who whould you pic at # 6

[Nut Upstrom]

it is about to start on NHL network memorial cup finals . Acadie-Bathurst Titan #53 Dobson, Noah

Thanks! My first chance to see Dobson. Tuned in just as he drew a penalty.

 

[ZDH]

Pretty slick pass on OT gwg

 

[Mister Ed]

Pretty slick pass on OT gwg

Here's the link to a GIF of the play. Pretty slick, big play in a big game.

 

[Frk It]

Keep it simple... draft Dobson.

 

[lilidk]

is Dobson little bit higher skill upgrade over DD, good skating , not very physical ?

 

[TheMule93]

is Dobson little bit higher skill upgrade over DD, good skating , not very physical ?

He's better offensively than dd was at any level. He had more points and a higher PPG than cholowski, who is in his draft +2 year

 

[Frk It]

is Dobson little bit higher skill upgrade over DD, good skating , not very physical ?

He’s way more skilled.

 

[lilidk]

Jesperi Kotkaniemi is my ideal first round pic and to get him we can even trade down . He is going to be stud . Good in every game component and he is one of the youngest of the draft. He remind me Getzlav

 

[NickH8]

Jesperi Kotkaniemi is my ideal first round pic and to get him we can even trade down . He is going to be stud . Good in every game component and he is one of the youngest of the draft. He remind me Getzlav

He's risen in my eyes and has passed Tkachuk, but I still have the defensemen above him.

 

[jkutswings]

He's risen in my eyes and has passed Tkachuk, but I still have the defensemen above him.

The Islanders could have a phenomenal 11&12 by going with him and whomever slides from the group of defensemen...but I don't see Kotkaniemi sliding past both the Blackhawks and the Rangers.

 

[Whoshattenkirkshoes]

Is anyone apposed to whom ever is available out of Dobson, Hughes, Tkachuk. Meaning no Bouchard.

Thoughts? Lets hear them!

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

Is anyone apposed to whom ever is available out of Dobson, Hughes, Tkachuk. Meaning no Bouchard.

Thoughts? Lets hear them!

While I want a defensemen, I would not cry if we took Tkachuk over Bouchard (which I think is your real question). I think the former is a really smart, creative hockey player with far more skill than he is given credit for.

Hughes and Dobson are both great (in different ways). Honestly, it is really hard to f*** up at 6 apart from taking Hayton at that spot.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Is anyone apposed to whom ever is available out of Dobson, Hughes, Tkachuk. Meaning no Bouchard.

Thoughts? Lets hear them!

I assume you have the top 5 shaking out Dahlin, Svechnikov, Zadina, Bouchard/Boqvist? I think we need to know who the top 5 selected are to give a perfect picture. But as you staged it, we would be picking from Hughes, Dobson, Boqvist, Tkachuk, Wahlstrom, and Kotkaniemi based on the general consensus. Of that group I would rule out Boqvist and Tkachuk. At this point I prefer Hughes to Boqvist, so no sense including him. Tkachuk is a nice player but doesn't have anything special that this team needs on the wing.

Kotkaniemi is a recent riser that projects to be a very strong center, which is something we can never have enough of considering some C prospects will end up switching to wing permanently. High IQ centers that make plays are hard to come by. Wahlstrom is a bona fide sniper and this team needs to score; adding him to the mix with Mantha could be the start to making it a strength. Probably the closest to a one-trick pony here, but since when is a guy who looks like he could score 40 goals a bad one-trick pony to have? Hughes is the quick and mobile defenseman that is starting to flourish in the league focused on being strong in transition and having defensemen that can do more than just make a first pass; we do have some prospects that fit this bill, but not at the same level that Hughes is regarded. Dobson, in my opinion, is the best bet to find a #1D outside of Dahlin in the draft; he doesn't have the flair, but he has impressive offensive production for a kid who is as defensively responsible as he is. He's very raw and unpolished, but the glimpses of what he is capable of let your mind run with possibilities of what he could be with more seasoning and the right development plan.

