WTG
December 5th
Oliver Ekman-Larsson is #1 D-man IMO.
But still, we have a lot hinging on juolevi becoming a #1. So let's hope he comes out next year and explodes offensively.
Bravo Benning. The D is pretty much rebuilt.
- Thread starter No Face No Case
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Oliver Ekman-Larsson is #1 D-man IMO.
But still, we have a lot hinging on juolevi becoming a #1. So let's hope he comes out next year and explodes offensively.
Why are you not sold on Tryamkin? Why do you have him with the little guys? He proved he can play in the NHL last year. Your comment on Gudbranson shows your bias. He makes 3.5 million next year why not watch him to before deciding your would not touch him. Willie Mitchell was very underrated if Gudbranson can move the puck while being agressive he fills a huge void. Same with a Tryamkin but you seem to prefer watching Biega, Weber and Bartowski being manhandled
Tanev Edler
Hutton Grudbranson
OJ Tryamkin
Will be the core in 2 years that is quite the overhaul with the D. could use a high end offensive d man but I think Hutton or OJ may develop into good offensive players. If they do we have a very good d core with only Edler needing to be replaced in the next 5 years.
Hutton Grudbranson
OJ Tryamkin
Will be the core in 2 years that is quite the overhaul with the D. could use a high end offensive d man but I think Hutton or OJ may develop into good offensive players. If they do we have a very good d core with only Edler needing to be replaced in the next 5 years.
LOL. Possibly the most ridiculous post on hfboards history? You went back to the lockout to try and prove that Juolevi is a bad pick. But then, hilariously, it looks like you ran into some roadblocks along the way that proved your theory wrong. So instead of just not posting, you instead decide to post a heavily censored version that leaves out numerous years (2008, 2009, 2012, 2013) because they didn't fit your agenda. Very odd... Here, let me point out a few d-men that you casually left out to try and make your agenda work:
2008
#2 = Drew Doughty
#3 = Zach Bogosian
#4 = Alex Pietrangelo
2009
#2 = Victor Hedman
#6 = Oliver Ekman Larsson
2012
#4 = Griffin Reinhart
#5 = Morgan Rielly
#6 = Hampus Lindholm
#7 = Mathew Dumba
#8 = Derrick Pouliot
#9 = Jacob Trouba
#10 = Slater Koekkoek
2013
#4 = Seth Jones
#7 = Darnell Nurse
#8 = Rasmus Ristolainen
................
Evolu7ion
#firelindenning
IMO Sergachev has a better chance at becoming a true #1, which he flashed down the stretch in the last 1/3 of the season. There's also a rumour he was Edmonton's pick at 4 had Puljujarvi gone at 3. Here's a scouting report I found interesting on Draftbuzz:
Last edited:
You missed the intent of the post. He clearly said he didn't include drafts that were not comparable to this one, because going in we knew there was no franchise level D.
It would be like trying to compare Crosby to RNH because they were both #1 picks, when going in no one thought RNH would be as good as Crosby.
Now if you disagree with his theory, thats fine, I have no problem with that. But attack the theory, and not other drafts that were not included.
If you feel those other drafts should be included state why. If he is right or wrong, from what he posted its a reasonable conclusion.
I disagree with it a bit and think Joulevi will be a good #2, but that is not the point.
Well, if Edmonton's trade of a mid 1st for Reinhart is any indication of Chia's regime ability to ID quality D men, I'm confident we made the right pick.
Fact is nobody knows what the ceiling of any of these D men will be. Unlike forwards, where draft position is a very good predictor of elite talent and Art Ross contenders, D men are a mystery since so many of the so called "true" #1/Norris candidates come from rounds 2 and later. Being a top 5 pick it's relatively safe to pencil him in as a future top 4 D, but beyond that...
I take some comfort in:
1.) Mackenzie consensus ranking (or the closest that qualifies as such) had him just ahead of Sergachev
2.) Ice Q matters even more for D than forwards. Their version of PPG and nobody is said to have more than our boy. Assuming requisite skills and some ice water in veins, the rest should take care of itself.
