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

2021 NHL Entry Draft


Noble 6

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

I would hope at 9th we’d get a legit top 6 forward or a solid top 4 D.  We are a few significant pieces away. 

This is not looking like a deep draft.  Take a look at 2008 or 2010 drafts for some examples of what can happen around the 9th overall pick.  For example if we go +/- 3 picks on either side in those two years, you get 

 

2008  

6th: Nikita Filatov 

7th: Colin Wilson 

8th: Mikkel Boedker

9th: Joshua Bailey 

10th: Cody Hodgson 

11th: Kyle Beach

12th: Tyler Myers

 

 

2010  

6th: Brett Connolly 

7th: Jeff Skinner 

8th: Alexander Burmistrov

9th: Mikael Granlund

10th: Dylan McIlrath

11th: Jack Campbell

12th: Cam Fowler 

 

Just a little context for our 9th overall pick in a shallow draft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:

This is not looking like a deep draft.  Take a look at 2008 or 2010 drafts for some examples of what can happen around the 9th overall pick.  For example if we go +/- 3 picks on either side in those two years, you get 

 

2008  

6th: Nikita Filatov 

7th: Colin Wilson 

8th: Mikkel Boedker

9th: Joshua Bailey 

10th: Cody Hodgson 

11th: Kyle Beach

12th: Tyler Myers

 

 

2010  

6th: Brett Connolly 

7th: Jeff Skinner 

8th: Alexander Burmistrov

9th: Mikael Granlund

10th: Dylan McIlrath

11th: Jack Campbell

12th: Cam Fowler 

 

Just a little context for our 9th overall pick in a shallow draft. 

The good news is that it's looks like #9 or #12 are the best spots to pick as those seem to be the best of the bunch in either group.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I love all you CDCers, but I am fed up with all this..............

 

It is not about what I want, but what we need!

 

We "Need" a RHD prospect, and I do not care where or how we get him

 

- move up and get Clarke

- down and get Ceulemans

- trade for Braden Schneider

- move someone for a late 1st and pray

 

I do no care, but for gods sake, go get a RHD prospect that has some offensive up side :picard:

 

You just can not keep on saying next year.............which seems to be what I keep on reading

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Ok, I love all you CDCers, but I am fed up with all this..............

 

It is not about what I want, but what we need!

 

We "Need" a RHD prospect, and I do not care where or how we get him

 

- move up and get Clarke

- down and get Ceulemans

- trade for Braden Schneider

- move someone for a late 1st and pray

 

I do no care, but for gods sake, go get a RHD prospect that has some offensive up side :picard:

 

You just can not keep on saying next year.............which seems to be what I keep on reading

We don’t need an RHD with offensive upside, just a solid RHD will do, we have offensive upside players in Hughes, Rathbone, Schmitt.

 

if the RHD projection is a tanev like player you take them 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UKNuck96 said:

We don’t need an RHD with offensive upside, just a solid RHD will do, we have offensive upside players in Hughes, Rathbone, Schmitt.

 

if the RHD projection is a tanev like player you take them 

Yes and no.............I may have over stated the "offensive upside' part of it, but the point is to get a young prospect that can play big minutes, he should not be exclusively Hughes, or Rathbones, but be able to control a pairing.......meaning that he is above in talent. and not a 27 or 28 year old bandade.

 

If you watch the playoffs, these defensemen are big, strong, quick and aggressive, we need some one like that that can grow with the team....that is what the draft is for, to get and to build, from scratch.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m fine with making the RHD prospects/players defensive D as our left side looks set with PMD already. David Savard this offseason and a defensive beast prospect who will smother and punish the opponents is what I really want. I could see Carlo coming here in a package as well as Ceranek(TB) or one of Phillys RHD. Hamilton would be a pipe dream same with Jones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Very dynamic line for sure.

 

The question would be is it too soft? 
 

Im all for building a skilled roster but as all the teams who are having success are showing you need a balance.
 

Maybe that means McTavish or Guenther are the better pick for us now.

It does not matter if your team always has the puck.  

 

And the opposition can not get a sniff. 

 

9 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Size does still matter in the playoffs though.

I would take Marchesseault, or Cam Atkinson, Arvidsson all day any day instead of a lot of big guys. They each win battles consistently; just like Hoglander.

 

Kucherov is 5'11'' 180 lbs.   Gretzky same, but 6'.  

 

 

 

 

 

Measure the hockey player, skills. Scouting is about observable skills, physical ability. Measure his VO2 max, his heart, who wins battles, who is flying around the ice at the end of shifts. And pick them before big guys sulking wind & coughing up pucks out of puff. A big guy who can keep up, and play?   Will probably go top 5...

