2016 Draft Thread | 7

[CanaFan]

Can we stop perpetuating the "D is our top positional need" fallacy?

You need 4 players to fill a top 4 D, which is what you should be looking at with a high first round pick.

Tanev
Hutton
Edler

Are 3/4 of that. Tryamkin may make that 4/4 in a few years time.

You need 6 plyers to fill our top 6 forwards, which is what we should be looking at this high in the draft. We currently have Horvat, Boeser, and some maybes. And no one other than Boeser looks like a future 1st liner (apologies to Horvat whom I adore).

We need top 6 forwards as bad or worse than top 4 D. Now if there was an Ekblad/Doughty surefire top guy then hell ya you take him. But no one projects to be that and we are not "urgently" in need of a guy who projects to be a notch or two below that level.

Draft BPA always and at 1-6 that looks strongly like a forward, not a D.

 

[McHortton]

Sorry but Jost Is becoming way over hyped here. He did well crushing the lesser opponents but a 2 week tournament is not going to catapult him into my top 6 list.

He played in a weaker league all year compared to Tkachuk and Chychrun..

The pounding you take in an OHL regular season which if remember correctly is about 15 or so more games than the BCJHL is a big factor. Jost is definitely fresher and hasn't has a tumultuous year playing in a low competitive league. Chy may very well be more fatigued from his year in the OHL.

You can't take too much out of a small sample size tournament.

Besides if it comes down to Jost and Chych and the BPA is undetermined between them then the tiebreaker goes to team needs which is clearly Chychrun as a Dman. We already have a Jost in Mccann. Both play a similar game.

Not sure I agree... Just look at this

5 out of 18 are busts
10 out of 18 are legit top 6 forwards
And at least 3 are legit superstars.

I'll take those odds anyday.

Pretty good company if you ask me. I'm all for picking him at 6, possibly 5.

I know it doesn't really argue your point about BCHL being weaker , but it's a decent enough sample size that he proved he can play against players his level and size. If the BCHL was that much weaker there's no way he would put up those numbers.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Interesting to see McLeod at @3 for McKeens.

 

[CanaFan]

Not sure I agree... Just look at this

5 out of 18 are busts
10 out of 18 are legit top 6 forwards
And at least 3 are legit superstars.

I'll take those odds anyday.

Pretty good company if you ask me. I'm all for picking him at 6, possibly 5.

Yes but ...

Was Matthews there?
Was Laine there?
Was Puljujarvi there enough to be considered?

You can't just look at a list of names as an argument. Ovechkin was the best player his draft year and was regarded as such outside of the tournament.

Jost isn't regarded as even close to the best player, most of whom were not even here to potentially win the award.

Jost was amazing and will rise for sure but such comparisons rely heavily on context.

 

[PrinceOfPucks]

Not sure I agree... Just look at this

5 out of 18 are busts
10 out of 18 are legit top 6 forwards
And at least 3 are legit superstars.

I'll take those odds anyday.

Pretty good company if you ask me. I'm all for picking him at 6, possibly 5.

I know it doesn't really argue your point about BCHL being weaker , but it's a decent enough sample size that he proved he can play against players his level and size. If the BCHL was that much weaker there's no way he would put up those numbers.

There is so much flaw in stat watching that I dont have time to get into.

Basically him getting 5 pts in a 9-1 victory over Switzerland doesn't really impress Me much. Him getting 1 point combined in Semis and Bronze medal game vs actual competition should speak more volume.

Don't get me wrong I don't mind Jost. I have him in my top 12. Same tier as Logan Brown and Sergachev.

 

[GetFocht]

Interesting to see McLeod at @3 for McKeens.

I don't trust McKeens ranking anymore as it tries to hard to be the contrarian. The only draft rankings that I've seen is the closest representation of a prospects worth is Bob Mckenzie, his evaluation is based from several NHL scouts.

 

[PrinceOfPucks]

I don't trust McKeens ranking anymore as it tries to hard to be the contrarian. The only draft rankings that I've seen is the closest representation of a prospects worth is Bob Mckenzie, his evaluation is based from several NHL scouts.

