigorenko plays more on the Wing than at center. He's basically their version of granlund. Soderberg is currently thier #2 center, but he had a bad year last year. He's great on the draws (over 50%) and plays the majority of the dzone starts. He's also 31 (turning 32) so he doesn't really fit in the long term rebuild. Vilardi makes sense for them since they need a strong #2 center than can play an all around game. Something they've missed since moving O'Reilly. Vilardi also can play RW, which is also an area of need for the Av's. If the av's to go for a D, I see them trading down to the 6-12 range, but it will really come down to what they believe they can get for Duchene. Moving Duchene for a young potential top pairing LHD greatly reduces their need on defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: First of all that's not even remotely true. Case in point, Ehlers was thought to be a few years out since he was going to have to put on weight. That didn't stop them from ranking him higher than Jake, who had a more NHL ready body. Craig button clearly states his list is build on what the players he believes will have the better NHL career, as are most lists.. A consensus is the average of what experts believe to be the correct decisions. If you asked 1000 canucks fans who the best canucks player was and 900 of the say bure, 50 say Linden, and another 50 say Naslund, You can come to the conclusion that the consensus believes Bure was the best canucks player, it could be right or wrong, but that's what the masses believe. If you asked 20 other NHL GM who they would have taken at 5 last year, and 19 of them state Tkachuk, you can come to a consensus that Tkachuk was the BPA at 5. You're team might have different criteria on individual rankings but that doesn't change who the consensus believes is BPA. Taking any other player is not taking the consensus BPA. There's no way around it. Again Forsy, I don't need 'consensus' explained to me. Consensus is limited. Consensus lacks context. And reducing it to a over simplified, linear set of numbers also doesn't take in to account that most scouts would also agree that 'consensus' players can and should in reality be grouped and that it's highly reductive to 'definitively' state that player 7 is clearly BPA over player 8 or 9. I'm well aware of consensus lists and what consensus means. Only one of us seems able to grasp the limits and context of such lists though. Edited May 8, 2017 by J.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 And Virtanen should have been considered a project if he wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 51 minutes ago, Rollieo Del Fuego said: ...cdc...cant' even come to a consensus on what's a consensus.... Yeah..yeahh..yeahhh what consensus my consensus was in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 45 minutes ago, R3aL said: I really do not see the Aves taking Vilardi over Heiskanen Duchene/Mackinnnon/Jost/Compher/Grigorenko When the draft is flat between D and Forwards they taking a D for sure Dallas I could see taking either Vilardi or Heiskanen and if they take Heiskanen I wouldn't be surprised to see Aves take a winger or one of Liljegren/Makar I see Modano wanting Mittlestadt. A C/W hybrid with his hands from Minnesota is someone perfect for Dallas now. Spezza/Benn are great but Spezza will be gone or 3rd line in 2 seasons, Faksa looks ok, Shore looks ok. But then you'd have Benn/Mittlestadt as your 1-2 and that's impressive So hischer/patrick Mittlestadt Vilardi/Heiskanen/Makar US at????? I am actually with a previous post though. We've debated this to death. I want to know who is available or the most intriguing at our 2nd(s) and 3rd spot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyoung Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 1 hour ago, R3aL said: I really do not see the Aves taking Vilardi over Heiskanen Duchene/Mackinnnon/Jost/Compher/Grigorenko When the draft is flat between D and Forwards they taking a D for sure Dallas I could see taking either Vilardi or Heiskanen and if they take Heiskanen I wouldn't be surprised to see Aves take a winger or one of Liljegren/Makar Avs seem pretty focused on just BPA, don't be surprised if they go with a C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 34 minutes ago, J.R. said: Again Forsy, I don't need 'consensus' explained to me. Consensus is limited. Consensus lacks context. And reducing it to a over simplified, linear set of numbers also doesn't take in to account that most scouts would also agree that 'consensus' players can and should in reality be grouped and that it's highly reductive to 'definitively' state that player 7 is clearly BPA over player 8 or 9. I'm well aware of consensus lists and what consensus means. Only one of us seems able to grasp the limits and context of such lists though. Again, you say understand it so why do you have a hard time understanding that Tkachuk was the consensus BPA at #5. no one is saying consensus is always right, I'm not even saying JB made the wrong choice because I wanted Sergachev, who clearly wasn't BPA. I'm just stating that the majority of the hockey world at the time believed Tkachuk was the BPA at #5, We can argue if he would have been the right or wrong choice for the team and our needs all we want, but when 10 out 10 of the top scouting agencies have him ranked higher, it's proof, and there's no denying, that Tkachuk was the consensus BPA at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeneedLumme Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 2 hours ago, J.R. said: How do you not understand the inherent limits of 'consensus' and that it's an extremely over simplified and frankly poor way to even look at draft ranking of something as complex as 18 year old, human, hockey players? At one time the consensus was that the earth was the centre of the universe and the moon was made of green cheese. That's how accurate consensus is. Which is why, rather than relying on the "consensus" picks, the Canucks hired a GM who has demonstrated that he is better than the consensus at evaluating young players. