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

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, hammertime said:

It's certainly floating around. 

In a normal year where we don't have a Wallstedt level tendy. The Cossa hype would be enormous. A lot can happen along the way depending on how they are developed. 

I just cannot discount Cossa size and athleticism plus his playing in the whl this year. 

 

I get the hype behind wallstedt but this kid...man he is absolutely something else

  • Burr 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I really don't have that many viewings on Eklund, and there's not much available from this season, I decided to go way back to 2019 Hlinkas, where YouTube has the famous game in which Cole Perfetti forgot how to stop scoring goals. The thing with Eklund is, whereas with most young players, you'll see them in junior, and then you'll see them in pro, and they look very different; with some it is almost like watching a whole different player. Eklund plays pretty much exactly the same in junior and in pro. He just does his thing, i.e. utterly dominate.

 

Here's a great example of what I mean about what a pro game he plays. I included him carrying the puck up ice, cus holy sweet mother. But what intrigues me is once he's in the offensive zone. I'm always critical of kids like e.g. Lysell and Coronato for trying to attack one on three or four. Eklund puts a bit of a new twist on it here, drawing in five opponents, but then kicking it out.

 

 

Edited by HighOnHockey
  • Thanks 2
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In discussion with @HighOnHockey, he stated that in the first couple of rounds it is always BPA, which I agree with, in my own warped way.

 

But I see draft rankings as fluid, not so rigid lists. For example, I see the top 32 players, as a list like this

 

1. Power and Benier

2. Hughes, Guenther, Clarke

3. Edvinsson, Eklund, Johnson

4. McTavish, Wallstedt

5. Sillinger, Lucius, Lysell

6. Chibrikov, Ceulemans, Lambos, Cossa

7. Othmann, Bourgault, Coronato, Ollasson, Pastujov, Svechov, Bolduc, Pinelli, L'Heureux

8. Rosen, Chayka, Robertson, Tuomaala, Raty, Morrow

 

Now, I see this as, you can draft from above your ranking, if someone is left, or from your position in the draft, if nothing else is available, but all the names in one group are ranked very close, so it is not wrong to take someone else in your grouping, because of course, you believe they are in the appropriate line.

 

Of course, each NHL team will have different groupings, but will probably be closer in large groupings like this than individual rankings. So, yes, if you are on line 4 and everyone above you is taken and you need a goalie, you take Wallstedt.....if you need a center, you take McTavish, you may even take someone from the group directly below you if you really like a guy, but usually, they will be in a appropriate grouping.

 

It should be noted, that you can have a grouping of 1, at anytime within your rankings...aka If a McDavid type player is in it, or group 4 only has one name in that line. But the point is,  it is somewhat broad.

 

PS....you may disagree with my rankings or my lines, but I am only 1 GM, of 32, so each list is individual, of course!

 

 

 

Edited by janisahockeynut
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HighOnHockey said:

For fans, sure, stats are a big part of it. But this doesn't explain why Goran Stubb and NHLCS has Lysell way out in a corn field somewhere. I mean, as I always say, Central Scouting is what it is: not the best scouts in the world, but still a cut above most of the media scouting services, and the closest thing to a representation of what NHL teams are looking for, as their stated intent is to support NHL teams. That European group is notorious for snubbing small players, but yet they have Eklund number one.

 

I've talked at length about my worries with Lysell, but I do think his upside is among the highest in the draft. There just isn't the same risk factor with Eklund. Lysell has yet to show he can be consistently effective at the pro level at his size - Eklund has spelled it out in all caps. It's not like he's just fitting in at the SHL level, he is already a play driver and a difference maker. On top of his talent level, his hockey IQ is through the roof. Of course people are factoring his size - it is the only reason he's not the obvious and overwhelming first overall pick.

I guess what I said was very basic, but at the heart of it, I meant what you said in your second paragraph. Yes they are the same size, but if Eklund is doing extremely well at that size, you aren't going to list his size as a problem, as he demonstrates that it doesn't hold him back. If Lysell is struggling at his size, and you can't pin it on his skills or his motor/compete, what are you left with to explain his struggle? The glaringly obvious and easy thing to pin it on is his size, which I personally don't agree with, as he doesn't exactly play small. Yes, he has his struggles getting muscled off the puck, but its not like he can't win a puck battle to save his life.

