NHL Entry Draft 2019 Entry Draft Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Golden_Jet

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
22,237
10,789
Tkachuk would have been great guy to take if we had both picks, being able to pair up a winger with Tkachuks skill set (not many in the league) with a huge #1 center type would have been unbelievable moving forward, but if I had to choose 1 or the other, I'd take the center.

And again, I've loved Tkachuk

We can have both if we re-sign #1 centre Duchene.
FWIW I was for taking Tkachuk vs gambling on 18% chance of Hughes if we finished last.
 

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,472
23,044
East Coast
We can have both if we re-sign #1 centre Duchene.
FWIW I was for taking Tkachuk vs gambling on 18% chance of Hughes if we finished last.

I was looking more at the guys ranked 2-3-4-5, as Hughes definitely isn't huge, but if you only view Hughes as better than that's perfectly fine
 

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
30,703
9,650
Montreal, Canada
I mean, I'm quoting a guy who is saying I'm not credible because I wanted others instead of Tkachuk last year, I'm stating I still feel that way...He's talking about me not having Tkachuk 4th last year, I responded that I still don't think he's going to be the 4th best player

I'm highlighting the fact that I think one of the guys, who I had ranked higher, which the guy brought up with his backhand comment, will end up better in the long run.

Sure, if you take out all of the context, like how my statement falls in line with how I ranked the prospects both before and after the draft, and him stating that my opinion isn't credible because Tkachuk looks to be the 4th best guy right now thus I was wrong not to have him 4th, I probably wouldn't get the point either.

If you had those guys ranked above Pietrangelo, sure, it would have been a bad pick. If not, of course it isn't a bad pick. I had others above Tkachuk, which was the whole reason for that guy writing that in the first place, hence my comment.

Ok like I said I didn't want to be part of the debate so that's why I only quoted that small part. I wanted to point out how that argument doesn't work, context or not. It's too obvious that it's useless to point it out.

Of course Tkachuk isn't going to be the 4th best player in the draft. Some guys drafted below will more than likely outplay him. It happens every freaking draft. Everybody should be 100% aware of that by now. Look at any draft, any pick and do a re-draft. Very rarely the original pick will be in the same spot in the re-draft. There's always guys like Karlsson and Chabot who outplay those 3/4/5th OA picks.

I gave the Pietrangelo example... but it could have been literally any pick

You can mention the players that you would have drafted instead but saying he won't be the 4th best player in the draft says nothing. Just my opinion.

For me, it's more Tkachuk vs the other guys that we could have picked at this spot. IIRC it was between him and Zadina, Hughes, Boqvist, Bouchard, Wahlstrom and Dobson? Of course, they could have picked somebody else but it would have been going off the board like the Yotes for example.

Anyway, I think it's going to be a good pick no matter what. I look at his brother, I watched his father, I watch Brady and it's clearly in their genes. Brady won't be the one "not as good", he has the skill and overall skill-set, plus the "it" factor to be as good.

Finally, I don't think we'll be looking at the 2018 draft like one of the good ones, more like a very average one.
 
Last edited:

JonnyMacSen

2nd round Chlapik!
Nov 4, 2009
2,309
167
Ottawa, ON
Obviously BPA should be taken, but Right Shot D should be something the Sens should consider this draft, depth is pretty low there and they cost a fortune via trade.

I haven't followed this draft as hard as previous years but I like what I've seen from Billy Constantinou, could be a decent 2nd round choice. Jordan Spence in Moncton is another, but have only seen a couple games but he always sticks out, especially on the PP.
 

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,472
23,044
East Coast
Ok like I said I didn't want to be part of the debate so that's why I only quoted that small part. I wanted to point out how that argument doesn't work, context or not. It's too obvious that it's useless to point it out.

Of course Tkachuk isn't going to be the 4th best player in the draft. Some guys drafted below will more than likely outplay him. It happens every freaking draft. Everybody should be 100% aware of that by now. Look at any draft, any pick and do a re-draft. Very rarely the original pick will be in the same spot in the re-draft. There's always guys like Karlsson and Chabot who outplay those 3/4/5th OA picks.

I gave the Pietrangelo example... but it could have been literally any pick

You can mention the players that you would have drafted instead but saying he won't be the 4th best player in the draft says nothing. Just my opinion.

For me, it's more Tkachuk vs the other guys that we could have picked at this spot. IIRC it was between him and Zadina, Hughes, Boqvist, Bouchard, Wahlstrom and Dobson? Of course, they could have picked somebody else but it would have been going off the board like the Yotes for example.

