Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

2018 NHL Entry Draft


Zfetch

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Or the Pettersson reaction immediately after the draft :lol: Sadly you're probably right about some people in this fan base/media.

 

Actually the Pettersson situation is probably a good 'comparable'. A highly skilled Swede, young for the draft and on the smaller side who hasn't had much exposure over here. Boqvist's is basically the D version of that same scenario. Hopefully history repeats, screw all the haters :towel:

 

It's not just this draft. Last year there wasn't even a consensus on 1st OA and the top 10 or so, could (and did) go in just about any order. And even in most 'good' drafts, once you get past 1st, the top 3 and especially the top 5, it gets increasingly murky.

 

And I agree, depending on teams picking, we could see all manor of changes to the 'consensus'. Now none of this is likely per se, but it's all quite possible:

 

A team at 2 might take Zadina over Svech. If they don't, someone might value Boqvist, Hughes or Tkachuck higher than Zadina at 3, potentially dropping him to 4th or even 5th. 

 

Even if the top 3 go as expected, as you noted, the players generally ranked 4-8'ish could go in basically any order. And even there, one of the guys most people have from say 9-12'ish could sneak in to the top 8.

 

It's NOWHERE near as linear as some people on CDC make it out to be. This i agree with.

Boqvist is not the same as Petterson. Petterson plays forward and was picked in a draft that did not have the skilled Defensemen that are in this Draft. He is basically a forward that plays on the blueline. He is "on the smaller side" as you put it. This is a disadvantage in our division and one only has to look at the Stecher on Staal moment in the Minny game to prove my point. We play half our games in the opponents arena, do you not think Kopitar will be out against Boqvist every shift in LA, Thornton or one of the bigger Sharks in San Jose, how about Getzlaf on Boqvist in Anaheim? Its not just one mis-match its many. you can discount the size if you wish but Bouchard is scoring just as much as Bopqvist is and again is the Captain of his team, also has played with Juolevi  in London, has a much larger sample size of games to assess, played playoffs in The OHL and has done this on the smaller ice surface which is the same game as the NHL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

And how did that turn out.  You might not like him but Tkachuk is a star and Calgary’s heart and soul.  I didn’t want to bring up 2016 but since you did I will dive into it.  Canucks headed into the 2016 draft with the 5thoverall, 33rd overall, 64th overall, and 94th overall.  We traded away the 33rd and the 94th overall pick and took a D with the 5th overall because “team need”  but consider the option of having taken Tkachuk 5th overall, not trading for Guddy and having taken a D with picks in rounds 2-4.  Just look at the D taken within 7 spots of our picks.  Hajek 37th overall, Fox 66th overall, Mete 100th overall.  All three of those D have a strong possibility to be as good it not better than Juolevi.  And we’d passed on a 1st line PWF putting up over 25 goals a year.  To make matters worse using our first pick based on team needs doesn’t appear to have filled our need for a top pairing #1 D, hence our hope for taking another D in the first round this year. 

 

Listen you’re getting stuck on what the meaning of BPA is.  You’re trying to use physical attributes and team needs as a justification for BPA, which is in fact that exact opposite of picking BPA.  Physical attributes don’t determine how good you will become.  I could care less that Bogosian is 6’3 RHD when if I had the choice I’d take 5’11 LHD Gostisbehere over him every day of the week regardless of how crowed our left side is.

 

I’m telling you, I want Canucks to pick BPA, regardless of position, size, team need, or country born from. I want to leave the first round of draft, having selected the player with the most talent and brightest future.  I don’t care if we have someone similar in our prospect pool, we are rebuilding and our biggest focus is on amassing talent, we are not at a place where we can pass on talent in favour or a team need, because as of today everything is a team need.

You’d need more than just your picks to land Mete/Fox/Hajek you’d also need a crystal ball.  None of whom would fill the physical / leadership role Guddy has assumed since getting healthy and signing his contract.  

 

Speaking of, that’s quite the hyperbolic claim that they have a “strong possibility” to be better than Juolevi.  

 

I also disagree with your BPA rhetoric.  Not only is it obviously subjective as the best players never go in a sequential order...

 

even if it were a more clear cut process I think there is some wiggle room based on positional need.  C and D always command more in trade or salary and are harder to come by than wingers.  Therefore there is an inherent bonus to having them home grown in your system to benefit from any trades or hometown discount contracts.  