 

As far as why he is being underanked by CS, that's a mystery to me. I'm by no means a scout, and I will fully admit to few showings on Lysell past YouTube packages, shift-by-shift, and the U18's, but the two obvious things that can kill your ranking are less than stellar stats, and less than desirable stature. But maybe (and likely) they know something we don't.

 

PS. I still adore Eklund. Such a talented kid. He was my early standout, and everytime I watch him I come away impressed.

Edited by Sp3nny
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

If we move up in the draft to take clarke then there is absolutely no reason to have miller and horvat on the team. We can get a boatload of picks for this year and next. This would absolutely show the players and city we are not trying to get better now but better in the future. We cant be just wasting prime years of miller and horvat on a team that is multiple years away from being competitive.

Well, what about both? What about moving up for Clarke and picking up a player or 2?

 

Let's just say that after the 5th pick, Clarke is still on the table....and just for laughs......Power, Benier, Hughes, Guenther,  and Eklund are gone

 

So, we know, that it is very possible that Detroit will not take a RHD at this point, because they have Seider, it is not to say they would not, but they they have other targets too

 

So, McTavish, Johnson, Wallstedt, Clarke and Edvinsson are left on the table.............

 

Detroit looks at the next 2 picks after theirs...........San Jose, and LA 

 

Now the question is who do the 2 teams take, if Clarke is off the table, and is the incentive that Vancouver gives, worth enough to take one of the players left after SJ and LA pick.

 

I would say a 2022-2nd might be enough to have Detroit and Vancouver swap 1st's............... 

 

That in no way, gets in front of a 2022-1st in a better draft for Reinhart, so I don't quite know what the concern is. 

 

Maybe we go crazy and offer Tampa our 2022 - 1st (unprotected), DiPietro and Woo for Cernak and they take it?

 

Now you have..........short term

 

Hughes.......Cernak

Rathbone....Myers

 

and you have.....long term

 

Hughes........Cernak

Rathbone.....Clarke

 

So, like I said, you do not necessarily have to not have one to get the other..................

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sp3nny said:

I guess what I said was very basic, but at the heart of it, I meant what you said in your second paragraph. Yes they are the same size, but if Eklund is doing extremely well at that size, you aren't going to list his size as a problem, as he demonstrates that it doesn't hold him back. If Lysell is struggling at his size, and you can't pin it on his skills or his motor/compete, what are you left with to explain his struggle? The glaringly obvious and easy thing to pin it on is his size, which I personally don't agree with, as he doesn't exactly play small. Yes, he has his struggles getting muscled off the puck, but its not like he can't win a puck battle to save his life.

 

As far as why he is being underanked by CS, that's a mystery to me. I'm by no means a scout, and I will fully admit to few showings on Lysell past YouTube packages, shift-by-shift, and the U18's, but the two obvious things that can kill your ranking are less than stellar stats, and less than desirable stature. But maybe (and likely) they know something we don't.

 

PS. I still adore Eklund. Such a talented kid. He was my early standout, and everytime I watch him I come away impressed.

couple of things to explain why Lysell's output / play is behind Eklund's:

 

1. Eklund has one of the highest Hockey IQ in this year's draft class, a much higher Hockey IQ than Lysell

2. Have read some scouting reports and multiple times the issue inconsistency was mentioned in connection with Lysell

3. Heard about off-ice issues Lysell has had

4. Comparison Lysell / Eklund is partly unfair because Eklund played 40 SHL games vs. Lysell 26 games, of course Eklund has put more points in 40 games than Lysell in 26

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well, what about both? What about moving up for Clarke and picking up a player or 2?

 

Let's just say that after the 5th pick, Clarke is still on the table....and just for laughs......Power, Benier, Hughes, Guenther,  and Eklund are gone

 

So, we know, that it is very possible that Detroit will not take a RHD at this point, because they have Seider, it is not to say they would not, but they they have other targets too

 

So, McTavish, Johnson, Wallstedt, Clarke and Edvinsson are left on the table.............