Anyway, I think it's going to be a good pick no matter what. I look at his brother, I watched his father, I watch Brady and it's clearly in their genes. Brady won't be the one "not as good", he has the skill and overall skill-set, plus the "it" factor to be as good.

Finally, I don't think we'll be looking at the 2018 draft like one of the good ones, more like a very average one.
Again, I was talking about the guys who I had ranked ahead of him, which is what the poster states to start the conversation. You're taking a part of a conversation an omitting all the context behind it.
 

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
30,703
9,650
Montreal, Canada
Again, I was talking about the guys who I had ranked ahead of him, which is what the poster states to start the conversation. You're taking a part of a conversation an omitting all the context behind it.

Yes BECAUSE I said that I'm not going into the debate.

I specifically identified the argument I quoted and tried to explain that it's an useless thing to say CONTEXT OR NOT. The statement is clear "Still am, I highly doubt Tkachuk is going to be the 4th best player from this draft.". I don't know what kind of context it would take to make this statement not a statement anymore?

If you don't get what I meant, it's ok let's move on, not like it's very important anyway. Just wanted to note that "player x drafted nth OA won't be the nth best player in the draft" doesn't work because it's very rarely the case. 2006, 2013, 2015 might be the only drafts in recent history where the 4th OA pick might be worthy of a top-4 pick.
 

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,472
23,044
East Coast
Yes BECAUSE I said that I'm not going into the debate.

I specifically identified the argument I quoted and tried to explain that it's an useless thing to say CONTEXT OR NOT. The statement is clear "Still am, I highly doubt Tkachuk is going to be the 4th best player from this draft.". I don't know what kind of context it would take to make this statement not a statement anymore?

If you don't get what I meant, it's ok let's move on, not like it's very important anyway. Just wanted to note that "player x drafted nth OA won't be the nth best player in the draft" doesn't work because it's very rarely the case. 2006, 2013, 2015 might be the only drafts in recent history where the 4th OA pick might be worthy of a top-4 pick.
I completely understand what you mean, it's a very simple concept, in no way was I saying that anyone who ends up better should have been selected above him. As was mentioned in the quote that started it, which gives the context of me not having Tkachuk at 4th overall and thinking others should be taken before him, I had assumed that me still having others ranked before him was understood as that was what the quote was about.

Obviously I left it too open to interpretation
 

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
30,703
9,650
Montreal, Canada
I completely understand what you mean, it's a very simple concept, in no way was I saying that anyone who ends up better should have been selected above him. As was mentioned in the quote that started it, which gives the context of me not having Tkachuk at 4th overall and thinking others should be taken before him, I had assumed that me still having others ranked before him was understood as that was what the quote was about.

Obviously I left it too open to interpretation

ok anyway, it's semantics.

What was your top-10/15?
 

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,472
23,044
East Coast
ok anyway, it's semantics.

What was your top-10/15?
I'd have to look around, but if I remember correctly it was
1. Dahlin
2. Svechnikov
3. Dobson
4. Kotkaniemi
5. Zadina
6. Hughes
7. Bouchard
8. Tkachuk
9. Boqvist
10. Farabee

Could definitely be off on what I had going in by a spot or two, but I believe that was something along those lines. Definitely pretty off on what happened. Tkachuk, as was it was brought up, is definitely looking like a fine 4th overall pick now, though I still would much rather Dobson, I know that's not a popular opinion. Tkachuk definitely should have been above Bouchard and Zadina, Dobson and Hughes I'm not so sure.

I know I'd heard Zadina wasn't the 1st guy from the Q on a growing number of lists, he was dropping for me coming into the draft.

I fully expected Tkachuk to be our pick as I stated many times prior to the draft
 
Last edited:

R2010

Registered User
May 23, 2011
1,913
972
I'd have to look around, but if I remember correctly it was
1. Dahlin
2. Svechnikov
3. Dobson
4. Kotkaniemi
5. Zadina
6. Hughes
7. Bouchard
8. Tkachuk
9. Boqvist
10. Farabee

Could definitely be off on what I had going in by a spot or two, but I believe that was something along those lines. Definitely pretty off on what happened. Tkachuk, as was it was brought up, is definitely looking like a fine 4th overall pick now, though I still would much rather Dobson, I know that's not a popular opinion. Tkachuk definitely should have been above Bouchard and Zadina, Dobson and Hughes I'm not so sure.

