cyoung Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Bure_Pavel said: I think Byram is the third best player available, could be a a #1 D in the NHL. Too risky taking a Russian at three. Byram's got 10 points in 8 playoff games and is a +9. No holes in his game and is clutch. He's got some defensive holes but I'd take him at 3 still. Offensively he's like QH but less aware defensively. He gets caught easily and doesn't have the skating like Q does to solve his own problems. Once established in the defensive zone he can be dominant again. The dude is clutch city though and will figure out it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 2 hours ago, Alflives said: I could double for a raccoon! I think JB looks at all options, no matter where we pick. I'm just holding out hope for 1 or 2. I think Hughes and Kakko will play in the NHL next season, and both play well. Byram is likely a couple years away. welcome back lad, we missed you. i’m hoping we don’t pick lower than 9th. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, cyoung said: He's got some defensive holes but I'd take him at 3 still. Offensively he's like QH but less aware defensively. He gets caught easily and doesn't have the skating like Q does to solve his own problems. Once established in the defensive zone he can be dominant again. The dude is clutch city though and will figure out it out. I actually like his defensive game better than QH at the same age. He is not as dynamic as a skater tho but then again not many are. He is less of a playmaker more of a goal scorer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 Makes me a little nervous to think about taking a D at #3, if we have that option. Perhaps a bit gun-shy after taking Juolevi at #5? Canucks have some pretty good D developing right now: Hughes, Juolevi, Woo, Rathbone. They might even get Tryamkin back in a year. Maybe Benning picks up Thomson or Korczak with the 2nd? Stecher and Hutton are still youngish and serviceable NHL players. I would prefer the Canucks add to their offence, as they really don't have much in the way of Top 6 forwards. After Horvat, Pettersson and Boeser, the cupboard is bare for high end talent up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grape Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 I haven't followed prospects this year too much, but just looking at the stats, I would be EXTREMELY skeptical of Byram. ANY time a defenceman scores 26 goals in a season (especially in 67 games), unless the guy is Brent Burns, that total is likely to be incredibly inflated, whether by his own team's dominance or by chance. His plus minus of 33 and just the fact that the Giants were a really good team this year also points to the fact that his production was inflated by quite a bit. I don't want to read too much into it but I find it a bit improbable that he improved his scoring from 27 points last year to 71 this year without the benefit of the Giants becoming a really good team. I would much rather have a guy who scores 26 goals and 71 points with a -33 plus minus, than a guy with the same stats but a +33 plus minus. I know it sounds ridiculous but scoring at that rate on a bad team is so much more impressive. The plus minus is much more of an indicator of the team rather than the individual player, especially a 66 goal goal differential. But again, I HAVE NOT seen Byram whatsoever, and I'm just basing this off of his stats. So if you've seen him and want to invalidate my argument I wouldn't argue haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 2 hours ago, Alflives said: I could double for a raccoon! I think JB looks at all options, no matter where we pick. I'm just holding out hope for 1 or 2. I think Hughes and Kakko will play in the NHL next season, and both play well. Byram is likely a couple years away. I'd send Hughes back to college don't want to break our new shiny. He playes an easier schedule all season puts on some muscle and we bring him in relatively fresh and not worn down from 82 nhl games for our playoff push. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 8 minutes ago, Grape said: I haven't followed prospects this year too much, but just looking at the stats, I would be EXTREMELY skeptical of Byram. ANY time a defenceman scores 26 goals in a season (especially in 67 games), unless the guy is Brent Burns, that total is likely to be incredibly inflated, whether by his own team's dominance or by chance. His plus minus of 33 and just the fact that the Giants were a really good team this year also points to the fact that his production was inflated by quite a bit. I don't want to read too much into it but I find it a bit improbable that he improved his scoring from 27 points last year to 71 this year without the benefit of the Giants becoming a really good team. I would much rather have a guy who scores 26 goals and 71 points with a -33 plus minus, than a guy with the same stats but a +33 plus minus. I know it sounds ridiculous but scoring at that rate on a bad team is so much more impressive. The plus minus is much more of an indicator of the team rather than the individual player, especially a 66 goal goal differential. But again, I HAVE NOT seen Byram whatsoever, and I'm just basing this off of his stats. So if you've seen him and want to invalidate my argument I wouldn't argue haha. Only 3 players have above a +16 on the team, Byram is definitely a driver on that team and is only 17. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 1 minute ago, hammertime said: I'd send Hughes back to college don't want to break our new shiny. He playes an easier schedule all season puts on some muscle and we bring him in relatively fresh and not worn down from 82 nhl games for our playoff push. I think Jack Hughes chose to play USDHL instead of college. He could (maybe?) play in the CHL or over in Europe for a season? I think he's ready for the NHL now though, even though he is still small. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 9 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said: Makes me a little nervous to think about taking a D at #3, if we have that option. Perhaps a bit gun-shy after taking Juolevi at #5? Canucks have some pretty good D developing right now: Hughes, Juolevi, Woo, Rathbone. They might even get Tryamkin back in a year. Maybe Benning picks up Thomson or Korczak with the 2nd? Stecher and Hutton are still youngish and serviceable NHL players. I would prefer the Canucks add to their offence, as they really don't have much in the way of Top 6 forwards. After Horvat, Pettersson and Boeser, the cupboard is bare for high end talent up front. I would have to disagree with you. BB looks to fit an org need and is ranked at 3 in some of the draft analyses I have read. If JB and Brackett like him at 3, I wouldn't be upset at all with taking him. As for being shy about OJ, he was always going to take at minimum 2 years, likely 3 to start NHL games. His injury was a setback, sure, but that could happen to any player. Just because MT is on a well built team and doing well is not a reason to exclude defenceman in the top 10 at the draft. At this point OJ has legit question Mark's around his health, but his play, both in Finland and in NA was very promising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, Phat Fingers said: I would have to disagree with you. BB looks to fit an org need and is ranked at 3 in some of the draft analyses I have read. If JB and Brackett like him at 3, I wouldn't be upset at all with taking him. As for being shy about OJ, he was always going to take at minimum 2 years, likely 3 to start NHL games. His injury was a setback, sure, but that could happen to any player. Just because MT is on a well built team and doing well is not a reason to exclude defenceman in the top 10 at the draft. At this point OJ has legit question Mark's around his health, but his play, both in Finland and in NA was very promising. Must point out too that, like you say, MT plays with Johnny Hockey. Any net front player, and mucker (like Tkatchuk) will put up big numbers with Johnny G. MT does not drive play. I think Byram would be who I'd want us to take at three if we win that spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 BOLDY (1st) - Pettersson - Boeser Pearson - Horvat - _____ Hughes - THOMSON (2nd) Juolevi - Woo Tryamkin - Rathbone 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetroCanuck Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said: BOLDY (1st) - Pettersson - Boeser Pearson - Horvat - _____ Hughes - THOMSON (2nd) Juolevi - Woo Tryamkin - Rathbone Pfft, were getting Hughes or Kakko... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, Alflives said: I think Jack Hughes chose to play USDHL instead of college. He could (maybe?) play in the CHL or over in Europe for a season? I think he's ready for the NHL now though, even though he is still small. I was sure I read that he was committed to Michigan already next year unless of course, he plays in the NHL. Unfortunately, I can't find it right now so it's very possible that I am wrong and could be miss remembering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blömqvist Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 14 hours ago, Blömqvist said: I agree. Go big or go home this draft. If we pick a defenseman it should only be Byram. Otherwise, pick BPA and highest ceiling -- we need players that will drive play, not complementary passengers. 3 hours ago, R.Dahlin26 said: These prospects should be gone by the time the Canucks pick 1. Hughes 2. Kakko 3. Byram 4. Podkozin 5. Dach 6. Cozens 7. Turcotte Would leave one of Zegras, Boldy, Krebs, Soderstrom Caufield for us even with worst-case scenario of picking 11/12. Soderstrom would be an excellent choice IMO. I stand corrected. Imagine our defensive zone breakouts and our controlled zone exits with Hughes on one pair and Soderstrom on another. Both the eye test and analyticz crowds would have a collective orgasm everytime one of them rushes the puck up ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 @5PM, lol BUSH... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Hutton Wink said: @5PM, lol BUSH... so bad, somebody is trolling hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sikhguy23 Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 I’d much rather get the #2 pick so we can get Kakko. That big body sniping goals would be the dream 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 Just now, Sikhguy23 said: I’d much rather get the #2 pick so we can get Kakko. That big body sniping goals would be the dream they're allowed to pick kakko ith the first pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sikhguy23 Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, stawns said: they're allowed to pick kakko ith the first pick There would be controversy then since we have his brother. At least if we get 2 somebody else takes Hughes first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 Just now, Sikhguy23 said: There would be controversy then since we have his brother. At least if we get 2 somebody else takes Hughes first. I do see your point, but I doubt JB cares much about it. Moot anyway, they're not picking there anyway 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