All purpose draft-gripe thread

[Vankiller Whale]

Hope it's alright if I go ahead and make this thread, but I agree with others that it's not fair to clutter up prospect-specific threads with this kind of talk.

In short, I disagree with a "meat and potatoes" philosophy.

Always take the best player, not the most physical one ranked within whatever range you're picking in.

Click to read more...

 

[pahlsson]

hey i heard this team makes questionable draft picks

 

[Bean in Charge]

Hope it's alright if I go ahead and make this thread, but I agree with others that it's not fair to clutter up prospect-specific threads with this kind of talk.

In short, I disagree with a "meat and potatoes" philosophy.

Always take the best player, not the most physical one ranked within whatever range you're picking in.

There are plenty of times taking the most skilled player has failed too.

Just so happens that when it works out, it usually works out spectacularly. Skilled players are a lot more highlight-friendly than Ryan Kesler types. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that a potential-achieving skilled player is better than the potential-achieving "meat and potatoes" player. They serve different roles and are each hard to acquire.

The ideal team has a nice mix of all types of players.

 

[Wilch]

hey i heard this team makes questionable draft picks

Not Benning

 

[Vankiller Whale]

There are plenty of times taking the most skilled player has failed too.

Just so happens that when it works out, it usually works out spectacularly. Skilled players are a lot more highlight-friendly than Ryan Kesler types. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that a potential-achieving skilled player is better than the potential-achieving "meat and potatoes" player. They serve different roles and are each hard to acquire.

The ideal team has a nice mix of all types of players.

I'm not saying we'll bat 1.000 if we take the BPA. I'm sure that if I had followed the draft back in 2003 I might have preferred one of Perry/Tambellini to Kesler. From stat scouting I'd like to think I'd have taken Perry, but obviously there's no way to eliminate hindsight bias there.

But Ehlers is a fantastic prospect, and is producing at almost twice as much as Virtanen on a much worse team.

He's been factoring on something absurd like 60% of the Moosehead's goals, while Virtanen is only at around 27%. He's been far more of a gamebreaking player. He's just as fast as Virtanen, a far better playmaker, better penalty killer, better goal scorer, etc.

When the only thing Virtanen has over him is 30 pounds of physicality, I am against that being the tipping point to push things in his favour.

I think I've thoroughly debunked the idea that bigger players are inherently safer or better in the West or in the playoffs or whatever other false dichotomy is being floated around, at least based on any objective evidence.

It really bothers me that not only does the recently hired GM have no problem passing on skill for meat and potatoes, but that most of the fanbase is going along with it without asking why.

 

[CanaFan]

Hope it's alright if I go ahead and make this thread, but I agree with others that it's not fair to clutter up prospect-specific threads with this kind of talk.

In short, I disagree with a "meat and potatoes" philosophy.

Always take the best player, not the most physical one ranked within whatever range you're picking in.

Thanks for opening the thread for this particular type of prospect 'discussion'. I don't mind these debates, just nice not to have to wade through the Virtanen thread to find stuff specifically about the player.

Anyway you and Uhmkay were debating the impact of size on player's projections and/or likelihood to reach the NHL. You both give numerous 'spot' examples which, at the end of the day, don't amount to much since it is unknown how representative they are of all junior and NHL players. And we obviously know both sides hand pick the examples that suit their argument.

So I thought I'd take a stab at quantifying how much size drive's a players' chances of success at the NHL level. Keep in mind this is just a toe in the water as I haven't really wrapped my head around the 'best' way to represent the numbers. Nor is my sample terribly large since I have to manually look up the height of each player in the analysis (nothing is listed in row format). And of course this is all at the mercy of the biases and inaccuracies of the sources I've used (WHL, OHL, and QMJHL sites for juniors, NHL.com for NHLers).

Basically my thinking is if Height is no source of advantage or disadvantage in the NHL, I would expect the ratio of player heights in the NHL to be roughly similar to the ratio of player heights in the CHL. Pretty simple idea. For example, if 20% of CHL players are under 6 feet and 20% of NHL players are under 6 feet, then there is no clear bias towards or away from players under 6 feet. If the ratio of players is higher in the NHL then it would seem there is a premium on being sub-6 feet. If the ratio is lower in the NHL then it would suggest there is a premium on being over-6 feet.

