I get that and I appended my post a bit after your quoted it to say it still allows for Juolevi at 6 or 5 depending on how they view Tkachuk, not positionally (C vs W) but based on upside (is he a 1LW or a 2LW). I find the "not caring about wingers at all" part of Duplo's post a bit hard to believe TBH because of course Laine is a pure winger and even Puljujarvi is likely to remain there despite preferences to move him to C. So if he "doesn't care about W at all " meaning his decision will be positional irrespective of talent level, then there is no chance we would draft Laine or even Puljujarvi if we landed top 3. But of course "not caring about W at all" isn't a reasonable way to view anything and talent/upside must always be a factor. Which is why I believe his comments in the Province more accurately reflect his likely position (Position X Upside) than Duplo's source (Position only).
2016 Draft Thread | 7
- Thread starter mrmyheadhurts
- Start date
- Status
I get that and I appended my post a bit after your quoted it to say it still allows for Juolevi at 6 or 5 depending on how they view Tkachuk, not positionally (C vs W) but based on upside (is he a 1LW or a 2LW). I find the "not caring about wingers at all" part of Duplo's post a bit hard to believe TBH because of course Laine is a pure winger and even Puljujarvi is likely to remain there despite preferences to move him to C. So if he "doesn't care about W at all " meaning his decision will be positional irrespective of talent level, then there is no chance we would draft Laine or even Puljujarvi if we landed top 3. But of course "not caring about W at all" isn't a reasonable way to view anything and talent/upside must always be a factor. Which is why I believe his comments in the Province more accurately reflect his likely position (Position X Upside) than Duplo's source (Position only).
polarbearcub
Registered User
Gotta trust benning with the drafting. If they feel tkachuk is a first like winger, they take him over juolevi.
I have this feeling about juolevi that after the draft , people will say " how was he dropped that far?"
I have this feeling about juolevi that after the draft , people will say " how was he dropped that far?"
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 28,187
- 8,270
That's the literal interpretation of Duplo's sentence. Lest we forget, he qualifies this with his next sentence:
Duplo said:
I don't think it's position only based on that qualification. It is the same (Position X Upside) you cite. The difference is after the big three. After the clear separation of talent. So an obvious preference will be given to position there. He even goes so far as to say that Pulju being pushed to C may close the gap between him and Laine for them. Again, highlighting the importance of position in their thinking.
This also jives with Benning's consideration of Juolevi (or "a Dman") at #6 and _maybe_ #5. If it's close and it comes down to position, he could very well prefer Juolevi here.
polarbearcub
Registered User
I'm glad we agree on what we *think* Benning means/intends, but I have trouble reconciling two parts of Duplo's post, namely:
Then going on to say "But the Big 3 is the Big 3".
Well if they don't care about "wingers" (the position) at all but would definitely draft Laine (a winger), then that tells me Benning DOES care about wingers if the talent level is high enough. My issue with the post is not how you are interpreting it (which I think is correctly) but that others will take it more at face value and arrive at the conclusion that we are *not* even considering Tkachuk, which I think is incorrect. I think we are considering him IF he is (in Benning's eyes) a 1LW and not a 2LW.
It's a nuance that seems to get ignored a fair bit around here (and amongst some of my hockey-following friends as well, which is perhaps why I get a bit vexed by it). Overall I have no issue reconciling Duplo's post with Benning's interview, but I think it reads a bit like a game of telephone, with some of the intended meaning and nuance being lost in the paraphrasing. Until we know how Benning views Tkachuk - and I'm not sure we have enough clues to get a good read on it - then I have to assume Tkachuk is in the conversation, not out of it. Whether he is the actual pick (if it even matters after Saturday) will no doubt be the subject of endless posts and speculation in the coming weeks and months.
Gaunce4gm
Trusted Hockey Man
I think Tkachuk *could* be a top line winger. But not in a sense that Daniel Sedin, Pacioretty, Tarasenko, Ovechkin etc... More of a player that if you put him with a Horvat or a McCann and a Boeser or a Virtanen, he could very easily play top line and be a very good complimentary piece with good chemistry and put up 55-75 pts every year
Tv9924
Registered User
Curious, for those who follow prospects more closely than I do - how does Juolevi compare to Hampus Lindholm in his draft year? Strikes me that Lindholm is the type of upside you are looking at in Juolevi (in terms of impact on the game, not necessarily play style). I'd take that at 5 or 6.