Figured it had to happen one of these years - us taking a D in the 1st and early. Maybe now the sports radio guys can layoff about us not having a "horse" player/prospect for a while.
Shareefruck
Registered User
I do feel that it would be smart to start focusing on forwards now.
XX - XX - Boeser
Baertschi - Horvat - Virtanen
XX - Sutter - XX
Etem - Gaunce - XX
Juolevi - Tanev (actually, it might be a good idea to split these guys up)
Hutton - Gudbranson
XX - Tryamkin
Demko
Markstrom
1C is by far the most pressing need and prerequisite, and 1D is a mere luxury, IMO.
XX - XX - Boeser
Baertschi - Horvat - Virtanen
XX - Sutter - XX
Etem - Gaunce - XX
Juolevi - Tanev (actually, it might be a good idea to split these guys up)
Hutton - Gudbranson
XX - Tryamkin
Demko
Markstrom
1C is by far the most pressing need and prerequisite, and 1D is a mere luxury, IMO.
I don't think the cup is hard to win without a number one d. It's hard to win regardless of your team composition. I don't believe there's been a single team in the past ten years that has won without a number one d man anchoring the team.
You can try to win with depth but it doesn't change the fact that this entire defense core hinges on Juolevi panning out. If he busts this defense core will be lucky to make this team a dark horse contender. Depth also requires to you to pay more money for better quality bottom pairing guys but from what I've seen its doesn't equate to the value of a true number one.
Edit: pronger was traded several times in his career. Niedermeyer and chara were signed as ufa. Keith and subban are second rounders. It's definitely hard but not impossible if you don't draft one. drafting one is obviously ideal. I'm merely saying that everyone here is saying how great our core is but we need to be more cautious as the entire plan is centered around a player who hasn't even played a single game in the NHL. We need to temper expectations.
Last edited:
drax0s
Registered User
I actually like where our defense is right now. If Benning is fired -- I think whoever comes in after him might not have as difficult a job ahead of them as the Canucks are in a pretty decent position to build from the net out and be a contender in 3 - 4-ish years.
We've got a young starting goalie in Marky and an top flight goal prospect in Demko. We've got some young NHL proven defensemen in Tanev and Hutton. Tryamkin has shown well (to me at least) in the NHL as well. We've also got some quality D prospects in Subban, Brisebois & Juolevi and a bunch of fringe D prospects who all have some potential upside in Stecher, Olsen, Neil and newly acquired Candella.
I think it's safe to say we're going to bottom out when the Sedins retire in 2 years no matter who we acquire now. That's where we can grab some quality forwards (I mean hell, we might draft top 5 the next 4 years in a row). We could actually luck into a rebuild like the Hawks did where they already had Crawford, Keith and Seabrook in place before they grabbed Toews and Kane.
... of course, this all falls apart if we sign 2 high priced vets to bloated 7 year contracts in a half-assed attempt at the playoffs. Hopefully that doesn't happen...
We've got a young starting goalie in Marky and an top flight goal prospect in Demko. We've got some young NHL proven defensemen in Tanev and Hutton. Tryamkin has shown well (to me at least) in the NHL as well. We've also got some quality D prospects in Subban, Brisebois & Juolevi and a bunch of fringe D prospects who all have some potential upside in Stecher, Olsen, Neil and newly acquired Candella.
I think it's safe to say we're going to bottom out when the Sedins retire in 2 years no matter who we acquire now. That's where we can grab some quality forwards (I mean hell, we might draft top 5 the next 4 years in a row). We could actually luck into a rebuild like the Hawks did where they already had Crawford, Keith and Seabrook in place before they grabbed Toews and Kane.
... of course, this all falls apart if we sign 2 high priced vets to bloated 7 year contracts in a half-assed attempt at the playoffs. Hopefully that doesn't happen...
Luck into drafting top five LOL.
