Prospect Info: Tom Willander: 11th Overall 2023 Draft (Rogle BK J20) - Part 02

[Baby Pettersson]

Impressive.

 

[MS]

Just your normal 1st paring guys that is not a superstar.

#1 are like Hughes, Makar, Prime Hedman, like Norris winning guys that can carry a 3rd paring guy on the 1st paring.
You don’t have too many of them around the league.


I mean we call Hronek a #3 and he plays on the 1st paring and deliver results like one bit nobody thinks he can run a 1st pair by himself right, or at least we haven’t seen it yet so people don’t believe he can.

Hronek is very obviously one of the best #2 defenders in the NHL.

Guy is 24th in TOI and 12th in points, plays on one of the best #1 pairings in the league.

 

[Quinning]

Looks like a future Dan Hamhuis to me.

 

[arttk]

Hronek is very obviously one of the best #2 defenders in the NHL.

Guy is 24th in TOI and 12th in points, plays on one of the best #1 pairings in the league.

well to be honest, i feel like he is a 2 but a lot of people here and the media don't believe he is a 2 because he has not run a 1st paring here in van (and he probably won't get the chance to with Hughes around).

 

[timw33]

Well you're entitled to your opinion and like I was suggesting, we could get into a "best pick available" discussion which changes the discussion.

But at the end of the day, during that timespan, the Canucks drafted three 30+ goal scorers (Petey, McCann, Boeser), a Norris contender (Hughes), a Vezina contender (Demko in the second round), a top pairing/#3 Dman (Forsling in the 5th round), plus Hoglander in the 2nd round. All of that without the benefit of a top 4 pick.

Obviously there were some misses along the way and McCann and Forsling were given up for little in return but I would say that's above average drafting.

That's a very loaded cut-off point for a team that objectively botched a 5th and 6th overall in a 3 year span.

 

[alternate]

Honestly, for a lot of people #2s don't even exist. You're either a #1 that can carry a top pairing, or your a #3 that can only survive on a top pairing with a true #1.

Hronek makes Hughes better, so he's a #2.

Willander is still TBD, but there's a lot of reasons to be optimistic that he will be a top pairing guy. Whether that is ultimately a #1 or a #2 is semantics that don't really matter much in the big picture.

 

[MS]

well to be honest, i feel like he is a 2 but a lot of people here and the media don't believe he is a 2 because he has not run a 1st paring here in van (and he probably won't get the chance to with Hughes around).

Statistically he’s a #1 defender and the reason that pairing is so dominant is probably because it’s two #1 defenders. But #2 is probably reasonable.

Tyler Myers has been a solid #3 defender this year. Hronek is obviously on a totally different tier from that and the notion that Hronek isn’t in the top 60 defenders in the NHL is absurd.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Statistically he’s a #1 defender and the reason that pairing is so dominant is probably because it’s two #1 defenders. But #2 is probably reasonable.

Tyler Myers has been a solid #3 defender this year. Hronek is obviously on a totally different tier from that and the notion that Hronek isn’t in the top 60 defenders in the NHL is absurd.

Yea there is no way anybody can list the top 64 defender this season and not have Hronek on it. He is definitely a #2. Some lists might even have him in the top 32, it is debatable but not outrageous, so you can even argue he is a borderline #1.

But I don't know about Myer being a #3, let alone a solid #3. He played well in stretches but also played poorly for periods, I don't know if he is in the top 100 league-wide so he is probably a #4 for me.

 

[Bankerguy]

Honestly, for a lot of people #2s don't even exist. You're either a #1 that can carry a top pairing, or your a #3 that can only survive on a top pairing with a true #1.

Hronek makes Hughes better, so he's a no.2

i havnt thot about it like this ^ but i think theres some truth there. good point

 

[racerjoe]

Yea there is no way anybody can list the top 64 defender this season and not have Hronek on it. He is definitely a #2. Some lists might even have him in the top 32, it is debatable but not outrageous, so you can even argue he is a borderline #1.

But I don't know about Myer being a #3, let alone a solid #3. He played well in stretches but also played poorly for periods, I don't know if he is in the top 100 league-wide so he is probably a #4 for me.

Myers issue is always when you play him too much, in too many games, his play drops. To me he is a really good #5 because of this. A guy that can absolutely play top 4 mins, but a guy who is best coming in and playing those minutes sparingly. that is how to get the most out of him. I will say I think he has been better this season, so maybe you bump him up a bit.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

So his nickname will be "Flying Pizza"?