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Again, you say understand it so why do you have a hard time understanding that Tkachuk was the consensus BPA at #5. no one is saying consensus is always right, I'm not even saying JB made the wrong choice because I wanted Sergachev, who clearly wasn't BPA. I'm just stating that the majority of the hockey world at the time believed Tkachuk was the BPA at #5, We can argue if he would have been the right or wrong choice for the team and our needs all we want, but when 10 out 10 of the top scouting agencies have him ranked higher, it's proof, and there's no denying, that Tkachuk was the consensus BPA at the time. I have zero problem understanding that. Why do you have such a vast problem understanding the value/context of that information? 3 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said: At one time the consensus was that the earth was the centre of the universe and the moon was made of green cheese. That's how accurate consensus is. Which is why, rather than relying on the "consensus" picks, the Canucks hired a GM who has demonstrated that he is better than the consensus at evaluating young players. Pretty much Edited May 8, 2017 by J.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, J.R. said: I have zero problem understanding that. Why do you have such a vast problem understanding the value/context of that information? There is no problem with the value. Again i'll say this for the 4th time. No one is saying the consensus is always right, they simply rank players. That's it, it doesn't take into consideration on team needs or teams ranking, if they think player X is better than player Y, they rank player X higher, thus BPA. if the world say Tkachuk is BPA at 5. But canucks say Juolevi is because we like D. canucks needs don't change the fact that Tkachuk is still the consensus BPA. Edited May 8, 2017 by ForsbergTheGreat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 10 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: canucks needs evaluation don't change the fact that Tkachuk is still the consensus BPA. FTFY Which means very little and certainly not as much as many CDC'ers seem to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 5 minutes ago, J.R. said: FTFY Which means very little and certainly not as much as many CDC'ers seem to think. It means that purely on a BPA, the majority of the world would have taken Tkachuk at #5..... He may have not filled that canucks needs as good as a defense would have but he was still the consensus BPA at that time. Thus why people often state, take BPA over team needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: It means that purely on a BPA, the majority of the world would have taken Tkachuk at #5..... He may have not filled that canucks needs as good as a defense would have but he was still the consensus BPA at that time. Thus why people often state, take BPA over team needs. You're presuming it was teem needs.... there's a reason I FTFY. You're also still overstating BPA. It's not like Benning took a guy rated 20th. Edited May 8, 2017 by J.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Am.Ironman Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 Curve ball here... Do you think Philly is open for business to finally attain that dman to anchor their blue line to support their already high powered offense? Let's say NJ takes Nolan Patrick 1st OA... What would Philly be willing to sway for Nico Hischier? They certainly need a guy like Tanev on their team. However, if I am JB I am not trading 5th OA and Tanev just for the 2nd OA on its own. I just feel that Philly has enough high powered offensive guys. Unless they use the power of Hischier's ELC and end up trading one of their forward to save cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 1 minute ago, J.R. said: You're presuming it was teem needs.... there's a reason I FTFY. You're also still overstating BPA. It's not like Benning took a guy rated 20th. The fact that linden came out and said that this team hasn't drafted a D in the first round in 10+ years, ya i do think i was based on team needs. The reason there wasn't that much shock was because he rated fairly close. But close doesn't equal consensus BPA. Again not saying JB made the wrong choice. I wanted Sergachev, on my personal list, Sergachev was BPA #5. But what I think, doesn't change what the consensus experts think. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnTavares Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 JR honestly just likes to stir $&!# up. Arguing about whether or not Tkachuk was the "consensus" pick or what "consensus" means is stupid. Fact is that the majority of the scouting world had Tkachuk over Juolevi, meaning that the consensus was Tkachuk. Canucks went against the grain and picked Juolevi, who made the right choice remains to be seen - end of story. Stop polluting this thread with your consensus bullcrap. 3 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