 

Thus, being a winger heavy squad it may be nice to draft “BPA” but I’d wager you’re losing out when you trade your BPA for a D or C because at the end of the day you still need to field hockey team.

 

Obviously theres a point where the winger is the better pick but it’s not a cut and dry BPA situation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said:

Again I am telling you the best Player available does not come down to what YOU or I think!!!.

I never said anything regards to that. I’ve always stated Canucks need to base there BPA on who is on THEIR list. But when putting a list together with the definition of BPA, it doesn’t consider position and size, it’s simply who has the brightest future. 

 

Quote

 

We took Juolevi because he was a team need and as far as Benning was concerned he was the BPA, we do not know why we passed on Tkachuck.

Ok here is where you are getting stuck again. You can’t pick a player because of team need and then say we chose him because of BPA.  

 

 Team need has nothing to do when picking BPA. Yes a player can be BPA and lucky also fit the team need, but that’s completely different than focusing on picking a player based on need. 

 

Quote

As i have stated before the family does not like Vancouver and there is no indication that just because we would have picked him we would have had him suit up.

This is such a cop out of an argument. There’s no merit to it and all just made up speculation.  It’s poiintless to even state let alone try to make an argument out of it. 

 

Quote

5 ' 11 Gostisbehere is the smallest D on the team at 5'11. when smaller players play with a bigger lineup they can play bigger.

So this one pick is going to determine the rest of our d core. What size is gudbranson? Is Juolevi not 6’2. Edler not 6’3. Could tryamkin ever come back? Are we forced not to ever sign, draft or trade for other D without size after making this pick? 

Again I showed you 3 following picks of D all with size likely available outside the first round. Your putting too much focus on thinking this pick is the only opportunity to fill a hole and then find it acceptable to take a need over BPA. 

 

Again. I’m not saying who canucks BPA is. I don’t know who there thinking. All I’m saying is when determining which player has the brightest future. Team needs have zero affect on that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I never said anything regards to that. I’ve always stated Canucks need to base there BPA on who is on THEIR list. But when putting a list together with the definition of BPA, it doesn’t consider position and size, it’s simply who has the brightest future. This is where we fundamentally disagree.

 

Ok here is where you are getting stuck again. You can’t pick a player because of team need and then say we chose him because of BPA.  Disagree

 

 Team need has nothing to do when picking BPA. Yes a player can be BPA and lucky also fit the team need, but that’s completely different than focusing on picking a player based on need. I agree on the BPA being the team need if its not a clearly discerned issue. In other words if you have two players listed at 6 and 7 theres no reason not to pick team need at 6 instead of 7

 

This is such a cop out of an argument. There’s no merit to it and all just made up speculation.  It’s poiintless to even state let alone try to make an argument out of it. 

 

So this one pick is going to determine the rest of our d core. What size is gudbranson? Is Juolevi not 6’2. Edler not 6’3. Could tryamkin ever come back? Are we forced not to ever sign, draft or trade for other D without size after making this pick?  We are not talking about any other draft. we are talking about this years draft and the players that are available to us now. The players you mention Here outside of Olli are terrible and not getting the job done now. Guddy is a 5-6 D man and is playing in over his head. Edler is done in the next 2 years. Juolevi may be a 1-2 D but we will still ned more.  This draft is the year of the stud defenseman. Whether you believe thats Boqvist Bouchard, Wilde or any other player

Again I showed you 3 following picks of D all with size likely available outside the first round. Your putting too much focus on thinking this pick is the only opportunity to fill a hole and then find it acceptable to take a need over BPA.  Its not the Only focus of the first round but it is the best.

 

Again. I’m not saying who canucks BPA is. I don’t know who there thinking. All I’m saying is when determining which player has the brightest future. Team needs have zero affect on that. Again we fundeamentally disagree on this. Thgis team needs top 4 D This will take a minimum of 4 years to develop. Top 4 D do not get aquired via trade very often and they dont come up in free agency at the perfect time for your team development. We are not playoff bound next year or even the next We have an aging D core that is the basis of our problem. We have undersized D that play small. Our best D are constantly injured and we need to rebuild. Dahlin would make all these arguments moot. But he is the consensus number one pick not only because of his play but he is not a small player and he is a D man. Why do you think he is above Zadina and Svechnikov? He is a D

 

Points addressed in bold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sugar baby watermelon said:

I would have no problem with this but the second this kid would get whoever is drafted by the Canucks, he would gets the Tkachuk/Ehlers/Nylander treatment.....

Fixed.

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

And how did that turn out.