 

Detroit looks at the next 2 picks after theirs...........San Jose, and LA 

 

Now the question is who do the 2 teams take, if Clarke is off the table, and is the incentive that Vancouver gives, worth enough to take one of the players left after SJ and LA pick.

 

I would say a 2022-2nd might be enough to have Detroit and Vancouver swap 1st's............... 

 

That in no way, gets in front of a 2022-1st in a better draft for Reinhart, so I don't quite know what the concern is. 

 

Maybe we go crazy and offer Tampa our 2022 - 1st (unprotected), DiPietro and Woo for Cernak and they take it?

 

Now you have..........short term

 

Hughes.......Cernak

Rathbone....Myers

 

and you have.....long term

 

Hughes........Cernak

Rathbone.....Clarke

 

So, like I said, you do not necessarily have to not have one to get the other..................

there are rumors that Buffalo Sabres might get another top 10 pick - most likely in a Jack Eichel trade or Sam Reinhart trade-.

 

- Sam Reinhart to Columbus for their 5oa is in the rumor mill.

- Jack Eichel  to Anaheim for their 3oa ?

- Sam Reinhart to LA for their 8 oa?

 

I expect movement in the draft order within the top 10 in this years draft either ahead of the draft or at draft day.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

1. Power and Benier

2. Hughes, Guenther, Clarke

3. Edvinsson, Eklund, Johnson

4. McTavish, Wallstedt

I almost fully agree with u EXCEPT I think Wallestedt should be in group 2 and I think the only reason he isn't is because hes a goalie :) and Eklund should be in group 2 

Edited by DontMessMe
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DontMessMe said:

I almost fully agree with u EXCEPT I think Wallestedt should be in group 2 and I think the only reason he isn't is because hes a goalie :) and Eklund should be in group 2 

I think you are right for the most part, but I was just going off my head and the last report I read.

That is not the point though, as I was only illustrating how I rank players

Obviously, you are a better GM than me (Joke)

The point was I use groups instead of players....with exceptions of course

Sometimes I use individual rankings....when it merits it

But again, each GM will have a general list which is different

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

there are rumors that Buffalo Sabres might get another top 10 pick - most likely in a Jack Eichel trade or Sam Reinhart trade-.

 

- Sam Reinhart to Columbus for their 5oa is in the rumor mill.

- Jack Eichel  to Anaheim for their 3oa ?

- Sam Reinhart to LA for their 8 oa?

 

I expect movement in the draft order within the top 10 in this years draft either ahead of the draft or at draft day.

I would expect Eichel to get a lot more than a high 1st round pick.  Anaheim would have to add.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

In discussion with @HighOnHockey, he stated that in the first couple of rounds it is always BPA, which I agree with, in my own warped way.

 

But I see draft rankings as fluid, not so rigid lists. For example, I see the top 32 players, as a list like this

 

1. Power and Benier

2. Hughes, Guenther, Clarke

3. Edvinsson, Eklund, Johnson

4. McTavish, Wallstedt

5. Sillinger, Lucius, Lysell

6. Chibrikov, Ceulemans, Lambos, Cossa

7. Othmann, Bourgault, Coronato, Ollasson, Pastujov, Svechov, Bolduc, Pinelli, L'Heureux

8. Rosen, Chayka, Robertson, Tuomaala, Raty, Morrow

 

Now, I see this as, you can draft from above your ranking, if someone is left, or from your position in the draft, if nothing else is available, but all the names in one group are ranked very close, so it is not wrong to take someone else in your grouping, because of course, you believe they are in the appropriate line.

 

Of course, each NHL team will have different groupings, but will probably be closer in large groupings like this than individual rankings. So, yes, if you are on line 4 and everyone above you is taken and you need a goalie, you take Wallstedt.....if you need a center, you take McTavish, you may even take someone from the group directly below you if you really like a guy, but usually, they will be in a appropriate grouping.

 

It should be noted, that you can have a grouping of 1, at anytime within your rankings...aka If a McDavid type player is in it, or group 4 only has one name in that line. But the point is,  it is somewhat broad.

 

PS....you may disagree with my rankings or my lines, but I am only 1 GM, of 32, so each list is individual, of course!