 

[Hodgy]

Statistically he’s a #1 defender and the reason that pairing is so dominant is probably because it’s two #1 defenders. But #2 is probably reasonable.

Tyler Myers has been a solid #3 defender this year. Hronek is obviously on a totally different tier from that and the notion that Hronek isn’t in the top 60 defenders in the NHL is absurd.

I am not sure that is the probable reason. I think it is more probable that the pair is so dominant because Quinn Hughes is playing at a Norris level.

 

[F A N]

That's a very loaded cut-off point for a team that objectively botched a 5th and 6th overall in a 3 year span.

I was actually going to say top 3 but I notice that there was an impressive list of players players drafted 4th overall during that period (aside from Puljujarvi) so changed it to top 4: Bennett, Marner, Puljujarvi, Makar, Tkachuk, Byram, Raymond.

 

[arttk]

Statistically he’s a #1 defender and the reason that pairing is so dominant is probably because it’s two #1 defenders. But #2 is probably reasonable.

Tyler Myers has been a solid #3 defender this year. Hronek is obviously on a totally different tier from that and the notion that Hronek isn’t in the top 60 defenders in the NHL is absurd.

i don't think "top 60" is the right way to measure things. it's like you set the tiers criteria and however many players qualify for it qualifies for it. if the talent pool in the NHL is crap and there are only like 10 #1, 10#2 and 10#3, it is what it is. We don't need to squeeze more people into those categories based on some other criteria.

it's like saying oh the top10 restaurants in a city has to have michelin 3 star. it doesn't work that way does it.

Honestly, for a lot of people #2s don't even exist. You're either a #1 that can carry a top pairing, or your a #3 that can only survive on a top pairing with a true #1.

Hronek makes Hughes better, so he's a #2.

Willander is still TBD, but there's a lot of reasons to be optimistic that he will be a top pairing guy. Whether that is ultimately a #1 or a #2 is semantics that don't really matter much in the big picture.

#2 are like Hamhuis, Hanafin. Definitely 1st paring guys that is not Norris level.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Just your normal 1st paring guys that is not a superstar.

#1 are like Hughes, Makar, Prime Hedman, like Norris winning guys that can carry a 3rd paring guy on the 1st paring.
You don’t have too many of them around the league.


I mean we call Hronek a #3 and he plays on the 1st paring and deliver results like one bit nobody thinks he can run a 1st pair by himself right, or at least we haven’t seen it yet so people don’t believe he can.

If you want to talk about a top-5 or top-10 player in a position just say that. I've never understood why a #1 isn't just the top 32 D-men in the league, #2 33-64, #3... etc. There will be some debate who these players are but that's healthy.

 

[arttk]

If you want to talk about a top-5 or top-10 player in a position just say that. I've never understood why a #1 isn't just the top 32 D-men in the league, #2 33-64, #3... etc. There will be some debate who these players are but that's healthy.

because 32 is a pretty arbitrary number. It’s like there is an assumption every team has a #1 guy. Is that going to be 34 when we add 2 more expansion teams? 40 when we expand like crazy?
The number of top defenders are not tied to number of franchises

 

[ChilliBilly]

This wasn't directed at me.

2014: Virtanen, McCann, Demko, Tryamkin. Forsling should be considered a good draft. Obviously we didn't make the best pick there and we didn't get much from the draft apart from Demko but still that's a good draft. We did come away with a franchise goalie which has really only happened in Canucks history in 2004 with Schneider.

Tryamkin was a great pick. It was criminal how badly they bungled the handling of him. Of all the dumb things that Dim Jim and green did, not helping this guy was one of the worst. He should have ended up as our No. 2 or 3 D man. Would have it been that hard to have someone helping him to get used to life in Vancouver, and to not harp on him to be Scott Stevens FFS.

Edit - sorry the above is off topic, but so is most of this painful thread. I think Willander is already close to NHL caliber, but probably better to let him play another year at BU. Congrats on a very good year, and the smarts to choose this path.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Tryamkin was a great pick. It was criminal how badly they bungled the handling of him. Of all the dumb things that Dim Jim and green did, not helping this guy was one of the worst. He should have ended up as our No. 2 or 3 D man. Would have it been that hard to have someone helping him to get used to life in Vancouver, and to not harp on him to be Scott Stevens FFS.

Edit - sorry the above is off topic, but so is most of this painful thread. I think Willander is already close to NHL caliber, but probably better to let him play another year at BU. Congrats on a very good year, and the smarts to choose this path.

Tryamkin would never have been/ never was an NHL top 4 d man.