How about we wait minimally until our draft pick actually starts playing in the NHL before making a judgement based on one side of the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Isam said:

His speed will help him out alot. No player is faster then Hughes in this draft and that includes my favorite athletic freak in Noel.

Tell us about Noel?

 

20 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

As opposed to the guy that has actually played with OJ and has 84 points in 64 games?

 

Just for some context, Horvat had 61 points in 64 games in his draft year playing on London, and 74 points in 54 games in his draft + 1 years.

 

I don't care how you slice it, Bouchard's production is elite. He's finding ways to get it done, and without being a defensive liability like Boqvist.

 

Bouchard over Boqvist all day, any day.

You cannot measure just production.  Although Boqvist's production, at his age against the pro & older competition he plays against actually stacks up very well. 84 points in a much more visible league does sound much sexier? But you have to scout skills & how they will translate.

 

Hodgson for example had better junior numbers than Duchesne. But speed & the ability to play at pace were attributes Duchesne had that were always going to translate better.  Edler in 2009 was looking like he would be one of the leagues best D? He has mobility & size like Bouchard. But although he was very relevant never quite got there? And the game has gotten even faster since.    

 

So D like Stecher now survive. Grzelcyk in Boston is suddenly playing a regular shift & near 20 minutes a night. But guys like Ghost, Ryan Ellis, Krug, Klingburg, who have even more advanced skills, plus ability to play at the pace Heskainen last year & now Boqvist are demonstrating do not just thrive? But excel, dominate and drive the play!

 

If Bouchard had that pace, puck skills at speed? Well he would be contending with Dahlin for first overall.    

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said:

Boqvist is not the same as Petterson. Petterson plays forward and was picked in a draft that did not have the skilled Defensemen that are in this Draft. He is basically a forward that plays on the blueline. He is "on the smaller side" as you put it. This is a disadvantage in our division and one only has to look at the Stecher on Staal moment in the Minny game to prove my point. We play half our games in the opponents arena, do you not think Kopitar will be out against Boqvist every shift in LA, Thornton or one of the bigger Sharks in San Jose, how about Getzlaf on Boqvist in Anaheim? Its not just one mis-match its many. you can discount the size if you wish but Bouchard is scoring just as much as Bopqvist is and again is the Captain of his team, also has played with Juolevi  in London, has a much larger sample size of games to assess, played playoffs in The OHL and has done this on the smaller ice surface which is the same game as the NHL.

Young, smalller, highly skilled Swede that hasn't had much pre-draft exposure over here. You can apply that to both players. Feel free to be wrong about Boqvist as you likely were about Pettersson.

 

Kopitar will probably be 33-34 by the time Boqvist is playing here FWIW. (And frankly, Boqvist could probably strip the puck and skate circles around him when he gets here.)

 

SJS, ANA and LAK are all in their core's last gasps the next few years. They're us in 2012. Thornton will  almost certainly be retired. Getzlaf 35-36. I'm not particularly worried about the 'big California teams' moving forward, neither should you be.

 

Never mind that you don't particularly build a team based on other teams anyway. You build the best team you can according to how you feel you build a team. That includes skill on your D IMO.

 

All your 'point' proves is that a 5th or 6th D playing against one of the other team's best forwards is going to be challenged. And Boqvist is almost Stechers size now. At 17. And FAR more skilled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

You’d need more than just your picks to land Mete/Fox/Hajek you’d also need a crystal ball.  None of whom would fill the physical / leadership role Guddy has assumed since getting healthy and signing his contract.  

Perfect example. We were able to acquire a player like guddy through trade. Didn’t need to use a top 5 pick on. 

 

2 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

Speaking of, that’s quite the hyperbolic claim that they have a “strong possibility” to be better than Juolevi.  

Do they not. two years post draft had the value between them all got bigger or smaller?  

 

2 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

I also disagree with your BPA rhetoric.  Not only is it obviously subjective as the best players never go in a sequential order...

I’m only going to say this once more because it’s getting really annoying having to repeat. I’m talking about canucks own internal scouting list. The one the come up with during their final scouting meeting. There’s a reason they have one players ranked 3rd best and another at 6th best. 

 

2 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

Thus, being a winger heavy squad it may be nice to draft “BPA” but I’d wager you’re losing out when you trade your BPA for a D or C because at the end of the day you still need to field hockey team.