If what you were proposing to have happen were to occur, I would pick one of Dobson, Hughes, Kotkaniemi, or Wahlstrom, with no real leaning one way or another. I've been big on Dobson for a while, but there's so much to like about all of the options that I would be happy with any of the 4. If they go for Boqvist or Tkachuk, I will be okay with it, but it wouldn't have been what I would've done.

 

[Frk It]

Is anyone apposed to whom ever is available out of Dobson, Hughes, Tkachuk. Meaning no Bouchard.

Thoughts? Lets hear them!

I prefer we take 1 of the 4 defenseman slated to go top 10. If I had to take a winger, I would take Wahlstrom before Tkachuk. But I want to address our biggest need with our top pick this year, then go for a center with a top 5 pick next year. That puts us in a better position from a re-build standpoint, IMO.

 

[HisNoodliness]

Is anyone apposed to whom ever is available out of Dobson, Hughes, Tkachuk. Meaning no Bouchard.

Thoughts? Lets hear them!

Honestly Tkachuk is my least favorite option of the consensus top 9. His production wasn't amazing this year (Hughes had 29 P in 37 gp versus Tkachuk's 31 in 40 in the same league) and he's a relatively redundant skillset at our strongest position. Don't get me wrong, I think he'll be a good top 6 NHL winger, but I don't see elite offensive potential which is what I'd want to pass on the D.

If we take a winger, I'd prefer Wahlstrom though. His shot is pretty phenomenal and I expect he'll create way better than Tkachuk at the NHL level. I think he could be an elite offensive force. I'd rather take any of Boqvist/ Hughes/ Dobson/ Bouchard than either though. I think we really need the defenseman more and they're just as good if not better prospects as the wingers.

 

[Whoshattenkirkshoes]

Dobson looks unreal. I hope like hell we can get him or Hughes

Edit- Maybe Svech pulls some E. Lindros and says he won't sign.

 

[Frk It]

Dobson looks unreal. I hope like hell we can get him or Hughes

Edit- Maybe Svech pulls some E. Lindros and says he won't sign.

Bro I’ve been saying this...

 

[BStinson]

Dobson, Hughes, Bouchard in that order. Love everything I read about Dobson and who wouldn’t want a potential Pietrangelo to eat some minutes on our blue line.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

Honestly Tkachuk is my least favorite option of the consensus top 9. His production wasn't amazing this year (Hughes had 29 P in 37 gp versus Tkachuk's 31 in 40 in the same league) and he's a relatively redundant skillset at our strongest position. Don't get me wrong, I think he'll be a good top 6 NHL winger, but I don't see elite offensive potential which is what I'd want to pass on the D.

If we take a winger, I'd prefer Wahlstrom though. His shot is pretty phenomenal and I expect he'll create way better than Tkachuk at the NHL level. I think he could be an elite offensive force. I'd rather take any of Boqvist/ Hughes/ Dobson/ Bouchard than either though. I think we really need the defenseman more and they're just as good if not better prospects as the wingers.

I don't think Tkachuk is the slightest bit redundant in this organization. He would be without question the purest playmaking forward he have (apart from an aging Z) and one of maybe three players who actually makes those around him even slightly better. His ability to move pucks on time from the corners and half-wall into high percentage scoring areas, in creative ways is absolutely something this organization is lacking. While we have gotten bigger over time, we are still very much a perimeter team in a lot of ways. Mantha, notwithstanding his size, still withdraws to the wall. AA, the same thing. Even Ras moves the puck more north south in the offensive zone than east-west when you stop to watch.

I don't think that Wahlstrom is necessarily redundant either. We are a really bad team with a lot of areas in need of improvement. Either would improve us. I share your desire to draft a defensemen at 6, but I also see why either of those wingers would appeal to the brass. Again, we are a really bad team with a lot of holes.

 

[Hen Kolland]

I don't think Tkachuk is the slightest bit redundant in this organization.