For sample, I took the top 20 scoring forwards in each of the WHL, OHL, and QMJHL to give me a total of 60 CHL forwards. I took their heights only because height tends to stay the same from junior to NHL while weight tends to increase with age and training. I also took the top 30 scoring forwards in the NHL and their heights. In both cases I used 2013-14 data since I figure the scoring leaders would be more stable at that point.

Here's what I got:

So basically junior hockey has nearly 2x the ratio of sub-6 foot players that comprise the top scorers than the NHL does (43% vs 23%). Even with reasonably small sample sizes (n.60 and n.30) this is statistically significant and on the surface says that the NHL definitely puts a premium on size (in this case height) with sub-6 foot scorers in the CHL is much more common (nearly 2x) than sub-6 foot scorers in the NHL.

What does this mean? Well it certainly doesn't mean that a sub-6 foot player like Ehlers (who at 5'11 is just on the cusp of the sub-6 foot group) isn't going to succeed at the next level, nor does it mean that an over-6 foot player like Virtanen is going to succeed. In fact Virtanen and Ehlers are probably cases to attempt to make this argument for, given their proximity to the 6 ft cut point. But when we look at probability and likelihood to succeed, I don't think there should be any argument that the long run odds do favour bigger players. And even though you can always find a Giroux, Crosby, or Kane that makes it through, there is additional adversity working against them that likely needs to be taken into consideration.

Of course all this obviously doesn't take into consideration the role of weight and strength (similar but not exactly the same), which I can't factor in because I'd have to see how junior weights translate to NHL weights after time for growth and training. But intuitively it seems that weight and strength are more important than height (and that height is probably just a proxy for strength and weight in general) as I only found 5 NHLers in 30 with weights listed below 190 lbs (Giroux, St. Louis, Kane, Krejci, and Eberle) and just 2 listed below 180 (Giroux and Kane). At 176 lbs today, Ehlers biggest challenge will either be to try to reach 190 and at least join a moderate number of small players that have shown they can play under 200 lbs, or take his chances by being only the 3rd player on this list to play below 180.

Nothing definitive but hopefully this helps advance the conversation a bit more.

 

[keslerbomb]

I'm not saying we'll bat 1.000 if we take the BPA. I'm sure that if I had followed the draft back in 2003 I might have preferred one of Perry/Tambellini to Kesler. From stat scouting I'd like to think I'd have taken Perry, but obviously there's no way to eliminate hindsight bias there.

But Ehlers is a fantastic prospect, and is producing at almost twice as much as Virtanen on a much worse team.

He's been factoring on something absurd like 60% of the Moosehead's goals, while Virtanen is only at around 27%. He's been far more of a gamebreaking player. He's just as fast as Virtanen, a far better playmaker, better penalty killer, better goal scorer, etc.

When the only thing Virtanen has over him is 30 pounds of physicality, I am against that being the tipping point to push things in his favour.

I think I've thoroughly debunked the idea that bigger players are inherently safer or better in the West or in the playoffs or whatever other false dichotomy is being floated around, at least based on any objective evidence.

It really bothers me that not only does the recently hired GM have no problem passing on skill for meat and potatoes, but that most of the fanbase is going along with it without asking why.

Isn't Ehlers like 165 pounds? Lets wait and see how his game translates to the NHL before we say he's the better player. And Virtanen had like 45 goals in 70 games his draft year, it's not like we picked some scrub whose only upside was his size.

 

[CanaFan]

I'm not saying we'll bat 1.000 if we take the BPA. I'm sure that if I had followed the draft back in 2003 I might have preferred one of Perry/Tambellini to Kesler. From stat scouting I'd like to think I'd have taken Perry, but obviously there's no way to eliminate hindsight bias there.

But Ehlers is a fantastic prospect, and is producing at almost twice as much as Virtanen on a much worse team.

He's been factoring on something absurd like 60% of the Moosehead's goals, while Virtanen is only at around 27%. He's been far more of a gamebreaking player. He's just as fast as Virtanen, a far better playmaker, better penalty killer, better goal scorer, etc.

When the only thing Virtanen has over him is 30 pounds of physicality, I am against that being the tipping point to push things in his favour.

I think I've thoroughly debunked the idea that bigger players are inherently safer or better in the West or in the playoffs or whatever other false dichotomy is being floated around, at least based on any objective evidence.

