GDT: WJC 2024 Thread

[Diversification]

i think willander has a reasonably good chance to be a decent nhl player but he's one of the riskiest canucks prospects. he has a lot of deficiencies in his game including poor decision making, hesitation in playmaking and poor puck handling. his speed covers up for a lot of this at the ncaa and wjc level because he can be behind or out of position and still force a play but that edge goes away as his competition gets better. he's also undersized for his role and he doesn't have the hands or shiftiness to avoid physical battles. the game that works for him against inferior competition isn't going to continue to work as he moves up levels. he'll have to learn and adapt

I completely disagree with this take. His decision making is excellent, although tending towards the safe option. His puck handling is fine. Not elite. His passing in the defensive zone is sharp and almost always the correct one. He's not a player that depends on his mobility to enable him to defend so much as he's just a smart defensive player, made all the more effective due to his mobility.

One area I am concerned with is that while he can hit stretch passes, but I'm not sure that's something he'll be able to do with regularity at the NHL level. His instincts towards the smart, safe play will lead him away from it.

quinn hughes was a star at michigan. willander is only a pretty good ncaa player

Agreed. He's no Quinn Hughes. Not even close.

 

[racerjoe]

The problem with Myers is he can be used so many different ways. He's an anomaly, and it looks like he's low IQ, but he's actually high IQ. He's just sometimes the hammer sent to do the chiesel's work. On a good team, Myers looks good. He found a role on that team and improved in it. On a bad team, you just get what you get.

I have always maintained Myers issues stem from when he gets to many minutes, both in a game and over a season. He loses his processing power and things go downhill. It’s why I have always called him a 5 or low end 4… he absolutely can play top pair minutes… but shouldn’t for too long.

 

[ManVanFan]

quinn hughes was a star at michigan. willander is only a pretty good ncaa player

Quinn Hughes was a puck turn over, mistake riddled star at Michigan. Defensively incapable. If you don't remember or didn't see that when he played at Michigan, you are straight up lying to yourself.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Sawyer Mynio, hoping he can get at least a game. He is so underrated especially after his improved play the last 2 seasons. He is just behind Willander as the Canucks #2 defense prospect.

Have to disagree. KK and EP2 are. both a lot closer to the nHL, and while I think Mini is a decent prospect, I would say all 3 of them are a fair ways behind Willander. And its a toss up as to which of them should be ranked our 2nd D prospect.

Edit - it keep autocorrecting Mini
Edit 2 - Did it again.

 

[ManVanFan]

I have always maintained Myers issues stem from when he gets to many minutes, both in a game and over a season. He loses his processing power and things go downhill. It’s why I have always called him a 5 or low end 4… he absolutely can play top pair minutes… but shouldn’t for too long.

What kills me the most about Myers is when the puck gets into his feet. He's too big to get it out. Haha

 

[ManVanFan]

Have to disagree. KK and EP2 are. both a lot closer to the nHL, and while I think Mini is a decent prospect, I would say all 3 of them are a fair ways behind Willander. And its a toss up as to which of them should be ranked our 2nd D prospect.

Edit it keep autocorrecting Mini

From what I've seen others like writers/ prospect guys they say something like this.

Willander 2/3
D-Petey/Mynio 5
KK 6/7

Edit: and I saw the other day that Scott Wheeler(take it as is) called ASP a highly productive number 3 in the NHL.

 

[ChilliBilly]

From what I've seen others like writers/ prospect guys they say something like this.

Willander 2/3
D-Petey/Mynio 5
KK 6/7

Agreed thats a pretty fair assessment. Though personally I would rank Willander as a 2 right now. Should be there in 3 years.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

This is the reason I think that it would be crazy not to move the odds in favor of a guy who scores a bunch vs. the guy who doesn't. Not to declare the question resolved, just to move the odds. True Chris Tanev type players are extremely rare -- ones who manage to be effective despite little offense. After all, the hockey evaluator community has finally come around to the (somewhat obvious) idea that the best way to prevent goals is also to have the puck and be moving it forward. (And similarly, the safest bet in drafting is just taking guys who score a lot because they are likely to just be better players in general).