What is Bobby Mcs top 10 looking like these days ?

 

[CherryToke]

Can we stop perpetuating the "D is our top positional need" fallacy?

You need 4 players to fill a top 4 D, which is what you should be looking at with a high first round pick.

Tanev
Hutton
Edler

Are 3/4 of that. Tryamkin may make that 4/4 in a few years time.

You need 6 plyers to fill our top 6 forwards, which is what we should be looking at this high in the draft. We currently have Horvat, Boeser, and some maybes. And no one other than Boeser looks like a future 1st liner (apologies to Horvat whom I adore).

We need top 6 forwards as bad or worse than top 4 D. Now if there was an Ekblad/Doughty surefire top guy then hell ya you take him. But no one projects to be that and we are not "urgently" in need of a guy who projects to be a notch or two below that level.

Draft BPA always and at 1-6 that looks strongly like a forward, not a D.

I agree taking a forward in the top 6 of this draft looks like the right move but lets not pretend we don't need defence.. Edler is 30 and on the decline. Tanev and Hutton are good but can't shoot the puck. Tryamkin is unproven and everyone else is meh. That is one ugly defence of the future..

 

[PrinceOfPucks]

Here Is my top 15.

* Please Note If players are on same tier then it will go according to Team Needs at whoever is drafting in that position.

Tier 1
1-Laine
2- Mathews

Tier 2.
3. Puljujarvi

Tier 3.
4. Dubois
5. Tkachuk
6. Chychrun
7. Nylander

Tier 4.
8.Juolevi
9- Bean
10. Mcleaod

Tier 5.
11. Logan Brown
12 - Jost
13- Fabro
14. Keller
15- Sergachev

thoughts ?

 

[Rex Banner]

1. Mathews
2. Laine
3. Puljujarvi
4. Dubois
5. Tkachuk
6. Chychrun

 

[WTG]

Here Is my top 15.

* Please Note If players are on same tier then it will go according to Team Needs at whoever is drafting in that position.

Tier 1
1-Laine
2- Mathews

Tier 2.
3. Puljujarvi

Tier 3.
4. Dubois
5. Tkachuk
6. Chychrun
7. Nylander

Tier 4.
8.Juolevi
9- Bean
10. Mcleaod

Tier 5.
11. Logan Brown
12 - Jost
13- Fabro
14. Keller
15- Sergachev

thoughts ?

For me it's:

Tier 1:
1. Matthews
2. Laine
3. Puljujarvi
Tier 2:
4. Bean
5. Dubois
6. Nylander
7. Jost
8. McLeod
Tier 3:
9. Chychrun
10. Tkachuk
11. Juolevi
12. Sergachev
13. Keller

At least that's the way I see it. tier 2 and tier 3 are basically tier 2A and tier 2B. The 4-8 players are slightly better then the 9-13 players. But within reaching territory.

But that is the way I would categorize my draft list. As soon as you get the top 3 it's a complete crap shoot.

 

[Icebreakers]

Not sure I agree... Just look at this

5 out of 18 are busts
10 out of 18 are legit top 6 forwards
And at least 3 are legit superstars.

I'll take those odds anyday.

Pretty good company if you ask me. I'm all for picking him at 6, possibly 5.

I know it doesn't really argue your point about BCHL being weaker , but it's a decent enough sample size that he proved he can play against players his level and size. If the BCHL was that much weaker there's no way he would put up those numbers.

WTF Ovechkin put up 14 goals in 8 games as a 16 year old at the u18 LOL.

 

[CanaFan]

I agree taking a forward in the top 6 of this draft looks like the right move but lets not pretend we don't need defence.. Edler is 30 and on the decline. Tanev and Hutton are good but can't shoot the puck. Tryamkin is unproven and everyone else is meh. That is one ugly defence of the future..