I can see the argument for him being redundant in the fact that he's another high effort, 200 foot player that lacks a strong finishing touch. To me he plays a lot like a power forward version of what Larkin is right now. He is best when the puck is on his stick and he can use his vision and IQ to generate offense for people around him, except he will power past you instead of skating past you. Great skill to have, but right now I'd rather have Wahlstrom on Larkin's wing instead of Tkachuk. Larkin+Wahlstrom is probably the best chance to become Backstrom+Ovechkin stylistically. A top end playmaker facilitating a top end sniper is a tandem I don't think any team in hockey would turn down. Even if Wahlstrom ends up playing with Rasmussen as his long term center, or Athanasiou, or whoever, he has an ability that can be productive no matter what.

Tkachuk is a really good player and would be a welcomed addition if that's how things played out, but the need for someone who can flat out score the puck and create for himself is a greater need at this point, in my opinion. And both of those needs are kind of secondary to a legitimate all situations defenseman.

 

[Frk It]

I don't think Tkachuk is the slightest bit redundant in this organization. He would be without question the purest playmaking forward he have (apart from an aging Z) and one of maybe three players who actually makes those around him even slightly better. His ability to move pucks on time from the corners and half-wall into high percentage scoring areas, in creative ways is absolutely something this organization is lacking. While we have gotten bigger over time, we are still very much a perimeter team in a lot of ways. Mantha, notwithstanding his size, still withdraws to the wall. AA, the same thing. Even Ras moves the puck more north south in the offensive zone than east-west when you stop to watch.

I don't think that Wahlstrom is necessarily redundant either. We are a really bad team with a lot of areas in need of improvement. Either would improve us. I share your desire to draft a defensemen at 6, but I also see why either of those wingers would appeal to the brass. Again, we are a really bad team with a lot of holes.

This was my initial thought as well. But that Dylan Larkin kid did just put up 47 assists this year.

I agree that Tkachuk is a great passer and his ability to win battles would help us return to being a better puck possession team. I also agree that we have a lot of holes to fill. Anyone we take in the top 10 has a skill set that would be a welcome addition to this team, and should be our best prospect we have taken in some time.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I can see the argument for him being redundant in the fact that he's another high effort, 200 foot player that lacks a strong finishing touch. To me he plays a lot like a power forward version of what Larkin is right now. He is best when the puck is on his stick and he can use his vision and IQ to generate offense for people around him, except he will power past you instead of skating past you. Great skill to have, but right now I'd rather have Wahlstrom on Larkin's wing instead of Tkachuk. Larkin+Wahlstrom is probably the best chance to become Backstrom+Ovechkin stylistically. A top end playmaker facilitating a top end sniper is a tandem I don't think any team in hockey would turn down. Even if Wahlstrom ends up playing with Rasmussen as his long term center, or Athanasiou, or whoever, he has an ability that can be productive no matter what.

Tkachuk is a really good player and would be a welcomed addition if that's how things played out, but the need for someone who can flat out score the puck and create for himself is a greater need at this point, in my opinion. And both of those needs are kind of secondary to a legitimate all situations defenseman.

Since we are doing stylistic comparisons, I will throw out Tkachuk Rasmussen has a Getzlaf-Perry or Wheeler-Scheifele ability. Big guys where one is a dominant in tight finisher and the other is an incredible passer that can handle heavy traffic areas and still set people up. Also tons of fun to play against for 20 minutes a night with them leaning on you.

Larkin and Mantha do fit moving forward, I am hopeful they click next year.

I get we should go D, but if Tkachuk slides I expect us to pick him. By December I expect those that over-react to that to be sort of embarrassed that they didn't know how good Brady Tkachuk is.