You’re assume the winger vs D/c reach relatively similar levels of growth. Would you pass on laine for Juolevi?  Or how about even more relatable. Would you trade boeser for Roy when canucks took BPA over team need?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Young, smalller, highly skilled Swede that hasn't had much pre-draft exposure over here. You can apply that to both players. Feel free to be wrong about Boqvist as you likely were about Pettersson. I didnt mind the Petterson pic at all

 

Kopitar will probably be 33-34 by the time Boqvist is playing here FWIW. (And frankly, Boqvist could probably strip the puck and skate circles around him when he gets here.) Kopitar is the example , thanks for missing that fact there are many bigger players in our division i did not mention

 

SJS, ANA and LAK are all in their core's last gasps the next few years. They're us in 2012. Thornton will  almost certainly be retired. Getzlaf 35-36. I'm not particularly worried about the 'big California teams' moving forward, neither should you be. I am worried about the bigger Alberta teams and who will still be left in Calif yes.

 

Never mind that you don't particularly build a team based on other teams anyway. You build the best team you can according to how you feel you build a team. That includes skill on your D IMO. I agree. But size with skill ala Tampa bay is going to be successful not only in defending but surviving the playoffs

 

All your 'point' proves is that a 5th or 6th D playing against one of the other team's best forwards is going to be challenged. And Boqvist is almost Stechers size now. At 17. And FAR more skilled. again my point is the example and Boqvist will have the same issue regardless of whether you consider him a number 1 d or not

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said:

Boqvist is not the same as Petterson. Petterson plays forward and was picked in a draft that did not have the skilled Defensemen that are in this Draft. He is basically a forward that plays on the blueline. He is "on the smaller side" as you put it. This is a disadvantage in our division and one only has to look at the Stecher on Staal moment in the Minny game to prove my point.

Brandon Montour is listed as 192 lbs. Not quite as small, but still... He's playing top pairing minutes as a rookie in our division.

 

The Staal moments will happen. Cannot be avoided. But when you can bring that skill, speed and pace? The Staal's of the world, Kopitar, also have to rely more on the fact they are good defensive forwards as well. Lucic on the other hand is exposed! With the Nashville model & puck movers like Ellis, Josi that's exactly what those big Pacific forwards are doing. Playing defence! 

 

Lucic was effective in LA, in Boston. When he had D who could shift the play up ice. He is useless, even with McDavid, while he's constantly chasing the play in Edmonton where they have no one who can move the puck from the back end...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mikeyman109 said:

Young, smalller, highly skilled Swede that hasn't had much pre-draft exposure over here. You can apply that to both players. Feel free to be wrong about Boqvist as you likely were about Pettersson. I didnt mind the Petterson pic at all

 

Kopitar will probably be 33-34 by the time Boqvist is playing here FWIW. (And frankly, Boqvist could probably strip the puck and skate circles around him when he gets here.) Kopitar is the example , thanks for missing that fact there are many bigger players in our division i did not mention

 

SJS, ANA and LAK are all in their core's last gasps the next few years. They're us in 2012. Thornton will  almost certainly be retired. Getzlaf 35-36. I'm not particularly worried about the 'big California teams' moving forward, neither should you be. I am worried about the bigger Alberta teams and who will still be left in Calif yes.

 

Never mind that you don't particularly build a team based on other teams anyway. You build the best team you can according to how you feel you build a team. That includes skill on your D IMO. I agree. But size with skill ala Tampa bay is going to be successful not only in defending but surviving the playoffs

 

All your 'point' proves is that a 5th or 6th D playing against one of the other team's best forwards is going to be challenged. And Boqvist is almost Stechers size now. At 17. And FAR more skilled. again my point is the example and Boqvist will have the same issue regardless of whether you consider him a number 1 d or not

There's bigger and smaller players on every team. And we will also have bigger players as well. As FTG pointed out, you're being ridiculous in hyper-focusing on one aspect and frankly ignoring how the game is played today. Nashville has some relatively small, skilled D and is arguably the best team in the West. I'd be THRILLED if we can build anything resembling that D core/team.

 

Part of the reason EDM is struggling this year is because of them prioritizing size over speed and skill. As for CAL, I guess you mean their huge D like 182lb Brodie? Or maybe you're worried about their huge forwards crushing our D, like 157lb Gudreau or 176lb Versteeg? Even those monsters Monahan, Backlund, and Frolik are all sub 200lbs. Tkachuck, Ferland, Bennett etc are all just barely over.