Oh I'm not pretending we don't need it. I'm simply tired of people pretending it's the only thing we need. Edler may be 30 but Daniel and Henrik are 35. We can't be passing up a chance to draft a better forward simply because we haven't drafted a first round D since 2005. Late round picks and UFAs like Hutton and Tanev have stemmed the bleeding on D, but other than Horvat and hopefully Boeser we haven't drafted a top line forward since Kesler in 2003.

Draft BPA and if that's D then fine but we can't be "prioritizing" Defense at the expense of taking whomever we think is the best player.

Edit: I don't think you and I are disagreeing, I'm simply voicing a counter to the "we gotta draft D" posts that pop up from time to time.

 

[PrinceOfPucks]

For me it's:

Tier 1:
1. Matthews
2. Laine
3. Puljujarvi
Tier 2:
4. Bean
5. Dubois
6. Nylander
7. Jost
8. McLeod
Tier 3:
9. Chychrun
10. Tkachuk
11. Juolevi
12. Sergachev
13. Keller

At least that's the way I see it. tier 2 and tier 3 are basically tier 2A and tier 2B. The 4-8 players are slightly better then the 9-13 players. But within reaching territory.

But that is the way I would categorize my draft list. As soon as you get the top 3 it's a complete crap shoot.

Can you elaborate more as to why Bean is at 4 and Tkachuk at 10 ?

 

[y2kcanucks]

Tier 1:
1. Matthews
2. Laine

Tier 2:
3. Puljujarvi

Tier 3:
4. Chychrun
5. Tkachuk
6. Dubois

Tier 4:
7. Nylander
8. Sergachev
9. Juolevi
10. Jost

Tier 5:
11. Bean
12. Keller
13. McLeod

Tier 6:
14. McAvoy
15. Fabbro
16. Gauthier

 

[banme*]

Been about 2 months since I did this so I may as well update:

1. Matthews (NC)
2. Laine (NC)
3. Dubois (NC)
4. Puljujarvi (+1)
5. Tkachuk (+1)
6. Chychrun (-2)
7. Juolevi (NC)
8. Jost (+3)
9. Mcleod (NC)
10. Sergachev (-2)

Followed by some combo of Nylander, Bean, Bellows, Keller, Fabbro, Brown, Mcavoy in no particular order.

 

[Shareefruck]

Can we stop perpetuating the "D is our top positional need" fallacy?

You need 4 players to fill a top 4 D, which is what you should be looking at with a high first round pick.

Tanev
Hutton
Edler

Are 3/4 of that. Tryamkin may make that 4/4 in a few years time.

You need 6 plyers to fill our top 6 forwards, which is what we should be looking at this high in the draft. We currently have Horvat, Boeser, and some maybes. And no one other than Boeser looks like a future 1st liner (apologies to Horvat whom I adore).

We need top 6 forwards as bad or worse than top 4 D. Now if there was an Ekblad/Doughty surefire top guy then hell ya you take him. But no one projects to be that and we are not "urgently" in need of a guy who projects to be a notch or two below that level.

Draft BPA always and at 1-6 that looks strongly like a forward, not a D.

I agree with the sentiment, but if you're going to include Edler/Tanev in your top four, it's only fair to include Hansen and Baertschi in your top 6.

If you're comparing actual youth at the positions, it's much trickier to argue, though

Hutton
Tryamkin (maybe)
Stecher (longshot)
Subban (longshot)

vs.

Boeser
Horvat
Baertschi
McCann
Virtanen (maybe)

In that context, we have 4/6 likely top 6 forwards but only 1/4 likely top 4 defenseman that are legitimately young/prospect-types

 

[WTG]

Can you elaborate more as to why Bean is at 4 and Tkachuk at 10 ?

I believe that Bean has top 2 potential while the other defensemen don't.

Tkachuk's stats are inflated because he's playing with 2 of the best prospects in the world. He's not better then Nylander IMO. Tkachuk is a Boeser type were they will never really carry a line but will always be a good support piece. Which is perfectly fine, no shame in being a support prospect. But that does mean he ranks below players like Nylander who does push the pace.

 

[ahmon]

I believe that Bean has top 2 potential while the other defensemen don't.