 

 

 

Well, it's a neat idea, but makes me think of a kid in school doing a multiple choice exam, and for each question they write "well, I've narrowed it down to three options, either a, c, or d. And this next one is either b or c."

 

If you're a GM and your head scout brings you that, you're going to say "OK, nice start, but let me know when it's finished and every pick is in order."

 

Imagine being at the draft table and you're busy trying to field calls and make trades, and you still have to worry about consulting with your scouting director at every pick because he and his staff (but ultimately the blame has to fall on the head guy) were indecisive and gave you a half-finished list? And the list you posted is not even close to half-finished.

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Alflives said:

Maybe it’s a compete thing?  

I think Lysell maybe has the highest compete of any player in the top 20. 

 

I think deployment has far more to do with it. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, HighOnHockey said:

Well, it's a neat idea, but makes me think of a kid in school doing a multiple choice exam, and for each question they write "well, I've narrowed it down to three options, either a, c, or d. And this next one is either b or c."

 

If you're a GM and your head scout brings you that, you're going to say "OK, nice start, but let me know when it's finished and every pick is in order."

 

Imagine being at the draft table and you're busy trying to field calls and make trades, and you still have to worry about consulting with your scouting director at every pick because he and his staff (but ultimately the blame has to fall on the head guy) were indecisive and gave you a half-finished list? And the list you posted is not even close to half-finished.

I think you are right when it comes to high picks you want it nailed down. I do expect there to be discussions among scouts in later rounds as each scout likely has their guy they are pushing for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sp3nny said:

I guess what I said was very basic, but at the heart of it, I meant what you said in your second paragraph. Yes they are the same size, but if Eklund is doing extremely well at that size, you aren't going to list his size as a problem, as he demonstrates that it doesn't hold him back. If Lysell is struggling at his size, and you can't pin it on his skills or his motor/compete, what are you left with to explain his struggle? The glaringly obvious and easy thing to pin it on is his size, which I personally don't agree with, as he doesn't exactly play small. Yes, he has his struggles getting muscled off the puck, but its not like he can't win a puck battle to save his life.

 

As far as why he is being underanked by CS, that's a mystery to me. I'm by no means a scout, and I will fully admit to few showings on Lysell past YouTube packages, shift-by-shift, and the U18's, but the two obvious things that can kill your ranking are less than stellar stats, and less than desirable stature. But maybe (and likely) they know something we don't.

 

PS. I still adore Eklund. Such a talented kid. He was my early standout, and everytime I watch him I come away impressed.

Well, I would agree with you about size just being the easy thing to pin it on. I do think Central goes way overboard (unless the rumors of off-ice/attitude issues are for real), but I do totally understand why some people are hesitant. I don't mean to criticize his hockey IQ per se, but he's not what you call a pro-style player. It's been a very tough transition to the pro game for him, and as I've said the issues are compounded by his size because he is a guy who based so much of his game in junior on attacking the inside and challenging defenders.

 

If you've ever quit a bad habit, you'll get why I put so much emphasis on pro-translatability - it is easy to say "well just stop making those immature plays", but when the player is used to being the most skilled player on the ice his whole life and has had success deking everything in sight, you're telling him to stop doing the things that have made him successful and got him where he is. The player needs new strategies, needs help to figure out what they should be doing instead. If the player has the desire and the hockey IQ, then yeah he''ll figure it out, but it is going to take some time. But yeah, when there's multiple issues (size and pro-translatability) compounded like this, it's gonna give a lot of teams pause, even despite a lot of glaring positives. And I want to emphasize again that I don't use the word "compounded" here randomly - these two issues are directly related: if he's just not able to do the things that made him successful in junior and he can't figure out how to adapt right away, it could start to plant the seed of doubt in his head.

 

But I agree on Eklund, can we just stop and admire for a moment? When I was doing player comparisons, almost every comparison I used was a current active player. With Eklund, I had to go all the way back to Paul Kariya. And I still think that's the only possible comparison. The expression "skates circles around the competition" takes on whole new meaning with Eklund. And just watch him go 4th overall like Kariya too.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hammertime said:

I think Lysell maybe has the highest compete of any player in the top 20. 