From the few NHLers I've got to talk with, and these are ultra competitive guys just to be in the NHL in any capacity, they view the Tanevs as insane people.

The biggest factor that makes "A Tanev" is mental. And not hockey IQ, it is the willingness to do stuff that absolutely sucks, like making goalie saves with skater equipment.

 

[Diversification]

From the few NHLers I've got to talk with, and these are ultra competitive guys just to be in the NHL in any capacity, they view the Tanevs as insane people.

The biggest factor that makes "A Tanev" is mental. And not hockey IQ, it is the willingness to do stuff that absolutely sucks, like making goalie saves with skater equipment.

That's not being fair to Chris Tanev. Selling out and blocking shots is only part of what makes him so effective defensively. He's also a master at steering forwards into areas that neutralize their offense and limit their options. In that respect, he's a bit of a savant.

Selling out alone gets you a player like Juulsen, who is every bit as fearless as Tanev, but nowhere near as effective.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

That's not being fair to Chris Tanev. Selling out and blocking shots is only part of what makes him so effective defensively. He's also a master at steering forwards into areas that neutralize their offense and limit their options. In that respect, he's a bit of a savant.

Selling out alone gets you a player like Juulsen, who is every bit as fearless as Tanev, but nowhere near as effective.

There are tons of people who have the wits to do it.

Very few who have the will.


edit. Also you completely misunderstanding my point if you think it is selling him short.

 

[Diversification]

There are tons of people who have the wits to do it.

Very few who have the will.


edit. Also you completely misunderstanding my point if you think it is selling him short.

I mean, there really aren't? If say, Tyler Myers body could be controlled by Chris Tanev's brain and we keep the shot blocking settings where they currently are, Chaos Giraffe would be a top pairing dman and would be on a long term deal worth 3x what he's currently making.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I mean, there really aren't? If say, Tyler Myers body could be controlled by Chris Tanev's brain and we keep the shot blocking settings where they currently are, Chaos Giraffe would be a top pairing dman and would be on a long term deal worth 3x what he's currently making.

Tanev works on his defensive game like Matthews works on his shot.

Its not "savant" its pride in the defensive side of the game.

Shot blocking is just the most obvious indicator of this.

 

[Diversification]

Tanev works on his defensive game like Matthews works on his shot.

Its not "savant" its pride in the defensive side of the game.

Shot blocking is just the most obvious indicator of this.

This smacks of Malcom Gladwell's 10,000 hour nonsense. Players have certain predelictions that set their floor and ceiling. It's not like if only Conor Garland worked on his shot the same way as Austin Matthews does that he'd suddenly develop a lethal wrister that can beat an NHL goalie clean. Garland's shot is a muffin and unfortunately, there's only so much he can do about it. Jonathan Lekkerimaki might because he's starting from a much higher floor. So it goes with Chris Tanev and his defensive game.

It's what Kevin Bieksa was referring to when he said that Tanev plays the game with a lit cigarette hanging out the side of his mouth. It means he's processing the defensive game at such a level (even as a rookie) that he doesn't panic.

 

[credulous]

chris tanev was a very good offensive player at RIT. much better than willander is now at bu

 

[Diversification]

chris tanev was a very good offensive player at RIT. much better than willander is now at bu

Chris Tanev played 1 season at RIT as a near 20 year old. 28 points in 41 games.

Tom Willander played his freshman season as an 18 year old for nearly the entire season at BU. 25 points in 38 games.

Neither player set the world on fire as offensive dmen in NCAA.

 

[credulous]

Chris Tanev played 1 season at RIT as a near 20 year old. 28 points in 41 games.

Tom Willander played his freshman season as an 18 year old for nearly the entire season at BU. 25 points in 38 games.