Tkachuk's stats are inflated because he's playing with 2 of the best prospects in the world. He's not better then Nylander IMO. Tkachuk is a Boeser type were they will never really carry a line but will always be a good support piece. Which is perfectly fine, no shame in being a support prospect. But that does mean he ranks below players like Nylander who does push the pace.

I dont`get this argument. If anything I think Dvorak is the weaklink.

Tkachuk is outscoring Dvorak in the playoffs and is almost 2 years younger.

 

[daynus]

Just popped in for a friendly visit. I'm picking for the Canucks in the flyers first annual mock, and so far I have taken, 3. Patrick Laine,lw,Finland, 6-4' 210. 33. Kale Clague,d,Brandon,whl, 6-0,180.
I will update the selections after 55.
Please give me your thoughts on my selections for your organization.

 

[Gaunce4gm]

Just popped in for a friendly visit. I'm picking for the Canucks in the flyers first annual mock, and so far I have taken, 3. Patrick Laine,lw,Finland, 6-4' 210. 33. Kale Clague,d,Brandon,whl, 6-0,180.
I will update the selections after 55.
Please give me your thoughts on my selections for your organization.

I imagine we would all be very happy with that Draft result.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Just popped in for a friendly visit. I'm picking for the Canucks in the flyers first annual mock, and so far I have taken, 3. Patrick Laine,lw,Finland, 6-4' 210. 33. Kale Clague,d,Brandon,whl, 6-0,180.
I will update the selections after 55.
Please give me your thoughts on my selections for your organization.

You're hired as our new GM!
Please fax your resume.

 

[Icebreakers]

Been about 2 months since I did this so I may as well update:

1. Matthews (NC)
2. Laine (NC)
3. Dubois (NC)
4. Puljujarvi (+1)
5. Tkachuk (+1)
6. Chychrun (-2)
7. Juolevi (NC)
8. Jost (+3)
9. Mcleod (NC)
10. Sergachev (-2)

Followed by some combo of Nylander, Bean, Bellows, Keller, Fabbro, Brown, Mcavoy in no particular order.

So two months of Mcleod doing nothing you dont drop him while the other player you listed at the end all elevated their games.

 

[WTG]

I dont`get this argument. If anything I think Dvorak is the weaklink.

Tkachuk is outscoring Dvorak in the playoffs and is almost 2 years younger.

Marner - 31 pts
Tkachuk - 28 pts
Dvorak - 22 pts

Playing on a line like that inflates your numbers. Also, it really doesn't matter if Dvorak is 2 years older. He's still a great prospect.

Do you think he would have put up Alexander Nylander like numbers away from Marner and Dvorak? I think he'd produce less because it's often not him pushing the play. It's Marner. This is what makes me think he's a support winger rather then a winger that pushes the play.

 

[CanaFan]

I agree with the sentiment, but if you're going to include Edler/Tanev in your top four, it's only fair to include Hansen and Baertschi in your top 6.

If you're comparing actual youth at the positions, it's much trickier to argue, though

Hutton
Tryamkin (maybe)
Stecher (longshot)
Subban (longshot)

vs.

Boeser
Horvat
Baertschi
McCann
Virtanen (maybe)

In that context, we have 4/6 likely top 6 forwards but only 1/4 likely top 4 defenseman that are legitimately young/prospect-types

Well Hansen minus the Sedins is not really an every-day top 6 forward so I'm reluctant to include him. Baertschi is fair and I only left him off because he didn't cement himself as a surefire top 6 F the way Hutton did as a top 4 D.

For the moment McCann and Virtanen are still legit question marks though I am hopeful both of them will get there. Tryamkin is probably comparable to these two but I feel he showed more in the KHL and his short NHL stint than the two 19 year olds.

Also it's not right to compare raw numbers. You need 50% more forwards (6) than defense (4) in these top 6/4 discussions. So in terms of raw numbers you need 2 extra forwards anyway.

I think it's debatable if the more pressing need is at F or D (personally I think it's at F) but that still supports a BPA strategy, rather than a positional focus.