Elias Pettersson | #40 | C

[redhdlois]

1 hour ago, AlwaysACanuckFan said:

Long name + Long neck + Long goal scoring streaks = Eliteias Pettersson 

he has a very long reach too. 

Long neck = head always on a swivel  lol

[TGT68]

10 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

Name some that are over 6 feet tall and less than 170 lbs.

 

Not saying he needs to be over 200, just that I personally think he needs to be a little bit heavier.

Ehlers is listed at 6 foot 172 lbs and doing pretty good.  

[aGENT]

3 hours ago, Stelar said:

Imagine passing up on another Tkachuk to take a defenseman. Lol. 

I hope it happens not only for the sheer comedy here and in the media  but also because it's probably the right thing to do. 

[VegasCanuck]

16 minutes ago, TGT68 said:

Ehlers is listed at 6 foot 172 lbs and doing pretty good.  

That’s still over 170 lbs, and only 3 lbs less than what I’m suggesting.

 

[Pure961089]

Fun Fact. In under 20 scoring, Pettersson had as many points as the 2nd, 3rd and 4th ranked players in the league ......Combined.   http://www.eliteprospects.com/league.php?season=2017&leagueid=SHL&pos=&leagueteam=&teamname=&nation=&nationname=&age=u20&prospects=&order=TP

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Pure961089

[Qwags]

3 hours ago, AlwaysACanuckFan said:

A crown for a King

The King that was Promised.

[bp79]

4 hours ago, Stelar said:

Imagine passing up on another Tkachuk to take a defenseman. Lol. 

Funny cuz I pray we don't take BT. in recent months scouts have started to worry about the fact his numbers in college are very underwhelming and it has been said he is not driving the play like he did against smaller kids. I'm not saying he won't be good. Just repeating what bob mac said in his draft show. There are some who feel he may be the big dropper of the draft. if it comes down to Bovquist or Brady I'm going with the EK clone every time. Gaudette put up better numbers his freshmen year then BT. If his Dad wasn't KT would Brady have all this hype? Luckily were picking top 3 so we won't have to worry

[TGT68]

2 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

That’s still over 170 lbs, and only 3 lbs less than what I’m suggesting.

 

And a player in his third NHL season who was lighter in each of the previous two years.  

[TGokou]

2 hours ago, Qwags said:

The King that was Promised.

The King of the North!

[Rob_Zepp]

44 minutes ago, TGT68 said:

And a player in his third NHL season who was lighter in each of the previous two years.  

Jake Virtanen

[Coconuts]

What a season Elias has had, unbelievable. He actually went and lead the league in scoring as an u20, that's insane.

[JamesB]

13 hours ago, Zoolander said:

With Pettersson and Boeser, is it getting greedy to draft another high-octane forward? I don't want us to pull an Edmonton and be too thin on the blueline. But maybe we could trade away the older guys (Baertschi, Granlund, etc for some serviceable d-men

 

13 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I don’t think so. We have some nice forward prospects but we’re not nearly deep enough at every position to pass up on the BPA. Obviously we need to pick some Ds in this draft, but not necessarily with our first pick, depending on where we fall and who’s available.

In the past three seasons (including this one) the Canucks have the second-worst cumulative record (total points) in the NHL (just getting edged out by Arizona for last place). And in the first two of those years the Canucks set consecutive franchise records for fewest goals scored. And, while injuries have played a role, the main problem is just lack of talent. So, no, hoping for some offensive firepower in the system is not "greedy' -- it is more like providing a bit of nourishment for starving fans.

 

As for the BPA, I think the conventional wisdom is that for at least the first part of the first round and maybe for the entire the first round you should always go with the BPA. I think the conventional wisdom is right on this one. And since D's take about a year longer to develop there is more uncertainty with them in the draft. That means that you are more likely to hit gold in later rounds with a D than with a forward while Ds picked early are usually more risky than forwards picked early. Just look at the Canucks. The best D's on the team are Edler (3rd round) and Tanev (undrafted), and Stecher was also undrafted. With forwards, the best players tend to be first rounders (Horvat, Boeser, Sedins). So, to state Sid's point a bit more forcefully, I would pick several D's this year, but probably lower in the draft unless a D is a clear BPA early (like Dahlin at #1 overall). 