It really bothers me that not only does the recently hired GM have no problem passing on skill for meat and potatoes, but that most of the fanbase is going along with it without asking why.

Lots to like about Ehlers but he is not without his warts/risks too. His playing size/weight was a major concern with him last year, with many sources listing him at 163 lbs. That is nearly Gaudreau weight and with a body type that looked like it might have trouble gaining mass, that was a huge red flag. Since I see him listed at 176 lbs recently, this lessens the concerns about his ability to battle NHL-strength players 82 games a year but as I mention above, sub-180 lb players are still a rarity (only Kane and Giroux amongst top 30 NHL scorers last year).

Secondly, there is more to playing hockey than just those skills and attributes you listed above. No doubt Ehlers is the better play maker and puck handler. I wouldn't put Ehlers as conclusively the better goal scorer however as he outpaced JV by just 0.15 GPG last year despite significantly greater PP and ice time. This year he has widened the gap for sure but Virtanen has also clearly struggled to get his touch back. Is Ehlers the better goal scorer in Nov-Dec 2014? No argument. Is he the better goal scorer at their peak? That is debatable.

Thirdly, Virtanen has other skills and attributes that give him value in ways Ehlers does not. His size and aggressiveness suggest a more effective forechecker and puck retriever. Hitting is an effective way to create turnovers, retrieve pucks, and wear on defenseman. You may argue the value of this skill and given your focus on goals and assists I suspect we view the value of this differently, but it is certainly something that has a non-zero value.

At the end of the day, it is entirely possible that both players end up being excellent NHLers. I don't feel the need to run Ehlers (or Nylander) down just because they aren't Canucks. Both are excellent prospects but at this point they are just as unproven as Virtanen so until I see some sign that one is outperforming the other at the NHL level, I'll maintain a wait, follow, and see approach. And if Virtanen becomes the 30+ goal scoring physical winger that Benning likely sees in him and Ehlers becomes the shifty, dynamic 35+ goal winger that some think he can become, well I'll still be happy because to me its about the player you added, not the player you missed. But that I realize is not the norm around here.

 

[Bleach Clean]

This is multiple arguments connected into one post. It's Benning's quote + Virtanen over others + BPA + bigger players are safer + other stuff. So to quickly refute:

- The utility of size was a major point of contention in pre-draft debates. This still remains an asset for Virtanen. Nothing has been "debunked" as far as the utility of size goes.

- BPA =/= most skilled. Nor does it equate to the highest producer. In fact, it is more and more becoming an irrelevant term, IMO.

- Virtanen wasn't my first choice, but he was 2nd for me. So I'm OK with the pick.

- Benning's quote did not refer to size, it was about nationality. Barbashev had/has a thicker frame than McCann. He passed over a bigger player in Ritchie to take Virtanen as well. It was a stupid comment, but I don't think it applies to the debate about size+skill vs pure skill.

 

[Wilch]

This is multiple arguments connected into one post. It's Benning's quote + Virtanen over others + BPA + bigger players are safer + other stuff. So to quickly refute:

- The utility of size was a major point of contention in pre-draft debates. This still remains an asset for Virtanen. Nothing has been "debunked" as far as the utility of size goes.

- BPA =/= most skilled. Nor does it equate to the highest producer. In fact, it is more and more becoming an irrelevant term, IMO.

- Virtanen wasn't my first choice, but he was 2nd for me. So I'm OK with the pick.

- Benning's quote did not refer to size, it was about nationality. Barbashev had/has a thicker frame than McCann. He passed over a bigger player in Ritchie to take Virtanen as well. It was a stupid comment, but I don't think it applies to the debate about size+skill vs pure skill.

I think Benning is either dumb or he is a terrible public speaker.

I am hoping and leaning towards the latter.

As such, I no longer put any weight into that stupid meat & potatoes quote, and only bring it up as a joke.

Hopefully Barbashev was overlooked because:
1. Benning didn't do his due diligence in the Q as thoroughly as he would've liked.
2. He didn't want to defer first round picks to the scouts, in particular our Q scouts who are either canned or just sitting around collecting pay check.

Anyway. There was no clear BPA at 6. The bigger players are safer thing does not hold true either. Plenty of precedents where both big and small players taken in the top 10 have busted.

 

[Phenomenon13]

http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/6/8/does-size-matter-in-the-nhl-draft


I am pretty sure that NHL drafted size on average is larger than actual NHL playing size.

