Prospect Info: Matthew Tkachuk or PL Dubois (Round 3)

[Bleach Clean]

One report of the Canucks meeting and liking Logan Brown and doing their job by interviewing and scouting ALL the top players and people get ants in their pants and start crying chicken little or making stupid jokes in which the premise of them has been over done.

I believe you are missing reports by HW and duplo, and Button's rumour/insight, in your assertion. It's not just one report.

But back to Dubois and Tkachuk:

EDM taking Tkachuk makes the decision a lot easier. However, then the hope is that Brown/Nylander/Keller/Jost do not end up becoming better players than Dubois. Should be fun to track these three prospects going to the division.

Also, as an aside, even if VAN drafts Dubois, I hope the focus is still in acquiring another top6 centre down the line. Then, the team can shift Dubois to wing, or overload the 1-3 centre spots, creating a comparative advantage. Meaning, I hope they don't stop trying to get top end centres just because Dubois and Horvat are in the mix here. 1 more top end C would do nicely. Johansen anyone? (I joke)

 

[Captain Bowie]

EDM taking Tkachuk makes the decision a lot easier. However, then the hope is that Brown/Nylander/Keller/Jost do not end up becoming better players than Dubois. Should be fun to track these three prospects going to the division.

Odds are they will. And that's fine. We need to stop being so insecure with own players that we constantly second guess every selection.

Either our player reaches his potential or busts, or somewhere in between. He will do this independent from the other draft pick around him. Why must we compare him to everyone else under the sun?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Odds are they will. And that's fine. We need to stop being so insecure with own players that we constantly second guess every selection.

Either our player reaches his potential or busts, or somewhere in between. He will do this independent from the other draft pick around him. Why must we compare him to everyone else under the sun?

That comparison will follow him regardless. The next best alternatives will be measured against pick #5. Why? Because they are the options forgone in selecting said player.

Rather than "insecurity," it's the reassurance that this team can scout at the amateur level. A claim that hasn't borne itself out yet. That doesn't just mean picking NHLers, but picking NHLers of a quality relative to their pick position. More or less. It matters... and will continue to matter.

 

[biturbo19]

Fair enough. Ok, so the last reference I found where Benning is quoted on analytics, whether it's an accurate quote or not, was after the Gudbranson trade.

http://vancouversun.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/willes-canucks-couldnt-care-less-about-analytics-when-it-comes-to-gudbranson



Maybe it's just me but while he doesn't appear to swear by them, I interpret this as they use analytics without solely basing decisions on them which clearly looks like nowhere near most on here would appreciate.

But hey, maybe he was misquoted and doesn't care about them. Who knows.

A lot of people here seem to hear "analytics" and assume it has to be the basic and readily available public metrics like Corsi/Fenwick, start posting up HERO charts, etc.

Real, meaningful "analytics" has a number of branches that go far beyond just simple "shots for/against" comparisons that many here seem to swear by as the gospel.

 

[pitseleh]

A lot of people here seem to hear "analytics" and assume it has to be the basic and readily available public metrics like Corsi/Fenwick, start posting up HERO charts, etc.

Real, meaningful "analytics" has a number of branches that go far beyond just simple "shots for/against" comparisons that many here seem to swear by as the gospel.

There undoubtedly are, but without good video tracking, which the NHL doesn't have yet, you will get incremental rather than wholescale improvements in the predictive validity of any metric that you use.

When pretty much every single decision you make is contrary to publicly available analytics, you're not using analytics in any meaningful way. Your newfangled analytics will not differ from publicly available data that much, especially because we know that publicly available data is fairly predictive within the bounds of what is predictable.

That's not to say that there's no value in other information - the game is won and lost on small percentage gains in efficiently allocating resources - but the team's decision-making to date is clearly based on conventional evaluation methods.

 

[CloutierForVezina]

I believe you are missing reports by HW and duplo, and Button's rumour/insight, in your assertion. It's not just one report.

But back to Dubois and Tkachuk:

EDM taking Tkachuk makes the decision a lot easier. However, then the hope is that Brown/Nylander/Keller/Jost do not end up becoming better players than Dubois. Should be fun to track these three prospects going to the division.