Neither player set the world on fire as offensive dmen in NCAA.

willander played with two of the most dominant ncaa players ever in celebrini and hutson. chris tanev played with nobodies at RIT

 

[PuckMunchkin]

This smacks of Malcom Gladwell's 10,000 hour nonsense. Players have certain predelictions that set their floor and ceiling. It's not like if only Conor Garland worked on his shot the same way as Austin Matthews does that he'd suddenly develop a lethal wrister that can beat an NHL goalie clean. Garland's shot is a muffin and unfortunately, there's only so much he can do about it. Jonathan Lekkerimaki might because he's starting from a much higher floor. So it goes with Chris Tanev and his defensive game.

It's what Kevin Bieksa was referring to when he said that Tanev plays the game with a lit cigarette hanging out the side of his mouth. It means he's processing the defensive game at such a level (even as a rookie) that he doesn't panic.

You seem to have serious trouble understanding anything I say.

Lets just call it quits here.

 

[Diversification]

willander played with two of the most dominant ncaa players ever in celebrini and hutson. chris tanev played with nobodies at RIT

You and I have very different ideas about what makes for a good NHL defender. I think we can agree to disagree.

It's not that I don't appreciate what a Lane Hutson or an ASP can bring to the table. It's just that you can't have 6 Hutson to ASP clones on your blueline and expect to have success in the playoffs, or even to qualify to make the playoffs for that matter.

Blue lines also need stablizing players that can more or less saw off their minutes vs. the other team's top 6. That's what I see in Willander. I predict that he'll do so by acting like a fire blanket in his own zone, making each of his shifts super low event and forcing the opposing coach to try and keep him away from his top players.

Why? Because that's all he does at WJC and at BU. He just doesn't make glaring defensive mis-reads that come back to hurt you. He defuses plays before they become high danger scoring chances against. It's why the Sweden had him out for 25 minutes yesterday.

Does he leave you wanting more? That he should also be driving offense the other way? Absolutely. But I've made peace with the fact that he'll never be a number 1 defender. That's fine and if he becomes what I think he'll become - a shutdown #2 - that's fantastic value for where he was drafted.

You seem to have serious trouble understanding anything I say.

Lets just call it quits here.

I feel equally misunderstood. Let's leave it at that.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I feel equally misunderstood. Let's leave it at that.

10,000 hour magic is all I need to know about what you think...

 

[Diversification]

10,000 hour magic is all I need to know about what you think...

See what I mean by misunderstood?

 

[PuckMunchkin]

See what I mean by misunderstood?

Not really.

If you equate players working on certain aspects of their game to the 10,000 hour myth, I would have to explain quite a bit before we are on the same page.

 

[Diversification]

Fine... I'll bite. You equated Tanev's defensive prowess to that fact that he works at it. My point is that, while that's probably true, Tanev's defensive ceiling is exceedingly rare. Other defenders could work just as hard as Tanev and never be as good at reading and defusing plays. A player like Tyler Myers, for instance, simply cannot reach that level because he simply lacks the talent to achieve that level of in-game play reading that forms the basis of Tanev's effectiveness as a player.

 

[Orr4Norris]

Obviously ASP has a lot more proving to do before we cry too hard about that draft. But the idea that we couldn’t use a 2nd QH is ridiculous. What, we don’t want to control play for the full 60 min? Would that be too unfair? And yes, I’m aware that ASP has a long ways to go before being compared to QH. But again, the idea that *if* he turns out as good we’d still be better with a Tanev clone is silly.

 

[ihaveyuidonttouchme]

sounds like Sansonnens had a positive impression from the main board

 

[Nucker101]

Yeah, I think there's some flawed logic both ways here. If ASP is more of a Ghost/Krug type then sure you can argue he's redundant to an extent, but if he's a guy who can handle top 4 minutes and tilt the ice then I don't care if he's wasted on PP2, he's helping my team win.

Hronek is a very capable powerplay dman being "wasted" on PP2 as well, but who gives a shit.