EDIT:

https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?...-else&tw_i=482685794331553792&tw_p=tweetembed

 

[Uhmkay]

I think I've thoroughly debunked the idea that bigger players are inherently safer or better in the West or in the playoffs or whatever other false dichotomy is being floated around, at least based on any objective evidence.

It really bothers me that not only does the recently hired GM have no problem passing on skill for meat and potatoes, but that most of the fanbase is going along with it without asking why.

You haven't debunked ANYTHING. As posters below you have pointed out, you've taken spot examples to try to prove that your point is a general rule of thumb, when it's been shown to be anything but.

I can also take a spot example and say players that are over 40 are just as likely to succeed in the NHL as guys in their 20's... then then start picking out players like Lidstrom and Chelios and say "See... it's fact! You're just as likely to succeed as a 40 year old man in the NHL".

You've done NOTHING to prove that the success rate for small players is the same as skilled bigger players. And then you talk about players like Virtanen like they don't have any skill at all, which shows you're completely ignorant to the facts as well and just crybabying because you didn't get your pick.

Then when any poster posts the draft history of a team who has taken small players (All of which who had failed), and compared them to other players taken around the same time in the draft (Afterwards infact), you brush it off.

You also brush off any correlation for why the NHL as a whole, is becoming a league where the average size of players has shooted WAY up... you failed to explain why this is happening at all. You also fail to explain why scouts in general look for size AS WELL as skill.

You can't even admit that size has ANY advantages in the NHL, which is so absurd. Take a listen to when players describe Mario Lemieux, Eric Lindros, etc. You don't think their size had something to do with how hard it was to play against them? Of course you don't... because size doesn't mean anything right?

You have failed miserably in providing anything but spot examples that go against the norm, and what virtually every scout and GM have looked at as a very VALID physical traits.

I've shown an entire history of our draft picks since the turn of the century that were undersized, where NONE of them have worked out, yet of our picks that have worked out, they're all of decent size and physical.

Another posted has shown evidence that the NHL has a much higher ratio (Almost 2X as many) big guys at the top of the scoring list as does the CHL.

 

[Jay Cee]

You haven't debunked ANYTHING. As posters below you have pointed out, you've taken spot examples to try to prove that your point is a general rule of thumb, when it's been shown to be anything but.

I can also take a spot example and say players that are over 40 are just as likely to succeed in the NHL as guys in their 20's... then then start picking out players like Lidstrom and Chelios and say "See... it's fact! You're just as likely to succeed as a 40 year old man in the NHL".

You've done NOTHING to prove that the success rate for small players is the same as skilled bigger players. And then you talk about players like Virtanen like they don't have any skill at all, which shows you're completely ignorant to the facts as well and just crybabying because you didn't get your pick.

Then when any poster posts the draft history of a team who has taken small players (All of which who had failed), and compared them to other players taken around the same time in the draft (Afterwards infact), you brush it off.

You also brush off any correlation for why the NHL as a whole, is becoming a league where the average size of players has shooted WAY up... you failed to explain why this is happening at all. You also fail to explain why scouts in general look for size AS WELL as skill.

You can't even admit that size has ANY advantages in the NHL, which is so absurd. Take a listen to when players describe Mario Lemieux, Eric Lindros, etc. You don't think their size had something to do with how hard it was to play against them? Of course you don't... because size doesn't mean anything right?

You have failed miserably in providing anything but spot examples that go against the norm, and what virtually every scout and GM have looked at as a very VALID physical traits.

I've shown an entire history of our draft picks since the turn of the century that were undersized, where NONE of them have worked out, yet of our picks that have worked out, they're all of decent size and physical.

Another posted has shown evidence that the NHL has a much higher ratio (Almost 2X as many) big guys at the top of the scoring list as does the CHL.

I endorse this message.

Besides, I have seen Ehlers play a lot. I like him, he is good to have on your junior team, he is going to make the NHL in most liklihood but I like the kind of skill we were going for more with our pick.

Also, if we are throwing around theories about "meat and potatoes means, my feeling is it speaks to someone's complete game- not their nationality or meanness. We drafted a Russian after all for the first time in forever and I can attest to the fact they eat meat and potatoes in Russia.

 

[tantalum]

Professional lists are few and far between that had Ehlers ranked ahead of Virtanen so if we're going with consensus of the scouting community of BPA then that was Virtanen (when comparing the two).