Rasmussen and Tkachuk are big time possession guys too. So Rasmussen's ability to win draws could really corner teams. But either way, I think you have your forward building blocks to believe in

Larkin
Mantha
Rasmussen
Tkachuk

If it played out that way pair two of them and look for the third guy. Tough group, we also might add another player to that look, but that is a talented group that would be really tough to play against. Speed, strength and tenacity is an actual identity to play to as I believe that would also get Mantha elevated in terms of that department to be surrounded by those three guys that never stop working on the ice.

I think we go defensively, but I would be elated if Tkachuk fell in our laps, he is a terrific hockey player.

 

[lilidk]

Since we are doing stylistic comparisons, I will throw out Tkachuk Rasmussen has a Getzlaf-Perry or Wheeler-Scheifele ability. Big guys where one is a dominant in tight finisher and the other is an incredible passer that can handle heavy traffic areas and still set people up. Also tons of fun to play against for 20 minutes a night with them leaning on you.

Larkin and Mantha do fit moving forward, I am hopeful they click next year.

I get we should go D, but if Tkachuk slides I expect us to pick him. By December I expect those that over-react to that to be sort of embarrassed that they didn't know how good Brady Tkachuk is.

Rasmussen and Tkachuk are big time possession guys too. So Rasmussen's ability to win draws could really corner teams. But either way, I think you have your forward building blocks to believe in

Larkin
Mantha
Rasmussen
Tkachuk

If it played out that way pair two of them and look for the third guy. Tough group, we also might add another player to that look, but that is a talented group that would be really tough to play against. Speed, strength and tenacity is an actual identity to play to as I believe that would also get Mantha elevated in terms of that department to be surrounded by those three guys that never stop working on the ice.

I think we go defensively, but I would be elated if Tkachuk fell in our laps, he is a terrific hockey player.

If one of Tkachuk, zadina, Svechnikov still available at #6 we should take one of them.

 

[Frk It]

Since we are doing stylistic comparisons, I will throw out Tkachuk Rasmussen has a Getzlaf-Perry or Wheeler-Scheifele ability. Big guys where one is a dominant in tight finisher and the other is an incredible passer that can handle heavy traffic areas and still set people up. Also tons of fun to play against for 20 minutes a night with them leaning on you.

Larkin and Mantha do fit moving forward, I am hopeful they click next year.

I get we should go D, but if Tkachuk slides I expect us to pick him. By December I expect those that over-react to that to be sort of embarrassed that they didn't know how good Brady Tkachuk is.

Rasmussen and Tkachuk are big time possession guys too. So Rasmussen's ability to win draws could really corner teams. But either way, I think you have your forward building blocks to believe in

Larkin
Mantha
Rasmussen
Tkachuk

If it played out that way pair two of them and look for the third guy. Tough group, we also might add another player to that look, but that is a talented group that would be really tough to play against. Speed, strength and tenacity is an actual identity to play to as I believe that would also get Mantha elevated in terms of that department to be surrounded by those three guys that never stop working on the ice.

I think we go defensively, but I would be elated if Tkachuk fell in our laps, he is a terrific hockey player.

I like Tkachuk, but boy those are some lofty comparisons. I agree he would help us become a better puck possession team for sure. But I think these defenseman would move the needle much more for our re-build as far as big picture. If we take Tkachuk I won’t be mad though, they would really have to go off the map to do something that pisses me off with the top 10 this year. You read about his family and watch his highlights and it’s hard to hate him.

 

[Winger98]

I like Tkachuk, but boy those are some lofty comparisons. I agree he would help us become a better puck possession team for sure. But I think these defenseman would move the needle much more for our re-build as far as big picture. If we take Tkachuk I won’t be mad though, they would really have to go off the map to do something that pisses me off with the top 10 this year. You read about his family and watch his highlights and it’s hard to hate him.

I don't hate Tkachuk, but I won't be happy we pick him unless Dobson, Bouchard, Huges, and Boqvist manage to be off the board. It's not that I don't think Tkachuk can be a helluva player, I just don't think he's separated himself from those four D, and we need a D a lot more. I know we shouldn't draft for need, but all else being equal then position should play into it.