2021 NHL Draft Thread

[Just A Bit Outside]

Guenther is getting very underrated. Most skilled forward in the draft and he’s a complete player too. Forechecks, competes hard, he might be #1 overall for me.

I have doubts drafting a kid named after a secondary character from Friends.

He’s good but not enough to stand out against the other potentials given the Nucks wing depth already.

C or D for me.

 

[clay]

Guenther is getting very underrated. Most skilled forward in the draft and he’s a complete player too. Forechecks, competes hard, he might be #1 overall for me.

Would prefer we went C or D. He was very mediocre at the U18s - didn't stand out at all.

 

[4Twenty]

Would prefer we went C or D. He was very mediocre at the U18s - didn't stand out at all.

You think that's a big enough sample size to evaluate....also I thought he was very good and why he was always on the ice with the kids.

 

[F A N]

I have doubts drafting a kid named after a secondary character from Friends.

He’s good but not enough to stand out against the other potentials given the Nucks wing depth already.

C or D for me.

You do realize it's a different spelling and Guenther is the kid's last name?

 

[clay]

You think that's a big enough sample size to evaluate....also I thought he was very good and why he was always on the ice with the kids.

I do agree that judging off one tourney is too small a sample size generally. I just think that, especially given the dire needs of C and D for this organization, the only justification for taking a winger is if he is very clearly BPA. I'm not sure Guenther takes that over Clarke, Eklund, Beniers, Johnson.

 

[4Twenty]

I do agree that judging off one tourney is too small a sample size generally. I just think that, especially given the dire needs of C and D for this organization, the only justification for taking a winger is if he is very clearly BPA. I'm not sure Guenther takes that over Clarke, Eklund, Beniers, Johnson.

I don't have enough information to say otherwise, I just think basing it on a few televised games when there is a bigger body of work is foolish.

I would have no problem ending up with Guenther, he looks like Kyle Connor/Mikko Rantanen out there.

How is everyone watching these guys? There's that Devils in the details youtube channel with the shift by shift videos, but only one or two for each guy.

I can say I definitely miss big white 06 @thefeebster 's prospect videos

 

[GetFocht]

Power, Clarke, L.Hughes, Edvinsson, Eklund, Guenther.

Any of those players would be a huge addition to young Canucks core. I think Eklund will end up being the best forward in the draft and probably be seen as a top 2 pick in the future.

 

[VanJack]

Guenther is getting very underrated. Most skilled forward in the draft and he’s a complete player too. Forechecks, competes hard, he might be #1 overall for me.

I'm sure you're right about this guy.....but the idea of the Canucks drafting anyone from the WHL gives me the 'nervous nellies' based on their dismal track record.

Given the awful state of their blueline, I'd be surprised if the Canucks took another forward....provided of course one of the top d-men is still on the board.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Dont be surprised if they take a Dman even if all the top ones are off the board..

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

You do realize it's a different spelling and Guenther is the kid's last name?

What? Really?

Crazy.

 

[Love]

Surprised how many in here want to draft for need instead of BPA. Not a good strategy at all.

Dont be surprised if they take a Dman even if all the top ones are off the board..

Agreed. Canucks under Benning have always drafted need over BPA with their top 10 picks.

 

[CanuckleBerry]

Surprised how many in here want to draft for need instead of BPA. Not a good strategy at all.

Evaluating the best player available in this draft isn't such an easy task. There's a real hodgepodge of opinions out there and I would not be surprised to see a few real off the board picks from GMs in the top 15. I generally agree with the BPA rule as the guiding star, but like @clay mentioned, unless a winger is CLEARLY the standout at whichever selection spot, the secondary factor of need can very reasonably tip the scale.

 

[kcunac]

This team has alot of needs, but I think we also need to draft another goalie this year. Pickings are slim after Dipietro, who probably only has one more year in the AHL.