NHL central scouting had Virtanen ranked 6th among North American Skaters. Ehlers was ranked 13th among European skaters. Both improved from the mid-term rankings (9th and 22nd).

sbnation had Virtanen at 11 and Ehlers at 12

Sportsnet had Virtanen7, Ehlers 8

ISS had Virtanen 7, Ehlers 11

McKenzie (who constructs his list with actual scout opinions/rankings) Virtanen 7, Ehlers 10


So, quite frankly, I'm tired of all the "didn't take BPA" available stuff when it comes to comparing Virtanen vs Ehlers because the worldwide consensus at the time was very much that Virtanen was the BPA (between the two). Now if we're talking Nylander there is more of a case as ISS had him ranked at 5 as a for instance.

In the end Virtanen was taking right about where he was expected to go. Maybe a spot or two high in comparison to what the experts believed at the time. Ehlers on the other hand would have been far more of a reach at #6 based on scouting community consensus.

Phew, got that draft-gripe off my chest....

 

[PhilMick]

I wish we had drafted Subban instead of Ellington, Severson instead of Mallett, Perron instead of White.

This is just griping about drafts in general right?

 

[thefeebster]

Professional lists are few and far between that had Ehlers ranked ahead of Virtanen so if we're going with consensus of the scouting community of BPA then that was Virtanen (when comparing the two).

NHL central scouting had Virtanen ranked 6th among North American Skaters. Ehlers was ranked 13th among European skaters. Both improved from the mid-term rankings (9th and 22nd).

sbnation had Virtanen at 11 and Ehlers at 12

Sportsnet had Virtanen7, Ehlers 8

ISS had Virtanen 7, Ehlers 11

McKenzie (who constructs his list with actual scout opinions/rankings) Virtanen 7, Ehlers 10


So, quite frankly, I'm tired of all the "didn't take BPA" available stuff when it comes to comparing Virtanen vs Ehlers because the worldwide consensus at the time was very much that Virtanen was the BPA (between the two). Now if we're talking Nylander there is more of a case as ISS had him ranked at 5 as a for instance.

In the end Virtanen was taking right about where he was expected to go. Maybe a spot or two high in comparison to what the experts believed at the time. Ehlers on the other hand would have been far more of a reach at #6 based on scouting community consensus.

Phew, got that draft-gripe off my chest....

I have no side in this debate but at least provide a full picture, you are cherry picking your supposed professional rankings. If sbnation can be considered a legit professional scouting source, then so can several other blog sources.

Last Word On Sports had Ehlers @ 8, JV @ 11
The Hockey Writers had Ehlers @ 4, JV @ 7
Draftbuzz had Ehlers @ 4, JV @ 7
Ryan Kennedy of THN had Ehlers @ 8, JV @ 12

Additional publication rankings that were not included:

RLR had Ehlers @ 6, JV @ 7
HP had Ehlers @ 4, JV @ 18
FC had Ehlers @ 8, JV @ 10

Taking into account all the rankings available, it is incorrect to say Ehlers would have been the bigger "reach".

 

[arsmaster*]

I'm not saying we'll bat 1.000 if we take the BPA. I'm sure that if I had followed the draft back in 2003 I might have preferred one of Perry/Tambellini to Kesler. From stat scouting I'd like to think I'd have taken Perry, but obviously there's no way to eliminate hindsight bias there.

But Ehlers is a fantastic prospect, and is producing at almost twice as much as Virtanen on a much worse team.

He's been factoring on something absurd like 60% of the Moosehead's goals, while Virtanen is only at around 27%. He's been far more of a gamebreaking player. He's just as fast as Virtanen, a far better playmaker, better penalty killer, better goal scorer, etc.

When the only thing Virtanen has over him is 30 pounds of physicality, I am against that being the tipping point to push things in his favour.

I think I've thoroughly debunked the idea that bigger players are inherently safer or better in the West or in the playoffs or whatever other false dichotomy is being floated around, at least based on any objective evidence.

It really bothers me that not only does the recently hired GM have no problem passing on skill for meat and potatoes, but that most of the fanbase is going along with it without asking why.

Virtanen is a faster more powerful skater with better acceleration as well, both forwards and backwards.

Ehlers is probably more agile though.

You haven't debunked anything.

