7th Overall: 2018 CDC Draft Consensus

[chon derry]

4 hours ago, Dixon Ward said:

It does sound silly a bit but part of me does want a top Canadian player.

that's right ,a good prairie boy ,one that had to walk 2 miles uphill to school in the morning ,and then 2 miles uphill to get home after school,  on the praire's....

[Rush17]

 

[johngould21]

2 hours ago, chon derry said:

that's right ,a good prairie boy ,one that had to walk 2 miles uphill to school in the morning ,and then 2 miles uphill to get home after school,  on the praire's....

Hopefully said in your best Chon Derry!

[Outsiders]

Its going to be one of Dobson or Bouchard IMO. However, I would not be upset at all with Wahlstrom or Tkachuk(if he falls which I doubt)

[SergioMomesso]

No matter who is available at 7, we are gonna get a solid player. I’m ok with any of Dobson, Hughes, Boqvist, Walstrom, Bouchard or Tkachuk. And we will end up with one of those six with Dahlin, Svechnikov and Zadina all going top 3 or 4 at the most. 

[cory40]

On ‎2018‎-‎06‎-‎16 at 3:57 PM, Rush17 said:

 

Almost all first round players say they could play in the NHL. Kind of coached by their agents. Its a money thing. 

[cory40]

On ‎2018‎-‎06‎-‎07 at 9:06 AM, Team Bagues said:

I agree. I was curious as to where the skilled, elite talent on Washington was drafted and none of their d-men were high first round picks.

Their most effective offensive d-man, Carlson, was taken 27th overall.

Djoos - 7th round; Niskanen - 28th overall; Orlov - 55th; Orpik - 18th; Kempny - undrafted

As to their skilled forwards, much higher; although even Oshie and Kuznetsov were late first round.

Seems to me it's more likely to draft an elite forward high than a d-man, but we're real horny for D - with good reason.

All these supposed 'great' d-men available scare me. If you do pick one over the likes of a guy like Walhstrom, I hope the scouting team chooses wisely.

Easier to acquire D through trading and free agency than a pure sniper.

This is my worry. Defensmen seldom show their potential till their 22 or 23 years old. That's why I am glad we didn't get first over all. The best player in this draft will be chosen 2nd.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

On 2018-06-07 at 9:06 AM, Team Bagues said:

Seems to me it's more likely to draft an elite forward high than a d-man, but we're real horny for D - with good reason.

All these supposed 'great' d-men available scare me. If you do pick one over the likes of a guy like Walhstrom, I hope the scouting team chooses wisely

Maybe we need a guy like Sam Hallam at the draft table to offer some sage advice:

 

In all seriousness though, I’m of a similar mind to yours. I know that defensemen are our most pressing need, but the idea of passing on Wahlstrom for any defenseman not named Dahlin or Hughes gives me a bit of a tummy ache. It may prove to be the right call, but it’s not one I’d feel super comfortable making.

 

Especially since there look to be some quality defensemen with really high potential that are likely to fall within the range of our second pick and possibly even our third. And then the usual odds of mining late round gems. Plus some very intriguing defensemen are on the horizon for the next couple drafts.

[189lb enforcers?]

Can’t believe I’m reading posters’ comments stating that they wouldn’t take BT IFFF he was available at # 7. 

 

He will go in the 3-5 spots. 

 

Really, you have to look at the rest of the pack after 4th.

Its Boqvist, Hughs, Bouchard, Dobson, Wahlstrom and maybe KOK, but I doubt that who will start the run at 5. 

 

I’d take Boqvist first, then Bouchard, then Dobson and finally, Wahlstrom. 

 

 

[stawns]

On 17/06/2018 at 7:38 PM, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Maybe we need a guy like Sam Hallam at the draft table to offer some sage advice:

 

In all seriousness though, I’m of a similar mind to yours. I know that defensemen are our most pressing need, but the idea of passing on Wahlstrom for any defenseman not named Dahlin or Hughes gives me a bit of a tummy ache. It may prove to be the right call, but it’s not one I’d feel super comfortable making.

 

Especially since there look to be some quality defensemen with really high potential that are likely to fall within the range of our second pick and possibly even our third. And then the usual odds of mining late round gems. Plus some very intriguing defensemen are on the horizon for the next couple drafts.

I'm surprised you're lobbying for a one dimensional fwd with so many gems in the top 10.  Not that I don't think a sniper would be nice, but that's about the extent of it with OW.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

I'm surprised you're lobbying for a one dimensional fwd with so many gems in the top 10.  Not that I don't think a sniper would be nice, but that's about the extent of it with OW.

I don’t see him as one dimensional. One way, sure. He’s all offense right now. But while his shot is his greatest weapon, he has a lot of tools. Vision, IQ, puck skills, creativity, and skating are all high quality. He’s also big and strong and while not exactly mean, he definitely knows how to use his size and strength to his advantage. 

