What's interesting is that it never seems to be aimed the other way, either. How much of Marner is Tkachuk? A knife cuts both ways. Tkachuk looks like a very bright future star.
2016 Draft Thread | 7
- Thread starter mrmyheadhurts
- Start date
- Status
What's interesting is that it never seems to be aimed the other way, either. How much of Marner is Tkachuk? A knife cuts both ways. Tkachuk looks like a very bright future star.
Not what he said at all. Specifically said he had 1 D in his top 6, never said where. Then after Murphy pressed him for the 4th or 5th time on if "drafting BPA" meant they'd take a D Benning finally said they'd look at it at 5 or 6. He avoided mentioning 4 in his response.
So not really what you said at all.
Haagen Dazs
Registered User
- Mar 23, 2016
- 79
- 5
Are you serious?
Murphy - "is there a D that can be taken 4 through 6"
Benning - "yeah there is"
Benning - "we feel there's a defenseman in the top 6 that we like and if he's there we will take him"
So later in the interview Benning does back track on the 4th spot as you said, so yes I stand corrected that he might take a F at 4 but I mean come on...not really what he said at all? Okay let me try again for you, he's taking a D at 5-6 instead of 4-6.....
Juolevi is a rookie who is playing his 1st year in North America.
I would be happy if we take him at 6th spot. Don't understand all the Juolevi hate.
I would be happy if we take him at 6th spot. Don't understand all the Juolevi hate.
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 27,751
- 12,929
Pretty much. Not sure why some people are all bent out of shape over him not treating everything like some kind of state secret.
We know he's got 6 players in his top-6 for the draft. And 1 of them is a defenceman. And that he likes Matthews and Laine a lot. Shocking stuff here. All the leverage oh no, it's gone!!!
Really, the biggest insight there is probably that it doesn't sound as though Benning is too heavily considering a trade-down there. They seem to have 6 prospects they'd be thrilled to walk away from the draft with...
And really, how many trade-downs happen in the Top-5/6 picks? There's like 2 instances in the last decade+. And one of them was a complete unmitigated disaster for the team trading down. It's just not something that happens in reality. As much as it seems pop up here as some sort of brilliant armchair draft strategy.
Canucks LB
My Favourite, Gone too soon, RIP Luc, We miss you
- Oct 12, 2008
- 80,195
- 36,218
It's because he is dan hamhuis. Which is nice and all, but people want flash at #5/6
Canucks LB
My Favourite, Gone too soon, RIP Luc, We miss you
- Oct 12, 2008
- 80,195
- 36,218
If you said last year that hutton would be the difference to moving up from #2 to #1.
99.9% of this board would say they would do it in a heart beat.
The knife doesn't seem to cut the other way though. Marner has been doing this for two years.
Stats say Tkachuk probably is the 3rd wheel. His ES points are much lower as well as his primary points compared to Marner/Dvorak.
London fans seem to say he looks more like the "complement" to them but not the bus driver.
I think he's a very good prospect, but there is legitimate concern whether he can be a play-driving 1st liner or more of a complementary top-six guy.
The thing with Dubois is that there is no question of who the best player on his team is. It's him.
SgtToody
Registered User
- Mar 16, 2013
- 1,215
- 30
Two players I'm not sold on as top-6 picks are bothTkachuk and Chychrun. The former because he was surrounded by pretty much a stacked lineup, and while he could evolve into a near point per game player, his game is too predictable. Perhaps he can excel on a weak team with OK line mates (wait til Willie staples him to the bench or takes him off the 3rd line to double shift Etem! And Chychrun has too often looked pedestrian... Who knows what D-man Benning sees as top-5 or 6; all I can say is we better pick top-4!
PM
Glass not 1/2 full
- Apr 8, 2014
- 9,869
- 1,664
Well the optics aren't exactly good if we draft a Dan Hamhuis replacement while letting the actual Dan Hamhuis walk away for nothing.