 

I take the athlete before size if that is the only differentiator.  People don't talk about missing out on Nick Richie anymore. They do talk about Ehlers. Some Nylander.

  • Like 2
  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Ok, I love all you CDCers, but I am fed up with all this..............

 

It is not about what I want, but what we need!

 

We "Need" a RHD prospect, and I do not care where or how we get him

 

- move up and get Clarke

- down and get Ceulemans

- trade for Braden Schneider

- move someone for a late 1st and pray

 

I do no care, but for gods sake, go get a RHD prospect that has some offensive up side :picard:

 

You just can not keep on saying next year.............which seems to be what I keep on reading

trade down a few picks and grab Hemosalmi in the first then 

Roman Schmidt + Jake Martin in the 2nd.

 

For serious though I would probably grab the best C available at 9 and worry about the rhd in the 2nd Schmidt/Martin as we need a top 4 stay home guy not another rover. Also dont sleep on Woo. 

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

I do no care, but for gods sake, go get a RHD prospect that has some offensive up side :picard:

 

We already have one in the system - Brogan Rafferty ...... but apparently he pissed in Green's swimming pool, or something.   Best thing for his career would be for Benning not to qualify him, and for Seattle to sign him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Googlie said:

We already have one in the system - Brogan Rafferty ...... but apparently he pissed in Green's swimming pool, or something.   Best thing for his career would be for Benning not to qualify him, and for Seattle to sign him.

I think he is a UFA G6 this year so he can pick and choose from those interested in him, where he wants to play.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Googlie said:

We already have one in the system - Brogan Rafferty ...... but apparently he pissed in Green's swimming pool, or something.   Best thing for his career would be for Benning not to qualify him, and for Seattle to sign him.

I may have miss-spoke somewhat, in my description "Offensive upside"

 

But IMO, todays Dmen, who are effective, are 2 way Dmen, who can play both D and O, and are big enough to protect the net. 

 

I am not so much against drafting a forward with our 1st, but maybe drafting at least one, big Dman who has bite with offensive upside, maybe even 2

 

Just go out and get them. Benning seems to wait and see who falls to him, but I would prefer he go out and be aggressive and move things to get one..

 

I may not be articulating this too well...............????

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Kootenay Gold said:

I think he is a UFA G6 this year so he can pick and choose from those interested in him, where he wants to play.

 

Ah - I had thought he was an RFA.  So Bailey, Chatfield and Teves are all in a similar position. Does that G6 designation (non-requisite # games) simply mean that Seattle can't talk to him in their exclusive 3 day window, or does it have other significance? 

 

I found a good explanation in the Red Wings website.....

 

Group 6 (Unrestricted) Free Agents
Any player 25 or older with at least three professional seasons who has not played in at least 80 NHL games (28 for goalies) becomes a UFA at the end of his contract. For this part, the definition of a professional season is pretty lenient. 11 games for 18-19 year olds and just one game played anywhere professionally counts for anybody over 20.  It's nearly an unnecessary definition, since a guy with that much experience who is obviously not that wanted by the team isn't likely to draw the kind of salary which would bring draft pick compensation in, but it's a nice bit of a catch-all just to keep teams from being dicks to people like that.

 

 

Edited by Googlie
Added content
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

I may have miss-spoke somewhat, in my description "Offensive upside"

 

But IMO, todays Dmen, who are effective, are 2 way Dmen, who can play both D and O, and are big enough to protect the net. 

 

I am not so much against drafting a forward with our 1st, but maybe drafting at least one, big Dman who has bite with offensive upside, maybe even 2

 

Just go out and get them. Benning seems to wait and see who falls to him, but I would prefer he go out and be aggressive and move things to get one..

 

I may not be articulating this too well...............????

 

 

in theory thats a great idea but realistically when he's tried that before he has paid too much for what he needs. if he wants to move up in the draft, he may find the spot he wants will cost too much. a team might want 2 1sts or players we don't want to lose. like a hoglander.

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

in theory thats a great idea but realistically when he's tried that before he has paid too much for what he needs. if he wants to move up in the draft, he may find the spot he wants will cost too much. a team might want 2 1sts or players we don't want to lose. like a hoglander.

So don't take this too literally, but, what I find Benning not be able to do, is spend asset.....