 

I’m not going to write a long “scouting report” or try to weigh his pros and cons against other top prospects and see if I can win anybody over to my view. At this point, we’ve probably all watched the games/highlights, read the reports, talked to the people we talk hockey with, and reviewed the various rankings and we’re pretty set in our ways as far as what we think about these players.

 

For me, Wahlstrom is #5 in the draft.

 

So if he’s on the board at 7, there’s a very good chance he’s going to be my BPA. And if we pass on him for a guy I have ranked 8-12 (or lower), I’m gonna get that queasy feeling for at least a minute. But I usually recover quickly and I’m always able to get behind our picks. Once a prospect is Canucks property, I try to just be a fan and focus on the positives. So you won’t see any “shoulda drafted Wahlstrom” posts from me if we skip over him. But if you come round my place on draft day, you might see a significantly lower line on my bottle of Pepto-Bismol.

[Andy G]

I like the idea of an offensive weapon at the back, so Quinn Hughes is high on my list.

 

But, I just think Bouchard is the safe choice. Maybe not the best choice, but he will probably be a solid defenseman in the NHL. 

 

It’ll be interesting if someone like Zadina falls though. Can we afford to pass on him?

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Andy G said:

I like the idea of an offensive weapon at the back, so Quinn Hughes is high on my list.

 

But, I just think Bouchard is the safe choice. Maybe not the best choice, but he will probably be a solid defenseman in the NHL. 

 

It’ll be interesting if someone like Zadina falls though. Can we afford to pass on him?

It might be Detroit who has to choose between Zadina (the fall boy) and Hughes (the American boy) at 6.  I would hope they take Zadina.  It would be great if JB got to choose between the rest of the Dmen, after Dahlin.

[rekker]

Friday can't come fast enough!!!!

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

9 minutes ago, Alflives said:

It might be Detroit who has to choose between Zadina (the fall boy) and Hughes (the American boy) at 6.  I would hope they take Zadina.  It would be great if JB got to choose between the rest of the Dmen, after Dahlin.

If Zadina and Hughes are on the board at 6, I’m gonna be popping bottles.

 

The ones with corks if we get either of those two at 7.

 

Or the childproof cap kind if we pass on Hughes/Zadina for somebody else.

[Alflives]

Just now, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

If Zadina and Hughes are on the board at 6, I’m gonna be popping bottles.

 

The ones with corks if we get either of those two at 7.

 

Or the childproof cap kind if we pass on Hughes/Zadina for somebody else.

lmao this is too funny!!!!    Plus 1000!!!!

[appleboy]

The more I read about the top 12 players the more I like this years group. There are a couple that I have concerns about. Tkachuk seems like he is just a grinder with minimal offensive upside. Not a top ten pick in my mind. Boqvist has had concussion issues and is week defensively. Small D with a soft head and maybe nervous to get into the tough areas. That sets off warning bells for me. I am not sure you can go wrong outside of that. 

[funkyfresh]

 With two days left, it looks like Hughes is going to be top choice.

 

I encourage you to update your votes in case you changed your mind in the past month; I know I did!

[stawns]

On 19/06/2018 at 2:13 PM, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I don’t see him as one dimensional. One way, sure. He’s all offense right now. But while his shot is his greatest weapon, he has a lot of tools. Vision, IQ, puck skills, creativity, and skating are all high quality. He’s also big and strong and while not exactly mean, he definitely knows how to use his size and strength to his advantage. 

 

I’m not going to write a long “scouting report” or try to weigh his pros and cons against other top prospects and see if I can win anybody over to my view. At this point, we’ve probably all watched the games/highlights, read the reports, talked to the people we talk hockey with, and reviewed the various rankings and we’re pretty set in our ways as far as what we think about these players.

 

For me, Wahlstrom is #5 in the draft.

 

So if he’s on the board at 7, there’s a very good chance he’s going to be my BPA. And if we pass on him for a guy I have ranked 8-12 (or lower), I’m gonna get that queasy feeling for at least a minute. But I usually recover quickly and I’m always able to get behind our picks. Once a prospect is Canucks property, I try to just be a fan and focus on the positives. So you won’t see any “shoulda drafted Wahlstrom” posts from me if we skip over him. But if you come round my place on draft day, you might see a significantly lower line on my bottle of Pepto-Bismol.

1. Kotkaniemi

2. Bouchard

3. Boqvist

 

Do not want (though we would be ok if picked)

1. Wahlstrom

2 Dobson

 

[Kanukfanatic]

2 hours ago, stawns said:

1. Kotkaniemi

2. Bouchard

3. Boqvist

 

Do not want (though we would be ok if picked)

1. Wahlstrom

2 Dobson

 

I respect your choices...however, I just do not want Boqvist (maybe in my head i have the concussions overblown)