[Canuck Surfer]

39 minutes ago, JamesB said:

And in the first two of those years the Canucks set consecutive franchise records for fewest goals scored. And, while injuries have played a role, the main problem is just lack of talent. So, no, hoping for some offensive firepower in the system is not "greedy' -

Plus two on this part of your response!  A QFT statement. Absolutely we deserve and need skill and scoring as much as anything!

 

41 minutes ago, JamesB said:

you should always go with the BPA. I think the conventional wisdom is right on this one. And since D's take about a year longer to develop there is more uncertainty with them in the draft.

This on the other hand is possibly taking advantage of a misconception?  Yes its true D may take longer to develop? But it does not mean they do not have more scout able attributes that reflect better skill, athleticism, upside, etc.  And similarly; the other side of the misconception is that you can mask flaws in a forward that a D could not get away with. 

 

So maybe you can get away with getting some productivity out of a forward? Without actually developing or ridding the flaws in their game. Case in point Edmonton?     

 

49 minutes ago, JamesB said:

That means that you are more likely to hit gold in later rounds with a D

Pure crock IMO!

 

It was probably true at one time?  Duncan Keith was the best skater in his draft 15 years or so ago. Lasted to the 2knd round. Erik Karlsson was in his draft year in 2008, but only lasted to the mid first round? Heskainen went top 5 last year... 

 

____________________________________________________

 

My point is that ''BPA'' should be a reflection of prowess that sets you apart; speed, puck skills, power, agility, vision, composure under pressure, demonstrated decision making, etc.

 

The hope that these skills slip through to a later round because they are a D? Is not worth passing on a guy who, in fact, has better skills!   

 

 

 

 

[Canuck Surfer]

But hell, look how great we did taking forwards because they were always going to be Norris winning D available in later rounds?  

 

Jensen, Shinkaruk, Mallet, Schroeder, Patrick White, Hodgson all had significant physical shortcomings that were ignored. Because they had at least one great year of scoring performance in junior; we took them anyway!

 

BPA should actually be about being BPA!

[The Great Canucks]

 

[Hugor Hill]

4 hours ago, JamesB said:

 

In the past three seasons (including this one) the Canucks have the second-worst cumulative record (total points) in the NHL (just getting edged out by Arizona for last place). And in the first two of those years the Canucks set consecutive franchise records for fewest goals scored. And, while injuries have played a role, the main problem is just lack of talent. So, no, hoping for some offensive firepower in the system is not "greedy' -- it is more like providing a bit of nourishment for starving fans.

 

As for the BPA, I think the conventional wisdom is that for at least the first part of the first round and maybe for the entire the first round you should always go with the BPA. I think the conventional wisdom is right on this one. And since D's take about a year longer to develop there is more uncertainty with them in the draft. That means that you are more likely to hit gold in later rounds with a D than with a forward while Ds picked early are usually more risky than forwards picked early. Just look at the Canucks. The best D's on the team are Edler (3rd round) and Tanev (undrafted), and Stecher was also undrafted. With forwards, the best players tend to be first rounders (Horvat, Boeser, Sedins). So, to state Sid's point a bit more forcefully, I would pick several D's this year, but probably lower in the draft unless a D is a clear BPA early (like Dahlin at #1 overall). 

This ^
 

[Phat Fingers]

Oh the CDC. For a decade there have been calls to draft defenders because you can’t win without a true number one defender.  We don’t pick a defender with our first rounder for that decade. Then once we finally take a d man and the same posters clamour that we didn’t pick the forward available. 

 

This team now finally has good scouting.  I would be happy with a defender with our first. Edler is a top three defender of we have top two guys to play with, Tanev is fragile and Guddy is a top 4 player with physicality if playing with top 2 guys.

 

If we we end up in the 2-3 spot then we take the BPA.  No reason not to Draft Svechnikov or Zadina. 

 

After the top 3 the BPA is far more subjective. This is where scouting comes into play.  We need to bloster our defence by one way or another. If we take the 2-3 spot, go hard after FA defenders like Carlson and or Green. Trade Tanev for a pick and take a Wilde, Miller, Dobson or Woo. If we end up in the 4-7 spot Bouchard ot Bomquist need to be targets. 