Also, as an aside, even if VAN drafts Dubois, I hope the focus is still in acquiring another top6 centre down the line. Then, the team can shift Dubois to wing, or overload the 1-3 centre spots, creating a comparative advantage. Meaning, I hope they don't stop trying to get top end centres just because Dubois and Horvat are in the mix here. 1 more top end C would do nicely. Johansen anyone? (I joke)

The odds are pretty decent that one of Brown/Nylander/Keller/Jost becomes a better player than Dubois, just because of the numbers. They all have fairly high ceilings and it's a decent bet that at least one of them gets close to achieving their ceiling. The thing is, unless you can narrow it down to a specific player that you're sure will be better than Dubois, it's just going to be hindsight telling you that you made the wrong pick 5 years down the road.

 

[fancouver]

The odds are pretty decent that one of Brown/Nylander/Keller/Jost becomes a better player than Dubois, just because of the numbers. They all have fairly high ceilings and it's a decent bet that at least one of them gets close to achieving their ceiling. The thing is, unless you can narrow it down to a specific player that you're sure will be better than Dubois, it's just going to be hindsight telling you that you made the wrong pick 5 years down the road.

After the big 3, Dubois is the most well-rounded player in this draft. He's got everything tailor-made for the NHL: size, skating, 2-way play, point production, hockey IQ, physicality, and versatility to play LW/C.

When all else is equal, Dubois edges out Brown, Nylander, Keller and Jost in at least 1 of the above categories. Jost and Keller have a high offensive ceiling? No problem, Dubois does too, but he also has the size advantage without sacrificing speed. Brown is huge? No problem, Dubois is less raw and skills further developed.

The 5th overall choice should be between Tkachuk and Dubois. Anything else would be a "Patrick-White-risk".

 

[racerjoe]

The odds are pretty decent that one of Brown/Nylander/Keller/Jost becomes a better player than Dubois, just because of the numbers. They all have fairly high ceilings and it's a decent bet that at least one of them gets close to achieving their ceiling. The thing is, unless you can narrow it down to a specific player that you're sure will be better than Dubois, it's just going to be hindsight telling you that you made the wrong pick 5 years down the road.

This is correct, I don't think you can kick yourself if you pick a consensus pick and someone later becomes better, well than that is hindsight. I don't get mad at the Canucks for not picking Datsyuk, Zetterberg, or any player that ended up surprising and hitting.

 

[Bad News Benning]

The odds are pretty decent that one of Brown/Nylander/Keller/Jost becomes a better player than Dubois, just because of the numbers. They all have fairly high ceilings and it's a decent bet that at least one of them gets close to achieving their ceiling. The thing is, unless you can narrow it down to a specific player that you're sure will be better than Dubois, it's just going to be hindsight telling you that you made the wrong pick 5 years down the road.

I'm not really concerned about what the players after Dubois do as it really doesn't matter. If Dubois is putting up 60+ points I don't really care what happens to Brown/Nylander/Keller/etc....they can win art ross and I'd still love the Dubois pick.
If you get a good player out of the draft you should be happy as that's all you can really expect unless you're drafting Top 2/3.

 

[CloutierForVezina]

After the big 3, Dubois is the most well-rounded player in this draft. He's got everything tailor-made for the NHL: size, skating, 2-way play, point production, hockey IQ, physicality, and versatility to play LW/C.

When all else is equal, Dubois edges out Brown, Nylander, Keller and Jost in at least 1 of the above categories. Jost and Keller have a high offensive ceiling? No problem, Dubois does too, but he also has the size advantage without sacrificing speed. Brown is huge? No problem, Dubois is less raw and skills further developed.

The 5th overall choice should be between Tkachuk and Dubois. Anything else would be a "Patrick-White-risk".

I agree completely. If we had a sane GM, I'd say there's no possible way we can mess up this pick - Tkachuk and Dubois are both phenomenal prospects and either one is a slam dunk pick at 5. I think I'm leaning towards Dubois ever so slightly, just because of his flexibility in the lineup, but I'm happy with either.

I know I shouldn't get my hopes up, but so long as we don't go off the board or trade our pick I'm satisfied. Dubois would be a dream scenario that we desperately need to get our rebuild moving - add him to Horvat, Virtanen and Boeser and we actually have most of a top-6 shaping up.

 

[fancouver]

I agree completely. If we had a sane GM, I'd say there's no possible way we can mess up this pick - Tkachuk and Dubois are both phenomenal prospects and either one is a slam dunk pick at 5. I think I'm leaning towards Dubois ever so slightly, just because of his flexibility in the lineup, but I'm happy with either.

I know I shouldn't get my hopes up, but so long as we don't go off the board or trade our pick I'm satisfied. Dubois would be a dream scenario that we desperately need to get our rebuild moving - add him to Horvat, Virtanen and Boeser and we actually have most of a top-6 shaping up.