You mean suck so hard because of incompetence that we draft top five consistently despite trying not to. That is practically oiler level bad if it happens.
drax0s
Registered User
You're twisting my words. I said we could luck into a rebuild like the Hawks instead of the Oilers because we already seem to have some key "build from the net out" pieces in place.
And yes, I do mean suck so hard we're drafting top 5 for 4 years or so. I thought I was pretty specific there?
You're right, I read it the sentence incorrectly.
I don't think the Hawks lucked into anything. They were one of the worst franchises for like a decade.
drax0s
Registered User
Just being a terrible franchise for a long time doesn't necessarily translate to cup winner though. That's my point. We're going to (or, do) really suck, but we have pieces that might help us come out of it better than other teams that have sucked before us.
Jimson Hogarth*
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 12,858
- 3
Picking 3 defencemen in the top 90 in the past 3 years certainly is something different for this franchise.
I think both 1c and 1d are of great importance. I really don't have a problem of getting either one first, the question is will Juo develop into a 1d?
We need platinum level 1c, 1d and 1g. Assuming Demko and Juo can fill in the 1g 1d role, we'll acquire our 1c later on. The team isn't gonna compete before Henrik falls off the map, so we still got time, there is no huge hurry.
Raistlin
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2006
- 5,181
- 4,205
Why is everyone suddenly saying Juolevi is a potential 1D since becoming our property? I specifically remember everyone accepting that there is a top 5 BECause there is no #1D available? The "respected scout" who drafted him said there is no #1D! Can we accept the narrative that we have a good D men that can in best case scenario becomes a Vlasic? Which will be a boon like never before, Having 2solid #2s will be immense to keep us competitive. Like 2 Ohlunds or 2 Tanevs, but please, stop rewriting expectations to add to your biases. If Olli exceeds expectations and turns into a fairygodmother type #1 like OEL, I will gladly gobble up all the crow hurled my way. But watching the narrative shift page by page hurts my eyes. We still need a bonafide #1D and a #1C, we can sign that elusive #1 LW, thank god for vancouver's reputation as a city.
I can only speak for myself… I didn't know much at all about Juolevi pre-draft. All the talk was about PLD and Tkachuk. Since, I've read countless scouting reports, watched some highlights and really enjoyed the shift by shift posted in this thread of Juolevi vs Canada at the WJC. I'm a lot more informed then I was. The game he had against Canada was impressive. I'm not a WJC expert but I can't remember a performance like that from a 17 year old defenseman. He showed poise well beyond his years with the puck on his stick and was instrumental in his team's 6-5 victory. Given the stage, his age and his performance I would say without a doubt this kid has "#1" potential with that one game as evidence.
settinguptheplay
Classless Canuck Fan
- Apr 3, 2008
- 2,656
- 927
Because saying there is no number 1 D is not the same as there being no number 1 D. All you can do is look for the qualities that make up a number 1 dman. Olli checks many of those boxes. The unchecked boxes still have time to develop. He has the hockey smarts to be a number 1. He just needs the body, which can be developed, and the offense. Which he will have a chance to spearhead next year in London.
He showed #1D abilities in the wjr, the playoffs and the memorial cup. Played his best as the competition got better. That is a great sign!
The best part of Benning's regime has been the construction of a new young group of defensemen to build around. I still believe that if he had managed our assets properly we would be on the verge of competing for the playoffs with a new young core of players, but at least after he's fired his successor will have a nice piece of the puzzle already put together on the blueline.
Raistlin
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2006
- 5,181
- 4,205
View attachment 90643
Sure!! I can't wait to tick Dvorak, Marner, Tkachuk >
, Laine, Aho and Pulju also.
Yossarian54
Registered User
Yeah I agree with this line of thinking.
I think in a way the Juolevi pick is more useful to a rebuild. Assuming the common 'D mature later and last longer' narrative holds true. We have 3, possibly 4 (depending on one's opinion on Gudbranson) genuinely good D men who have at least a solid 8 years with us.
In any case I think given where we are at, the young players and prospects we have now are going to be the 'vets' when this team is on the upswing as a genuine contender again.
- Status