Who would you have drafted in 2009 - I highly doubt you weren't "all-in" on Jordan Schroeder.

Also, the much worse team excuse is an excuse. Being on teams that aren't deep afford you ice time and opportunity you don't get when you're on a team that has talent and rolls their lines. Again, you might speak like this is a fact and it very well could be a fact that Halifax is worse, but it doesn't speak to a more impressive showing. The Hitmen have 9 guys over 0.65ppg, the Mooseheads have 4.....seems one team spreads the wealth, the other doesn't.

Ehlers is a good prospect, so is Jake Virtanen. Producing 100 points in the CHL is impressive....what sets Ehlers apart from 3rd rounder Brayden Point? I mean one guy produced 30+ points more than his next closest teammate last season and Ehlers didn't (and don't make me bring up his playoff stats and how 3/4 of his production was tied to Drouin).

If you don't think Jake Virtanen has skill you don't watch. Nobody passed up "skill", they passed up a smaller bodied finesse forward for a strong, fast, sniper.

Remember when you were all over Nichushkin? What do you say about him? He's basically a 2 inch taller version of the prospect you say is meat and potatoes and not skilled, and Virtanen has a much better shot and is much more likely to run you through the end boards (yes, hockey is about more than just putting up points).

Ehlers isn't faster. Jake beat him in the races at the top prospects game. Mason Raymond is just as fast or faster than Jeff Carter....who you going to battle with?

 

[Love]

Hope it's alright if I go ahead and make this thread, but I agree with others that it's not fair to clutter up prospect-specific threads with this kind of talk.

In short, I disagree with a "meat and potatoes" philosophy.

Always take the best player, not the most physical one ranked within whatever range you're picking in.

I dont think it's necessarily just about "meat and potaters".

Size is an asset to have as an NHL player and there is simply no debate about it, even if the player isnt necessarily a "meat and potaters" type.

Alex Pietrangelo is 6'3'' and over 200lbs but he's not known as a physically intimidating figure. Yet it would be incorrect to think that his size is not an asset, if he were 5'11'' and 185lbs I doubt he would be the player he is today.

I think most people here are just arguing that size = lesser bust potential strictly based on the fact that size in general is an asset that makes one a more effective hockey player. No one is saying size > skill (At least, I dont think they are), but simply that when a player has size it is just one more "plus" for them as a player over guys who dont have that advantage.

 

[PhilMick]

http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/6/8/does-size-matter-in-the-nhl-draft


I am pretty sure that NHL drafted size on average is larger than actual NHL playing size.

EDIT:

https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?...-else&tw_i=482685794331553792&tw_p=tweetembed

Interesting! Makes sense I guess, we must not be the only team taking flyers on untalented late rounders just because they have size.

 

[arsmaster*]

I wish we had drafted Subban instead of Ellington, Severson instead of Mallett, Perron instead of White.

This is just griping about drafts in general right?

It is, it makes sense to keep everything in here IMO.

Great thread, this is going to be one of the most popular threads on HFCanucks for a long time.

Antoski over Tkachuk

Nedved over Jagr

Linden over Modano/Selanne/Roenick

 

[tantalum]

I have no side in this debate but at least provide a full picture, you are cherry picking your supposed professional rankings. If sbnation can be considered a legit professional scouting source, then so can several other blog sources.

Never cherry picked a thing....I literally took the first 4 or 5 google hits and went from my memory that the more trusted sources consistently had Virtanen higher and often times considerably higher.

If I was wrong I was wrong (I personally typically go with ISS, central scouting and Bob) but either way my gripe stands. People need to quit whining about Ehlers being the far superior pick at that position when nothing supports that.

I really don't understand what is wrong with canuck fans that we just can't support the fantastic prospect they picked at #6...and he is a fantastic prospect.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I'm happy we took Virtanen over Ehlers or Nylander. I don't see why people are complaining about this. Virtanen is a great prospect in his own right.

 

[CanaFan]

Never cherry picked a thing....I literally took the first 4 or 5 google hits and went from my memory that the more trusted sources consistently had Virtanen higher and often times considerably higher.

If I was wrong I was wrong (I personally typically go with ISS, central scouting and Bob) but either way my gripe stands. People need to quit whining about Ehlers being the far superior pick at that position when nothing supports that.

I really don't understand what is wrong with canuck fans that we just can't support the fantastic prospect they picked at #6...and he is a fantastic prospect.