Addison Rae
Registered User
I 100% no questions asked take Chychrun over Juolevi, a lot of people watched Juolevi in the WJC and believe he's some type of offensive dynamo, but he isn't. Chychrun had a poor shooting % to start the year when it normalized he went back to around PPG rate, and had a very good playoffs. Someone hit the nail on the head when they said it's a case of him being over analyzed, guy is the best dman in the draft and should 100% go to 5.
thefeebster
Registered User
I don't think you'll find anyone here that has watched the MHL extensively.I said it before, but i'm in the same boat as most with Rubtsov - limited viewings.
But my question still stands...
What exactly does Rubtsov do particularly better than Brett Howden? From what i've seen of Rubtsov, they're pretty similar players overall. I just really haven't seen a ton to Rubtsov that screams more than a solid 2-way #2/3C tweener...like Howden, at the higher end of things. Just seem very comparable to me.
Which is where i'd side strongly with the familiarity of the guy i've seen a lot more of, and also comes without any of the Russian factor or Meldonium or any of the rest of that stuff.
I'd certainly like to hear from anyone who has somehow watched a ton of Rubtsov to know what i'm missing here. But that's been my take.
Maybe a question for the main boards. I haven't seen Moose Jaw a ton either, so based on what I've seen of both, I just see Rubstov as being more skilled, having better hands, and having a higher upside (like Rubstov on the higher end of your tweener scale and Howden more on the lower end).
I don't think you'll find anyone here that has watched the MHL extensively.
I haven't seen Moose Jaw a ton either, so based on what I've seen of both, I just see Rubstov as being more skilled, having better hands, and having a higher upside (like Rubstov on the higher end of your tweener scale and Howden more on the lower end).
What do you think of Laberge? Take him if he falls to us?
Well that IS a pretty big difference don't you think?
4-6 vs 5-6?
It matters.
Edit: Sorry for jumping on your post but it's grown tiresome reading people give very inaccurate or highly paraphrased versions of what Benning has said and then present it as what he "is going to do".
Benning has not said he "will definitely" draft a D at any position. He has responded - when directly asked - that he *would* take one at 5 or 6. This is different than saying he *will*. It means he is open to it, that it is certainly possible. Not that it is a fait accompli. There's a difference there.
Last edited:
Shareefruck
Registered User
If Benning's list is
1. Matthews
2. Laine
3. Puljajarvi
4. Dubois
5. Juolevi
6. Tkachuk
I'm actually okay with that. Picking Juolevi over Dubois would be a disaster though.
Doesn't Benning/Linden/Aqualini really like Tkachuk and have never mentioned Dubois though? Chance it's the other way around?
1. Matthews
2. Laine
3. Puljajarvi
4. Dubois
5. Juolevi
6. Tkachuk
I'm actually okay with that. Picking Juolevi over Dubois would be a disaster though.
Doesn't Benning/Linden/Aqualini really like Tkachuk and have never mentioned Dubois though? Chance it's the other way around?
True he hasn't said much about Dubois however I don't recall him mentioning Boeser at all last year either. I think the correlation between who Benning mentions in staged interviews and who he ultimately drafts is pretty low.
From today's Province:
Benning specifically went east earlier this month to get a look at QMJHL left winger/centre Pierre-Luc Dubois. The 6-foot-2, 202-pound forward rose from seventh among North American skaters in mid-season rankings to first in final ratings. Dubois was third in league scoring with 99 points for Cape Breton, fifth in goals with 42 and sixth in assists with 57 in 62 games. He also won 50.4 per cent of face-offs, and can be a power forward and a shutdown centre.
“He can play in any style of game,†said Benning. “If it’s a rough and physical game, he can play that style. If it’s a fast, skilled and finesse game, he can play that, too.â€
All right. I've just completed my 2016 Liiga playoff highlight package for MVP Patrik Laine.
It features all goals and shift highlights in chronological order. It's a 17-minute package. Enjoy!
It features all goals and shift highlights in chronological order. It's a 17-minute package. Enjoy!