I would be happy with either. I think they are very comparable and one skill edges out another. Tkachuk, I see him as more of an agitator LW in the mold of Marchand, but with higher offensive ceiling. Dubois would be more physical, but less irritating to play against.

Although I do say Dubois can play center, he certainly isn't the most effective. Dubois only had between 50-51% in the dot. So whoever is drafting him as a NHL center would have to nurture him into that role or believe he can do that.

This is where the Brown talks get scary, because Brown is a pure center and Canucks are likely looking at that since McCann is gone.

 

[ginner classic]

I would be happy with either. I think they are very comparable and one skill edges out another. Tkachuk, I see him as more of an agitator LW in the mold of Marchand, but with higher offensive ceiling. Dubois would be more physical, but less irritating to play against.

Although I do say Dubois can play center, he certainly isn't the most effective. Dubois only had between 50-51% in the dot. So whoever is drafting him as a NHL center would have to nurture him into that role or believe he can do that.

This is where the Brown talks get scary, because Brown is a pure center and Canucks are likely looking at that since McCann is gone.

I have no issue with the Canucks targeting Brown....I just don't want him with the 5th pick. Swapping picks with Calgary would be fine if Dubois is gone at 4, if they threw in their high 2nd or a prospect like Kylington.

 

[fancouver]

I have no issue with the Canucks targeting Brown....I just don't want him with the 5th pick. Swapping picks with Calgary would be fine if Dubois is gone at 4, if they threw in their high 2nd or a prospect like Kylington.

Yeah, that's what I was implying. I like Brown, but I don't like him at 5th.

And frankly, I don't think I would even trade down at this point. I still see a top 5 drop off in talent and the Canucks need a homerun 1st liner. Tkachuk and Dubois are closer bets to be on the top line. Brown has risk.

 

[Tinhorn1]

I believe you are missing reports by HW and duplo, and Button's rumour/insight, in your assertion. It's not just one report.

But back to Dubois and Tkachuk:

EDM taking Tkachuk makes the decision a lot easier. However, then the hope is that Brown/Nylander/Keller/Jost do not end up becoming better players than Dubois. Should be fun to track these three prospects going to the division.

Also, as an aside, even if VAN drafts Dubois, I hope the focus is still in acquiring another top6 centre down the line. Then, the team can shift Dubois to wing, or overload the 1-3 centre spots, creating a comparative advantage. Meaning, I hope they don't stop trying to get top end centres just because Dubois and Horvat are in the mix here. 1 more top end C would do nicely. Johansen anyone? (I joke)

The HW insider "scoop" was just her reporting on media stories that we've all read, and was a general comment on GMs liking Brown in the top five, unless you have new info. She often just reports what she reads, same as people here. Button's guess also reads like... a guess to me. I admit I don't remember the duplo piece and can't comment on that. Is that a poster here?

To me, the "Canucks want Brown at five" thing is pretty unconvincing, but of course anything is possible. It wouldn't exactly come out of left field, as he is also a highly touted prospect. He could also become more valuable than Dubois or Tkachuk in the end, so I'm not going to hyperventilate either way. I'd rather one of those two, of course.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

To me, the "Canucks want Brown at five" thing is pretty unconvincing, but of course anything is possible. It wouldn't exactly come out of left field, as he is also a highly touted prospect. He could also become more valuable than Dubois or Tkachuk in the end, so I'm not going to hyperventilate either way. I'd rather one of those two, of course.

Brown doesn't strike me as some low upside mid-round pick. He's a high variance swing-for-the-fences type. His biggest shortcomings appear to be "effort" and "intensity", which can be easily addressed with the right coach. He's a rather tantalizing prospect, really. I'd raise an eyebrow if we took him over a Dubois or Tkachuk, but I wouldn't feel the need to open my wrist.

I'm not sure there's a pick in the draft that couldn't potentially leave you second guessing yourself. Brown's a player that makes me wish we had two high first rounders, because his ceiling is sky high.

 

[Proto]

Really? It sounds to me like they use analytics without solely basing decisions on them. You don't agree with his position as reported, that's fine, but how many teams do you think base player moves entirely on analytics versus using a balanced approach?

Their analytics "department" is one guy who also has like 5 other titles. They've said they aren't that useful in scouting amateurs, every time they're asked about it they downplay their usefulness (Linden says 'Part of the puzzle but not the solution' every time), Benning snidely remarked that they didn't even use them in Boston, and they've never once given an insightful answer that suggests even a rudimentary understanding of them. Beyond that, almost every personnel decision they've made flies in the face of this analysis.