This is my take as well. Some people get worked up if we didn't draft the BEST player in the draft when the reality is 29 teams aren't going to draft the best player. Are NJ fans pissed that they took Parise and missed out on Getzlaf? Was Hodgson a bad pick just because Karlson turned out better? Did Columbus miss the boat by taking Voracek instead of Couture?

My judgement of the Virtanen pick will be based on how Virtanen turns out. Not Ehlers. Not Nylander. I mean, even if we take Ehlers, we are still grousing and grumbling if Nylander has a better career. Then if we take Nylander, we are unhappy if Ehlers has a better career. The odds of not getting the absolute 'best' player is extremely high and is actually the likely outcome of most picks. So in that context getting a 'very good' player should be the basis for evaluation, not necessarily how they compare to each other 5-10 years out from the draft.

 

[Phenomenon13]

Virtanen is a faster more powerful skater with better acceleration as well, both forwards and backwards.

Ehlers is probably more agile though.

You haven't debunked anything.

Who would you have drafted in 2009 - I highly doubt you weren't "all-in" on Jordan Schroeder.

Also, the much worse team excuse is an excuse. Being on teams that aren't deep afford you ice time and opportunity you don't get when you're on a team that has talent and rolls their lines. Again, you might speak like this is a fact and it very well could be a fact that Halifax is worse, but it doesn't speak to a more impressive showing. The Hitmen have 9 guys over 0.65ppg, the Mooseheads have 4.....seems one team spreads the wealth, the other doesn't.

Ehlers is a good prospect, so is Jake Virtanen. Producing 100 points in the CHL is impressive....what sets Ehlers apart from 3rd rounder Brayden Point? I mean one guy produced 30+ points more than his next closest teammate last season and Ehlers didn't (and don't make me bring up his playoff stats and how 3/4 of his production was tied to Drouin).

If you don't think Jake Virtanen has skill you don't watch. Nobody passed up "skill", they passed up a smaller bodied finesse forward for a strong, fast, sniper.

Remember when you were all over Nichushkin? What do you say about him? He's basically a 2 inch taller version of the prospect you say is meat and potatoes and not skilled, and Virtanen has a much better shot and is much more likely to run you through the end boards (yes, hockey is about more than just putting up points).

Ehlers isn't faster. Jake beat him in the races at the top prospects game. Mason Raymond is just as fast or faster than Jeff Carter....who you going to battle with?

I don't see what point you are indicating by the worse team thing when you indicate that 9 players over 0.65 ppg and 4 guys over 0.5 ppg.
Obviously a better team would be have more players producing at a higher rate. The fact that Ehlers produces more on a worse team means he has to work with crappier line mates in general. I bet that every team in hockey wants to spread the wealth and the fact that it can't and has to rely on a couple guys makes them usually means they are a one line team.

Halifax had two phenomenal talents in Drouin and Ehlers playing on different lines half of their entire ice time. Both of them broke 100 points which makes it impressive. It's similar thing to Malkin and Crosby both are phenomenal talents and can achieve 100 points and they are considered 1/2 in the world. Does that mean that for ex. Kopitar having a larger difference in points between his teammates means he was a better player?


"The majority of Ehlers' even strength offence (around 70%) also came with Drouin on the bench, so he was pretty clearly driving the bus for his line at even strength."
Ehlers had very strong production without Drouin which is why he is considered really skilled.

http://canucksarmy.com/2014/6/19/canucks-army-draft-prospect-profile-7-nikolaj-ehlers


The difference between Ehlers and Point respective draft projections and areas were that Ehlers is 5'11 and Point is 5'9. The two inches in size. Ehlers is slightly below average and Point is significantly below average. There are plenty of 5'11 players but there are almost no 5'9 players. Their projections into the NHL is a huge difference. Crosby is 5'11 and no one ever calls him too small for the league.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=164346

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=151992

Nichushkin was considered a top 5 talent in a way deeper draft. Many believed Nichushkin to be a potential franchise talent. Virtanen is not the same tier of prospect. Nichushkin is a powerforward himself, had we taken him in 13, we would not have needed a powerforward in Virtanen. Nichushkin is also bigger and would be more successful in that role of Powerforward. Virtanen's shot is good might be better than Nichushkin but Nichushkin is the more dynamic prospect.