Cupless44
Registered User
- Jun 25, 2014
- 7,208
- 3,367
He made a point to go watch Dubois in the playoffs specially. I have a hunch Dubois is the guy at 4
Ok so this is maybe the most interesting, nuanced quote I've seen from Benning on how he views this draft:
http://www.theprovince.com/sports/h...ey+draft+homer+with+laine/11884204/story.html
So it looks to break down like this:
First line forward > Top Pair D
Top Pair D / Top 4 D > Second line forward
Interesting. And makes perfect sense to me. We are pretty stocked with current/potential second line ceiling forwards. Baertschi, McCann, Virtanen, even Horvat all project best as second line guys (and please don't come at me for calling Horvat a 2C, I know he could be more but for now he's a 2C) so we are pretty stocked in that area. But there is a dearth of legit top line forwards anywhere in our organization and with the Sedins pushing 36 in September this has to be a priority going forward.
So it really comes down to how Benning views the forwards available. Does he see Dubois as a First line player? Most rankings and scouting services describe him as such so I would think Benning would take him if available. The more interesting question is how he see's Tkachuk. Production would put him clearly as a First line forward however the 'Marner-factor' casts some question on that. I think that's going to be the key as to who the Canucks would take at 5 or 6, namely whether they see Tkachuk as a legit First liner or as more of a second line, complimentary player. If it is the latter, then I can see Juolevi or a trade-back scenario coming into play. If Benning sees Tkachuk as the former, then I think we are taking a forward anywhere 1-5 and only a D at 6.
http://www.theprovince.com/sports/h...ey+draft+homer+with+laine/11884204/story.html
So it looks to break down like this:
First line forward > Top Pair D
Top Pair D / Top 4 D > Second line forward
Interesting. And makes perfect sense to me. We are pretty stocked with current/potential second line ceiling forwards. Baertschi, McCann, Virtanen, even Horvat all project best as second line guys (and please don't come at me for calling Horvat a 2C, I know he could be more but for now he's a 2C) so we are pretty stocked in that area. But there is a dearth of legit top line forwards anywhere in our organization and with the Sedins pushing 36 in September this has to be a priority going forward.
So it really comes down to how Benning views the forwards available. Does he see Dubois as a First line player? Most rankings and scouting services describe him as such so I would think Benning would take him if available. The more interesting question is how he see's Tkachuk. Production would put him clearly as a First line forward however the 'Marner-factor' casts some question on that. I think that's going to be the key as to who the Canucks would take at 5 or 6, namely whether they see Tkachuk as a legit First liner or as more of a second line, complimentary player. If it is the latter, then I can see Juolevi or a trade-back scenario coming into play. If Benning sees Tkachuk as the former, then I think we are taking a forward anywhere 1-5 and only a D at 6.
Ya I know he was out there but I just hadn't heard much from Benning about Dubois (until today's article in the Province). I like him too and hope he's our guy if we are not in the top 3.
of maybe after watching Dubois in the playoffs, he's decided Tkachuk is better?
We just dont' know what Benning's list looks like.
Either way, big 3 or one of Tkachuk, Dubois, Juolevi and I would be pretty happy.
Actually I would be pretty happy if Benning picks Jost or Keller.
All those have top line potential or top pairing potential.
I think that approach makes sense. Also think Dubois is at #4 on their list.
As for the defencemen, I can see Juolevi being a safe pick as a Hamhuis-esque kind of player. But I think you go with a higher offensive upside D that high in the draft, both for team building purposes and business purposes.
It's easier to find a top 4 stay at home D-man in free agency than a guy who puts up points. Also, guys like Brent Burns put way more butts in seats than the Dan Hamhuises of the world (no disrespect to Hammer).
I'm fine with them taking Juolevi at 5-6, but I'd probably go with Chychrun myself if we're talking defencemen.
As for the defencemen, I can see Juolevi being a safe pick as a Hamhuis-esque kind of player. But I think you go with a higher offensive upside D that high in the draft, both for team building purposes and business purposes.
It's easier to find a top 4 stay at home D-man in free agency than a guy who puts up points. Also, guys like Brent Burns put way more butts in seats than the Dan Hamhuises of the world (no disrespect to Hammer).
I'm fine with them taking Juolevi at 5-6, but I'd probably go with Chychrun myself if we're talking defencemen.
- Status