I know I'd heard Zadina wasn't the 1st guy from the Q on a growing number of lists, he was dropping for me coming into the draft.

I fully expected Tkachuk to be our pick as I stated many times

I think it is pretty telling that Dobson was relied on more heavily in the important games than Bouchard for the WJC. I thought Bouchard would blow away the competition there and that Dobson being younger would be pretty sheltered... Kotkaniemi is looking like a future superstar. Interesting you didn't have Wahlstrom as high as others - he definitely needs to develop more tools to drive play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sens of Anarchy

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,472
23,044
East Coast
I think it is pretty telling that Dobson was relied on more heavily in the important games than Bouchard for the WJC. I thought Bouchard would blow away the competition there and that Dobson being younger would be pretty sheltered... Kotkaniemi is looking like a future superstar. Interesting you didn't have Wahlstrom as high as others - he definitely needs to develop more tools to drive play.
This is completely off memory, I may have had Wahlstrom at 9 (can't remember if it was him or Boqvist, I know I had one of them out)
 
  • Like
Reactions: R2010

Johnny Hanson

Registered User
Jul 6, 2008
2,379
816
Anybody watch Kelowna play? They’ve got a couple intriguing RHD prospects in Thomson and Korczak
 

Hale The Villain

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2008
25,657
13,242
Anybody watch Kelowna play? They’ve got a couple intriguing RHD prospects in Thomson and Korczak

Neither are 1st round material in my opinion.

Thomson is a terrific skater and is quite skilled, but his hockey sense isn't the greatest. Loves to rush the puck but tries to go through the opposing team himself way too much. He looks like a guy who should go top 20, but doesn't get nearly enough out his tools.

Korczak has the makings of a good defensive D. Great size, decent skater, solid puckmover. Not huge offensive upside, but better than his mediocre point totals indicate. He doesn't get a lot of top PP time, as Thomson runs the first unit, with the other D spot being occupied by a forward.

I'd rather Korczak personally. Could be a target for one of our 2nds this year, but there will likely be better players available IMO.
 

Icelevel

During these difficult times...
Sep 9, 2009
24,642
4,905
This thread is depressing.

Hopefully we get at least one first rounder in one of deadline deals.
We have to. There is no way we don’t. I mean he’s incompetent yes but getting a 1st or 2 or 3 is absolutely necessary.
 

Johnny Hanson

Registered User
Jul 6, 2008
2,379
816
Neither are 1st round material in my opinion.

Thomson is a terrific skater and is quite skilled, but his hockey sense isn't the greatest. Loves to rush the puck but tries to go through the opposing team himself way too much. He looks like a guy who should go top 20, but doesn't get nearly enough out his tools.

Korczak has the makings of a good defensive D. Great size, decent skater, solid puckmover. Not huge offensive upside, but better than his mediocre point totals indicate. He doesn't get a lot of top PP time, as Thomson runs the first unit, with the other D spot being occupied by a forward.

I'd rather Korczak personally. Could be a target for one of our 2nds this year, but there will likely be better players available IMO.

Thanks for the information. I was thinking Korczak with a 2nd only because we need to develop a defensive minded RD partner for one of our offensive minded LD guys like Chabot, Wolanin and Lajoie.
 

Tkachuckycheese

Oilers/Sens
Feb 2, 2016
829
796
Is he someone we even want? Doesn't seem like he has progressed much since entering the OHL based on his stats..
Plays in the WHL. But he plays hard in the corners and has a really great shot. Goes to the front of the net and causes havoc. Could use another player like that in the system.
 

The Devilish Buffoon

🇵🇸 viva 🇵🇸 free 🇵🇸
Dec 24, 2018
11,950
10,745
Plays in the WHL. But he plays hard in the corners and has a really great shot. Goes to the front of the net and causes havoc. Could use another player like that in the system.

My bad about the OHL/WHL confusion. Admittedly just stat watching but he doesnt seem to me like a high upside pick. I like the safe pick but if 32 is our first selection I would rather go for someone with more upside. Of course his production could not be indicative of his skill, in which case I would be more receptive
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,842
51,512
Reminds me of when the Leafs traded their 1997 first rounder to the Islanders to get Wendel Clark and Mathieu Schneider, and around this time in 1997, it looked like the Islanders would be picking 1st and 2nd to snag Thornton and Marleau.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->