There's basically zero evidence they care about any of this beyond the same stock answer they give every time.

I'd be floored if Benning cares about them at all. This is basic Occam's Razor here.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I have no issue with the Canucks targeting Brown....I just don't want him with the 5th pick. Swapping picks with Calgary would be fine if Dubois is gone at 4, if they threw in their high 2nd or a prospect like Kylington.

Why?? Why would you be okay with taking a lesser prospect just to get a crap prospect like Kylington in return?

We need elite prospects. Logan Brown is not an elite prospect. PL Dubois and Mathew Tkachuk are.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Why?? Why would you be okay with taking a lesser prospect just to get a crap prospect like Kylington in return?

We need elite prospects. Logan Brown is not an elite prospect. PL Dubois and Mathew Tkachuk are.

Agree if you trade down from the fifth it needs to be for something substantial. If they really prefer Brown to Dubois then it is tricky because how for is Brown going to fall. Would he be around at 9? Or is there a group of players the Canucks like the same or more than Pld. If so they should try for two 1sts with one in the top 9. This is a risky move that would show they do not believe in Pld as you cannot go wrong by getting the top player available in this case that player seems clear.

 

[BeardyCanuck03]

Their analytics "department" is one guy who also has like 5 other titles. They've said they aren't that useful in scouting amateurs, every time they're asked about it they downplay their usefulness (Linden says 'Part of the puzzle but not the solution' every time), Benning snidely remarked that they didn't even use them in Boston, and they've never once given an insightful answer that suggests even a rudimentary understanding of them. Beyond that, almost every personnel decision they've made flies in the face of this analysis.

There's basically zero evidence they care about any of this beyond the same stock answer they give every time.

I'd be floored if Benning cares about them at all. This is basic Occam's Razor here.

isn't the bolded statement true? Analytics are only part of what you need to look at and analyze to create a good team.

I do think that analytics when scouting jr players isn't something that can be overly relied upon as there are so many other variables.

Just because they aren't publicly all in with analytics doesn't mean they don't use them and don't see a value in them.

 

[racerjoe]

isn't the bolded statement true? Analytics are only part of what you need to look at and analyze to create a good team.

I do think that analytics when scouting jr players isn't something that can be overly relied upon as there are so many other variables.

Just because they aren't publicly all in with analytics doesn't mean they don't use them and don't see a value in them.

I think it is when you look at everything all together you get the clear picture. Sure one quote sounds fine. But when combined, with what Benning said, and the guy in charge of it that does four other things, it creates a clear picture.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Sure one quote sounds fine. But when combined, with what Benning said, and the guy in charge of it that does four other things, it creates a clear picture.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

It sounds like you're arguing that if someone's job isn't solely analytics that they cannot possibly have a complete understanding of the subject or do a good job of it. Is that right?

Just...want to be clear.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Many teams have an analytics team.

Our team has a single employee who is only part time on analytics.

 

[racerjoe]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

It sounds like you're arguing that if someone's job isn't solely analytics that they cannot possibly have a complete understanding of the subject or do a good job of it. Is that right?

Just...want to be clear.

I am saying we have one guy, and he is not even dedicated to this job, that a few years ago we had an entire company doing, or that other teams have entire departments for it, but we have one guy who also does four other jobs.

Sure he can have a handle on how they work, but there is way to many numbers and analysis for one guy to do part time.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I am saying we have one guy, and he is not even dedicated to this job, that a few years ago we had an entire company doing, or that other teams have entire departments for it, but we have one guy who also does four other jobs.

Sure he can have a handle on how they work, but there is way to many numbers and analysis for one guy to do part time.

I would imagine that all the guy would need to do is check CA or HFBoards and the people here would be more than happy to supply the information necessary. Why pay a company?

Really though, we should probably have an analytics guy. I'm just taking the piss.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Agree if you trade down from the fifth it needs to be for something substantial. If they really prefer Brown to Dubois then it is tricky because how for is Brown going to fall. Would he be around at 9? Or is there a group of players the Canucks like the same or more than Pld. If so they should try for two 1sts with one in the top 9. This is a risky move that would show they do not believe in Pld as you cannot go wrong by getting the top player available in this case that player seems clear.

Preferring Brown to PLD or Tkachuk is idiotic. PLD and Tkachuk are by far superior prospects to Logan Brown. Zero reason for the Canucks to prefer Brown to either.