 

Boqvist will probably be around 6' and +/- 200lbs when he's in his prime and have far less 'issues' compared to Stecher. He'll also have far more puck posession for the team making  it even less of an issue. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Part of the reason EDM is struggling this year is because of them prioritizing size over speed and skill.

They are struggling because they are lacking the ability to shift the puck up ice to some of their magnificent young forwards. McDavid has to go back, get it AND haul it up ice. The puck is dying on the PP, when it goes back to the blue line as well...

 

They could use Boqvist as much as usl!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like Bouchard is the safer pick vs Boqvist.

 

I think if Bouchards main weakness is skating, that is not a big concern. He can improve that with hard work. I am not worried about Boqvist size, he will put on weight for sure, he may or may not grow to the ever so important 6ft mark. He is an offensive dynamo but will need more work to round out his game to be able to step in to play in the nhl.

 

Until we know the results of the draft lottery I wont concern myself to much about who we will pick. Once our draft spot is decided and we see who falls or rises in the selection process then I can get more engaged.

 

Regardless Canucks should be gettting a cant miss top 6 F or top 4 D with our draft selection. The big question is do we finally pick a player who steps in to the NHL right away? that is what I am more intrigued by...having a pre 20 impact player just right in and improve our roster!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

They are struggling because they are lacking the ability to shift the puck up ice to some of their magnificent young forwards. McDavid has to go back, get it AND haul it up ice.

 

They could use Boqvist as well!

And he gets very little help at it from his larger, slower, fellow forwards in that regard ;) 

 

Yes they could. Except they need him now, not in 2-3 years :lol:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

Regardless Canucks should be gettting a cant miss top 6 F or top 4 D with our draft selection. The big question is do we finally pick a player who steps in to the NHL right away? that is what I am more intrigued by...having a pre 20 impact player just right in and improve our roster!

If we're outside the top 3, probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

big age gap between Bouchard and Boqvist. Bouchard is an old 18yr old draft eligible player, not trying to take away from his impressive season but didnt realize he turned 18 back in october. Boqvist turns 18 in August, so I can easily see him either coming over to Utica next year ala Liljgren or more likely following the Canuck route and just keeping our prospects in europe are the large ice surface for at least 1 year before coming across the pond.

 

If Boqvist is more so a 1 dimensional D, would he be a good compareable to Tyson Barrie? I think Juolevi could be a good guy to pair with him, barring that Oli can be that steady 2 way D allowing Boqvist to roam more freely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Canuckster86 said:

big age gap between Bouchard and Boqvist. Bouchard is an old 18yr old draft eligible player, not trying to take away from his impressive season but didnt realize he turned 18 back in october. Boqvist turns 18 in August, so I can easily see him either coming over to Utica next year ala Liljgren or more likely following the Canuck route and just keeping our prospects in europe are the large ice surface for at least 1 year before coming across the pond.

 

If Boqvist is more so a 1 dimensional D, would he be a good compareable to Tyson Barrie? I think Juolevi could be a good guy to pair with him, barring that Oli can be that steady 2 way D allowing Boqvist to roam more freely

As I've been trying to stress, he's almost a year older.

 

Boqvist will likely be 6'+ and 190-210lbs in his prime. He's an elite skater in both speed and maneuverability, an elite shooter and has has very high IQ (which is why I'm not particularly worried about his defensive game being a weaker point, along with his age, again).  He's too smart to not improve defensively as he matures and gets bigger. He's already playing and succeeding in men's leagues AT 17

 

He's Dahlin-light.

 

Yes please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

As I've been trying to stress, he's almost a year older.

 

Boqvist will likely be 6'+ and 190-210lbs in his prime. He's an elite skater in both speed and maneuverability, an elite shooter and has has very high IQ (which is why I'm not particularly worried about his defensive game being a weaker point, along with his age, again).  He's too smart to not improve defensively as he matures and gets bigger. He's already playing and succeeding in men's leagues AT 17

 

He's Dahlin-light.

 

Yes please.

I’m sure I’ll love whoever JB goes with but right now I’m on the Boqvist train as well.  When was the last time we had a guy with those offensive chops on the back end?

 

Those brief, beautiful years with Ehrhoff?  

 

Imagine what Bo, Brock, Pettersson and co. will do with a real offensive dynamo behind them.  

 

I’d still love to see JB try to flip Tanev for a mid 1st to snag another D, particularly a bigger dude, like Wilde or a prospect like Foote but I think it’s a pipe dream.  Would be more than happy with just Boqvist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...