Would have likely topped out as a Zadorov without the offense.

He had zero intention of being an NHL player.

 

[Tables of Stats]

because 32 is a pretty arbitrary number. It’s like there is an assumption every team has a #1 guy. Is that going to be 34 when we add 2 more expansion teams? 40 when we expand like crazy?
The number of top defenders are not tied to number of franchises

The assumption is that all 32 teams have a slot for a 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. defenseman so, however you rate them, there are 32 guys that could be considered #1 defensemen. It's mostly semantics but I prefer that #1 means a top-32 defenseman and if you need to talk about a higher class than that terms like top-5 or top-10 are used. I can't enforce this, but that's what makes sense to me while avoid the eternal debates about who the "true" #1 D mean really are.

 

[arttk]

The assumption is that all 32 teams have a slot for a 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. defenseman so, however you rate them, there are 32 guys that could be considered #1 defensemen. It's mostly semantics but I prefer that #1 means a top-32 defenseman and if you need to talk about a higher class than that terms like top-5 or top-10 are used. I can't enforce this, but that's what makes sense to me while avoid the eternal debates about who the "true" #1 D mean really are.

Having a slot doesn’t make them a #1. Are you going to argue that SJ, Montreal, Chicago , CBJ actually have a #1D? They have a guy playing those minutes, but that guy is not a #1D.

Like when we expand to Salt lake, Atlanta, Houston, Kansas City. Will like 4 #1D just conjure themselves out of thin air? No.

It’s like the Marcus Granlund experiment we ran a couple years back. We gave the guy 1st line minutes and opportunities and he performed like a borderline 3rd liner. Thads what most of the crap D on the crap teams are doing. Getting minutes and getting destroyed leading to them teams being shit.

 

[VanJack]

Wilander voted as a second-team all-star in Hockey East.....And with his freshman season under his belt, he'll take a major step next season.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Having a slot doesn’t make them a #1. Are you going to argue that SJ, Montreal, Chicago , CBJ actually have a #1D? They have a guy playing those minutes, but that guy is not a #1D.

Like when we expand to Salt lake, Atlanta, Houston, Kansas City. Will like 4 #1D just conjure themselves out of thin air? No.

It’s like the Marcus Granlund experiment we ran a couple years back. We gave the guy 1st line minutes and opportunities and he performed like a borderline 3rd liner. Thads what most of the crap D on the crap teams are doing. Getting minutes and getting destroyed leading to them teams being shit.

Did I say that they did? Hypothetically a team could have 6 of the top 32 defensemen in the league and others could have none. Being a #1 D-man just means that if if we did some bizarre spread of defensemen among teams, like in a fantasy draft, you'd be one of the first 32 defenseman taken to head a team's blueline.

As for expansion, yeah, guys will get bumped up as the talent pool around the league depletes. Guys will play higher up the line-up than they would in a smaller league. Connor Garland is a top-9 player in today's NHL, but in a 6 team league he might be an AHL lifer or a complete bust. You have to refactor your views based on the reality of the league.

 

[JT Milker]

Wilander voted as a second-team all-star in Hockey East.....And with his freshman season under his belt, he'll take a major step next season.

This has to be AI.

 

[arttk]

Did I say that they did? Hypothetically a team could have 6 of the top 32 defensemen in the league and others could have none. Being a #1 D-man just means that if if we did some bizarre spread of defensemen among teams, like in a fantasy draft, you'd be one of the first 32 defenseman taken to head a team's blueline.

As for expansion, yeah, guys will get bumped up as the talent pool around the league depletes. Guys will play higher up the line-up than they would in a smaller league. Connor Garland is a top-9 player in today's NHL, but in a 6 team league he might be an AHL lifer or a complete bust. You have to refactor your views based on the reality of the league.

you really need to stop making up hypotheticals that has zero basis with reality. There are no teams with 6 #1 and no we are not going to have a crazy draft to redistribute all talent in the NHL. And no we are not going back yo a 6 team league.

When I bring up expansion it’s because the stadium are literally being built right now and it will happen. It’s not a hypothetical, it’s a forecasted event.

 

[Lindgren]

you really need to stop making up hypotheticals that has zero basis with reality. There are no teams with 6 #1 and no we are not going to have a crazy draft to redistribute all talent in the NHL. And no we are not going back yo a 6 team league.

When I bring up expansion it’s because the stadium are literally being built right now and it will happen. It’s not a hypothetical, it’s a forecasted event.

Do you genuinely not know how the hypothetical works in his argument, or are you being deliberately obstructionist?