Heh. Yeah. I'm more interested in the range of outcomes that Hampus Lindholm had in 2012 compared to Juolevi now.
I'd say they play pretty similar styles and have similar talent levels, it's a comparison I made as well. Hampus is maybe a little chunkier, but neither are really physical players despite their good frame. Lindholm hasn't scored 50 points, but you still think, wow that's a good player.
sandwichbird2023
Registered User
- Aug 4, 2004
- 4,357
- 2,714
For those that are familiar with the D's of this draft class, in your opinion how wide is the gap between the top rank D vs #3/4? If theCanucks dropped to #5 or #6OA, and the top forwards are gone, should they trade down (hypothetically #10 and add a 2nd rounder) and pick the #3/4 rank D? Or stand put and pick the #1 rank D, whoever that may be.
I feel that the top 4 rank D's (OJ, sergachev, JC, bean) are all very interchangeable, based on what I read. If we are picking 6th and dead set on a D, I would like to trade down. What do you guys think?
I feel that the top 4 rank D's (OJ, sergachev, JC, bean) are all very interchangeable, based on what I read. If we are picking 6th and dead set on a D, I would like to trade down. What do you guys think?
Sorry, let me clarify here. Their emphasis on their first pick is a centre or a D, but they have the big three on a different tier from the rest of the draft. So when I say they don't care about wingers, I mean that if they're drafting outside of the top 3.
I've been told they have Matthews at 1st overall, then Laine, but there's an outside chance they'd maybe pick Pulju to convert him to a centre.
On Tkachuk, they told me Benning could possibly pick Juolevi at 5 if someone picked Dubois at 4. They believe they'd draft around Tkachuk if he's still on the board and Dubois is gone. I hope they're wrong personally.
Sounds like it, yeah. I've been told they rank the D like this:
1. Juolevi
2. Sergachev
3. McAvoy (I've only heard his name before, I don't claim to know anything about him)
4. Chychrun
5. Bean
That's the extent of everything I've been told.
Gotcha. So it is more a commentary about Tkachuk than it is about wingers in general. I hope it isn't the case but at least it is a bit clearer now. thanks
Cupless44
Registered User
- Jun 25, 2014
- 7,208
- 3,367
I really can't see Benning passing on Dubois at 5 if Tkachuk goes at 4. Firstly it wouldn't be smart and secondly I think Benning likes him too much. I think Dubois has more first line potential than any Canuck prospect.
Thanks.
Jeff Marek said some team picking in the top-6 had the same ranking (minus Bean) on the PDOcast a few weeks back, so that seems legit.
Personally, I feel that line will be reserved for Chychurn when it gets picked 10th-15th overall. Guy has been dropping like a rock in the rankings.
Just A Bit Outside
Playoffs??!
- Mar 6, 2010
- 19,640
- 20,865
Then Nucks should be looking to somehow acquire another 1st.
Anyone who gets Chychrun from #10 onwards is going to get a steal.
Good thing Jimbo acquired all those extra picks...
i wouldn't be against packaging our 2nd (eek) and something to moveup into the middle tens if chrychun is still available.
By-passing Tkachuk doesn't quite square with Jim, the straight shooter, gushing over his down low abilities and Aquaman allegedly uttering his name followed by a period.
Not that I mind, the Juolevi v other D men in the draft has me more perturbed. It's anti Sham move (if Sham were to rank D same as forwards) and it goes against Benning's heretofore preference of tools over ice Q. If so the Finn's vision must really be something else. I'm thinking poor man's Lidstrom or bust.
thefeebster
Registered User
Insane. If we won a top 3 pick in the lottery, you would trade it for Lindholm straight up?
i think lindholm and the #3 probably have about the same value as each other. lindholm is really ****ing good, and hes the kind of defenceman that is underrated enough to get paid less than he's worth
- Status