 

Bouchard scored 83 points in the OHL this last season. Has an NHL frame, good mobility and size. I would be happy to have him at 4. I would easily take him over Bomquist, whom is a bit hyped up at this point. 

 

By any metric, Bouchard would have been the top d man in the last two drafts. He has had an outstanding year playing in all situations and there is no reason to believe that he cannot continue his progress into the NHL in three years. 

 

EmW

Edited March 11, 2018 by Eastcoast meets Westcoast

[JeremyCuddles]

Lots of draft talk going on and not enough "Pettersson is too small talk, gonna get murdered in the NHL" talk >:( 

 

For shame.

[bobbyg43]

1 hour ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

Oh the CDC. For a decade there have been calls to draft defenders because you can’t win without a true number one defender.  We don’t pick a defender with our first rounder for that decade. Then once we finally take a d man and the same posters clamour that we didn’t pick the forward available. 

 

This team now finally has good scouting.  I would be happy with a defender with our first. Edler is a top three defender of we have top two guys to play with, Tanev is fragile and Guddy is a top 4 player with physicality if playing with top 2 guys.

 

If we we end up in the 2-3 spot then we take the BPA.  No reason not to Draft Svechnikov or Zadina. 

 

After the top 3 the BPA is far more subjective. This is where scouting comes into play.  We need to bloster our defence by one way or another. If we take the 2-3 spot, go hard after FA defenders like Carlson and or Green. Trade Tanev for a pick and take a Wilde, Miller, Dobson or Woo. If we end up in the 4-7 spot Bouchard ot Bomquist need to be targets. 

 

Bouchard scored 83 points in the OHL this last season. Has an NHL frame, good mobility and size. I would be happy to have him at 4. I would easily take him over Bomquist, whom is a bit hyped up at this point. 

 

By any metric, Bouchard would have been the top d man in the last two drafts. He has had an outstanding year playing in all situations and there is no reason to believe that he cannot continue his progress into the NHL in three years. 

 

EmW

Right on the money with observations.++

 

The Team really really needs to be biased as BPA in D man . This is a need 4 or 5 years from now .

( the current roster is blah too an needs dramatic upgrades”)

 

the team only has OJ projected to on of these pieces. We need more .

I would draft earlier not later to fill the void an try get supplement. Picks in first round . JB next milestone would be to achieve 2 picks in first round. This would seem to be the year as there are a bunch of blue chip D men who will not slip to the third round .(this is the big trade off  “no pain no gain”)

Edited March 11, 2018 by bobbyg43

[The_Rocket]

7 hours ago, JamesB said:

 

In the past three seasons (including this one) the Canucks have the second-worst cumulative record (total points) in the NHL (just getting edged out by Arizona for last place). And in the first two of those years the Canucks set consecutive franchise records for fewest goals scored. And, while injuries have played a role, the main problem is just lack of talent. So, no, hoping for some offensive firepower in the system is not "greedy' -- it is more like providing a bit of nourishment for starving fans.

 

As for the BPA, I think the conventional wisdom is that for at least the first part of the first round and maybe for the entire the first round you should always go with the BPA. I think the conventional wisdom is right on this one. And since D's take about a year longer to develop there is more uncertainty with them in the draft. That means that you are more likely to hit gold in later rounds with a D than with a forward while Ds picked early are usually more risky than forwards picked early. Just look at the Canucks. The best D's on the team are Edler (3rd round) and Tanev (undrafted), and Stecher was also undrafted. With forwards, the best players tend to be first rounders (Horvat, Boeser, Sedins). So, to state Sid's point a bit more forcefully, I would pick several D's this year, but probably lower in the draft unless a D is a clear BPA early (like Dahlin at #1 overall). 

This is very true. But when you have players like Evan Bouchard, who is 2nd in OHL ppg scoring for draft eligible players (svechnikov is 1st), Adam boqvist who is having a better 17 yr old season than Erik karlsson, and Quinn Hughs who, as a defenseman, is scoring at the same rate in NCAA as Brady tkachuk, is not unreasonable to think that the BPA available at number 4 in this draft is in fact a defensemen.