 

Example.............Nate Schmidt was a hell of a deal, but ultimately, he does not fit our long term plans

 

So, trade him to Ottawa at $2,000,000 retained and get Ottawa's 2 early 2nds......I am good with that and would accept the retention

 

I would also accept an over payment Schmidt 2 million retained and a 2022/2023 3rd  for the 2-2nds

 

The point is, again.........just like Vegas moved solid asset at a cost......sometimes you have to do it to move forward.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

So don't take this too literally, but, what I find Benning not be able to do, is spend asset.....

 

Example.............Nate Schmidt was a hell of a deal, but ultimately, he does not fit our long term plans

 

So, trade him to Ottawa at $2,000,000 retained and get Ottawa's 2 early 2nds......I am good with that and would accept the retention

 

I would also accept an over payment Schmidt 2 million retained and a 2022/2023 3rd  for the 2-2nds

 

The point is, again.........just like Vegas moved solid asset at a cost......sometimes you have to do it to move forward.......

how does that help our defense for next season? do you resign edler and move up woo or what is your idea?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

This is not looking like a deep draft.  Take a look at 2008 or 2010 drafts for some examples of what can happen around the 9th overall pick.  For example if we go +/- 3 picks on either side in those two years, you get 

 

2008  

6th: Nikita Filatov 

7th: Colin Wilson 

8th: Mikkel Boedker

9th: Joshua Bailey 

10th: Cody Hodgson 

11th: Kyle Beach

12th: Tyler Myers

 

 

2010  

6th: Brett Connolly 

7th: Jeff Skinner 

8th: Alexander Burmistrov

9th: Mikael Granlund

10th: Dylan McIlrath

11th: Jack Campbell

12th: Cam Fowler 

 

Just a little context for our 9th overall pick in a shallow draft. 

 

The biggest weakness of this draft is just the absence of obvious superstars at the top. It reminds me more of 2011 or 2017. Don't ever forget how weak a draft everyone thought 2011 would be.

 

2011

6th: Mika Zibanejad

7th: Mark Scheifele

8th: Sean Couturier

9th: Dougie Hamilton

10th: Jonas Brodin

11th: Duncan Siemens

12th: Ryan Murphy

 

Also can't forget how strong a draft 2008 was considered to be, and even continued to be for a few years after the draft, when Hodgson dominated WJCs, Myers was rookie extraordinaire, Jake Allen, Slava Voynov were looking like studs, Gardiner and Del Zotto were on the rise. And the depth of the draft actually ended up being strong, with a handful of really solid players coming out of the second round and more later.

 

A lot of different factors come into considering the strength of a draft, and different drafts have different strengths: superstars at the top (2008, 2009, 2013, 2015) strength of the top ~10 (2009, 2011, 2013, 2015), rest of the first round (2010, 2012, 2015) and the rest of the draft.

 

That said, I think your main point is important. You can't bank on a star at 9. But just as important: you should get one. If a team drafts in the top ten and doesn't get a legitimate impact players the GM isn't looking at his scouts going "aw shucks fellas, you can't win 'em all". It is a failure. There are impact players to be found, you just have to find them.

 

Edited by HighOnHockey
  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, smithers joe said:

how does that help our defense for next season? do you resign edler and move up woo or what is your idea?

That is just it Joe

 

No one wants to put in the time.

 

I guess,  at some point...sure maybe you sign Edler to a short 1 year

 

But we have Hughes, Rathbone, and Juolevi, and at some point you have to chance they can swim

 

On RHD moving Schmidt still allows us to sign a cheaper RHD...aka Savard, who might actually work better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, R3aL said:

I’m leaning myself to Lysell.

 

i mean Johnson comes with:

 

- lower IQ

- lower foot speed / skating ability 

- no positional advantage as he projects better as a winger

- hometown distraction

 

if Gradin likes Lysell more things we go with scouchs boy Lysell.

 

but that’s a tough crop of guys to pick from for Chat board peeps like us to really no for sure.

 

hope we knock this pick out the park though.

Canucks have had massive success in the early rounds the past few years. Most of that has come out of Sweden and the northeastern United States. Podkolzin was an easy pick when he fell that far, but I wouldn't expect them to pick a Russian unless it was a similar situation with one falling, which doesn't seem to be the situation this year. Most likely picks for the Canucks will be Kent Johnson, Fabian Lysell, Jesper Wallstedt, Chaz Lucius, Cole Sillinger.

 

I am a little curious about the lower IQ comment on Johnson. Not that I disagree, but would be interested to hear your reasoning.

  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

We don't even need a homerun at 9.  Middle 6 forward or a 2nd pairing d-man would be more then good enough in two years when they're ready for the Show.  

I personally think we need the bpa when looking back. Be huge for the org. So a top 6 forward or a top 4 d I consider a home run at 9 in this draft so sure! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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