I would have taken Nichushkin over Horvat, Nylander over Virtanen and Barbeshev over Mccann. Ehlers was my second pick.

Nichushkin-Barbeshev-Nylander > McCann-Horvat-Virtanen

Your last example is bad you are clearly not even supply the same tier of players.
Would you like to go to battle with Taylor Hall or Colin Greening?

 

[arsmaster*]

I don't see what point you are indicating by the worse team thing when you indicate that 9 players over 0.65 ppg and 4 guys over 0.5 ppg.
Obviously a better team would be have more players producing at a higher rate. The fact that Ehlers produces more on a worse team means he has to work with crappier line mates in general. I bet that every team in hockey wants to spread the wealth and the fact that it can't and has to rely on a couple guys makes them usually means they are a one line team.

That's exactly my point. The Mooseheads have solid talent, but only a few guys. They play their "one line" a lot, which is why a team that spreads their offense would have guys scoring less points.

Halifax had two phenomenal talents in Drouin and Ehlers playing on different lines half of their entire ice time. Both of them broke 100 points which makes it impressive. It's similar thing to Malkin and Crosby both are phenomenal talents and can achieve 100 points and they are considered 1/2 in the world. Does that mean that for ex. Kopitar having a larger difference in points between his teammates means he was a better player?

Half their ice-time? Ehlers took lots of shifts with Drouin. This has been discussed like crazy.

"The majority of Ehlers' even strength offence (around 70%) also came with Drouin on the bench, so he was pretty clearly driving the bus for his line at even strength."
Ehlers had very strong production without Drouin which is why he is considered really skilled.

http://canucksarmy.com/2014/6/19/canucks-army-draft-prospect-profile-7-nikolaj-ehlers

He's really skilled.

Look at his playoff stats.

Stats/production is a part of it, but scouting and projecting is about a lot more than that.

The difference between Ehlers and Point respective draft projections and areas were that Ehlers is 5'11 and Point is 5'9. The two inches in size. Ehlers is slightly below average and Point is significantly below average. There are plenty of 5'11 players but there are almost no 5'9 players. Their projections into the NHL is a huge difference. Crosby is 5'11 and no one ever calls him too small for the league.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=164346

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=151992

Hockeydb is the worst site for heights/weights.

I've got 5'10" vs 5'11" on eliteprospects which IMO is more credible.

Nichushkin was considered a top 5 talent in a way deeper draft. Many believed Nichushkin to be a potential franchise talent. Virtanen is not the same tier of prospect. Nichushkin is a powerforward himself, had we taken him in 13, we would not have needed a powerforward in Virtanen. Nichushkin is also bigger and would be more successful in that role of Powerforward. Virtanen's shot is good might be better than Nichushkin but Nichushkin is the more dynamic prospect.

You ever watched Nichushkin? His shot is average at best. He's not blowing the puck by anyone from 40 feet. His game is predicated on driving the net....Rick Nash is the stylistic comp for me.

Many people believing something doesn't make it so. Nichushkin, much like Virtanen is a specialty player. I like the guy who runs through you and can blow a puck past you from 40 feet. This isn't nich's game or skillset. He's better on the boards than Jake. Nichushkin doesn't have Malkin skill, he has Malkin size and Kessel speed....people projected those tools to be top 5 in his draft....they could be right, they could be wrong. We won't know for 5+ years.

I would have taken Nichushkin over Horvat, Nylander over Virtanen and Barbeshev over Mccann. Ehlers was my second pick.

Nichushkin-Barbeshev-Nylander > McCann-Horvat-Virtanen

Good for you. I'd have taken Shinkaruk (which looks bad now). I'd have also taken Ritchie and Barbashev also.

Why Barbashev over Scherbak for you I ask? Seems as though you're giving up skill for two-way play there.

Your last example is bad you are clearly not even supply the same tier of players.
Would you like to go to battle with Taylor Hall or Colin Greening?

Mason Raymond led the NCAA in points the year after he was drafted. Quality prospect, who IMO has the same frame/body type as Ehlers. I'd say Nylander more closely resembles Pat Kane's build for example.

I'll drop my lofty Jeff Carter to Dustin Brown then. Still rather have Brown than Raymond. Still rather Raffi Torres than Raymond too.

Not every slick junior scorer is Pat Kane, so know, I'm not going to base Ehlers or Nylander on the best players in the world at his equivalent size.