 

I think deployment has far more to do with it. 

I checked rankings, and he seems to be a guy right about where we pick.  If it’s between him and Gunther which his the higher upside to be a play driving winger?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

couple of things to explain why Lysell's output / play is behind Eklund's:

 

1. Eklund has one of the highest Hockey IQ in this year's draft class, a much higher Hockey IQ than Lysell

2. Have read some scouting reports and multiple times the issue inconsistency was mentioned in connection with Lysell

3. Heard about off-ice issues Lysell has had

4. Comparison Lysell / Eklund is partly unfair because Eklund played 40 SHL games vs. Lysell 26 games, of course Eklund has put more points in 40 games than Lysell in 26

 

 

For sure Eklund is the better player, no question. The original question was about why Lysell gets questioned for size and Eklund doesn't, when they are the same size. I wasn't trying to target who is better, just a more "on the surface" look into why size is mentioned with Lysell, but not much for Eklund. Your points are all very valid though.

 

I think another thing is their playstyle. Lysell is a buzz-saw type, attacking anything in sight, and taking defenders on directly. As the competition gets tougher and bigger, that is going to work less and less. And his size doesn't necessarily help that play style going forward.

 

Eklund is much better in the way he uses his size to his advantage, which could be chalked up to an IQ thing for me. And the results (basically all statistics) speak for themselves when you compare them.

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

In discussion with @HighOnHockey, he stated that in the first couple of rounds it is always BPA, which I agree with, in my own warped way.

 

But I see draft rankings as fluid, not so rigid lists. For example, I see the top 32 players, as a list like this

 

1. Power and Benier

2. Hughes, Guenther, Clarke

3. Edvinsson, Eklund, Johnson

4. McTavish, Wallstedt

5. Sillinger, Lucius, Lysell

6. Chibrikov, Ceulemans, Lambos, Cossa

7. Othmann, Bourgault, Coronato, Ollasson, Pastujov, Svechov, Bolduc, Pinelli, L'Heureux

8. Rosen, Chayka, Robertson, Tuomaala, Raty, Morrow

 

Now, I see this as, you can draft from above your ranking, if someone is left, or from your position in the draft, if nothing else is available, but all the names in one group are ranked very close, so it is not wrong to take someone else in your grouping, because of course, you believe they are in the appropriate line.

 

Of course, each NHL team will have different groupings, but will probably be closer in large groupings like this than individual rankings. So, yes, if you are on line 4 and everyone above you is taken and you need a goalie, you take Wallstedt.....if you need a center, you take McTavish, you may even take someone from the group directly below you if you really like a guy, but usually, they will be in a appropriate grouping.

 

It should be noted, that you can have a grouping of 1, at anytime within your rankings...aka If a McDavid type player is in it, or group 4 only has one name in that line. But the point is,  it is somewhat broad.

 

PS....you may disagree with my rankings or my lines, but I am only 1 GM, of 32, so each list is individual, of course!

 

 

 

So if I'm reading this ^ right, and I may not be, you'd be happy with Ceulemans if e.g, McTavish is gone by 9? would you be OK with Jim reaching down a bit if the scouting group is really convinced he's the BPA?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So if I'm reading this ^ right, and I may not be, you'd be happy with Ceulemans if e.g, McTavish is gone by 9? would you be OK with Jim reaching down a bit if the scouting group is really convinced he's the BPA?

 

You’re raising the right question Jimmy.  We don’t know our team’s list, so the BPA could be anyone in what the public rankings see as the top 15.  Lambos or Cuelemans could certainly be in Benning’s top ten.  

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Alflives said:

You’re raising the right question Jimmy.  We don’t know our team’s list, so the BPA could be anyone in what the public rankings see as the top 15.  Lambos or Cuelemans could certainly be in Benning’s top ten.  

Ceulemans might be the most interesting situation, apparently very raw but IF he works out he's what we need. But its a gamble compared to what we know about others. And we won't see him for at least 2 years. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the talk of trading of the 2022 1st and/or 2023 1st cause I don't think the Canucks will be a playoff team next season and the year after, if anything you want more tickets for the talents coming out the next 2 years.

 

Miller definitely can get a 1st plus.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...