 

[docbenton]

Watching Edvinsson some more, I'd move him higher on my list. He might not put up a ton of points despite having high end skill, but he can develop into an elite modern shutdown/transition defender and be a perfect complement to the offensive defensemen we have.

 

[DonnyNucker]

Surprised how many in here want to draft for need instead of BPA. Not a good strategy at all.



Agreed. Canucks under Benning have always drafted need over BPA with their top 10 picks.

Boeser was drafting for need? Elias, Hughes? Podkolzin? They definitely needed D over more wingers. This isn’t close to being accurate. The Juolevi pick was a strange one but they seemed to think he was BPA.

 

[Love]

Boeser was drafting for need? Elias, Hughes? Podkolzin? They definitely needed D over more wingers. This isn’t close to being accurate. The Juolevi pick was a strange one but they seemed to think he was BPA.

I think Juolevi, Hughes, and Pettersson were 100% drafting for need. Virtanen too.

Boeser and Podkolzin I think not as much.

 

[Fedz]

I still take BPA all day, everyday. It's just there is a better chance in this drat that BPA ends up being a defenseman than most recent drafts. I wouldn't at all discount Guenther, Johnson, Eklund or Beniers. If we end up with a top 10 pick we should end up with a very good prospect.

Completely agree on D, just happen to rank Hughes, Clarke, Power & Edvinsson one through four. Regardless of where we pick one of those D is going to be the BPA.

I like those four forwards too but the truth is the two F's I like the most in this draft are Mason McTavish and Fabian Lysell. I'd probably even take McTavish ahead of a few of the F's you listed. (Guenther, Johnson, Eklund or Beniers)

 

[Fedz]

I think Juolevi, Hughes, and Pettersson were 100% drafting for need. Virtanen too.

Boeser and Podkolzin I think not as much.

Listen, I'm not a Benning fan BUT Hughes and Podkolzin were 100% the BPA's at the time. You could argue Caufield over Podkolzin but at the time, if Pod wasn't committed to Russia for two more years, he'd have gone even higher.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Listen, I'm not a Benning fan BUT Hughes and Podkolzin were 100% the BPA's at the time. You could argue Caufield over Podkolzin but at the time, if Pod wasn't committed to Russia for two more years, he'd have gone even higher.

Hughes yes, pod absolutely not.

 

[Love]

The narrative that Hughes was 100% without a doubt the BPA is not true at all. The “OMG HOW DID HE FALL TO 7th???” Came well after he was drafted.

There simply wasn’t a consensus between Dobson, Bouchard, Hughes, and Boqvist at the time of the draft.

 

[Tonystretcher]

Would love to grab Brent Johnson with our second pick. Really nice skating and puck skills while also a sneaky good defender. Fits our need for RDs too.

 

[CpatainCanuck]

The narrative that Hughes was 100% without a doubt the BPA is not true at all. The “OMG HOW DID HE FALL TO 7th???” Came well after he was drafted.

There simply wasn’t a consensus between Dobson, Bouchard, Hughes, and Boqvist at the time of the draft.

That's true. It's really wasn't too dissimilar to the talk going on now about the four top defensive prospects.

 

[Fedz]

Hughes yes, pod absolutely not.

Respectfully disagree. Bob McKenzie's final rankings have Podkolzin at #8. There is no reason to believe the Canucks didn't have him ranked similarly. You can argue BPA in hindsight but at the time it couldn't be argued otherwise with certainty.

 

[Fedz]

The narrative that Hughes was 100% without a doubt the BPA is not true at all. The “OMG HOW DID HE FALL TO 7th???” Came well after he was drafted.

There simply wasn’t a consensus between Dobson, Bouchard, Hughes, and Boqvist at the time of the draft.

I'd agree you aren't wrong on this but that is entirely my point. Yes they may have picked a D but a D was the BPA...Clearly you'd agree since you named four different D.

 

[604]

Hughes yes, pod absolutely not.

Based on pre-draft rankings Pods was pretty much consensus at the spot we picked based on who was remaining.