Prospect Info: Matthew Tkachuk or PL Dubois (Round 3)

[WonderTwinsUnite]

Found this on the Oilers board as I don't usually find NHL.com worth perusing.

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-draft-pierre-luc-dubois-vs-matthew-tkachuk/c-280963710

Some interesting takes from scouts on Dubois and Tkachuk. Overwhelmingly positive about both guys and generally don't see much distance between them.

Gawd, imagine if we simply drafted whichever of these guys was left at 5. It could be the first summer in recent memory where the board doesn't eat itself alive over its 1st round pick. Granted Boeser wasn't too bad but 2014 and 2013 were nightmares ...

I think everyone was actually happy with Boeser. Some might have preferred Konecny, but overall, the mood was an agreeable one.

 

[CanaFan]

I think everyone was actually happy with Boeser. Some might have preferred Konecny, but overall, the mood was an agreeable one.

Ya it wasn't bad. Some initial "who is that" and some grumbling about Konecny but as you say people came around pretty quick. Still a far cry from what I am *hoping* this draft will be, which is a unified cry of relief and joy when we simply take PLD or Tkachuk at 5. Nothing fancy, no trade downs, no reaches. Just accept the gift horse and say thanks.

 

[Shareefruck]

But you need some objective measure to form those parameters. Since there are 30 1st lines, being among the 30 best players at you position is a fairly simple and reasonable cut off for that label. That doesn't mean every team has a "1st line centre" since teams like Pittsburgh, Washington, etc have more than one. Some teams don't have a top 30 centre, which is what I would mean when I refer to someone as a 1C. When you talk about the best 5 or 10 players in the game I think you are talking about "stars", not "first liners".

It may not be 100% perfect but it makes sense to peg the term to some definable level of quality to prevent loose and arbitrary definitions that mean different things to different people.

Everybody treats this like a forgone conclusion that the appropriate and objectively right way to use the term 1st liner is to assume that there are 30 in the league, and the 30th best qualifies, but I think there's a very strong argument to be made that when speaking about someone being a first liner, the correct assumption to make is that you're talking about a typical, average, median 1st liner, which would be the 15th best in the position or higher.

 

[WonderTwinsUnite]

Ya it wasn't bad. Some initial "who is that" and some grumbling about Konecny but as you say people came around pretty quick. Still a far cry from what I am *hoping* this draft will be, which is a unified cry of relief and joy when we simply take PLD or Tkachuk at 5. Nothing fancy, no trade downs, no reaches. Just accept the gift horse and say thanks.

On that, I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[CanaFan]

Everybody treats this like a forgone conclusion that the appropriate and objectively right way to use the term 1st liner is to assume that there are 30 in the league, and the 30th best qualifies, but I think there's a very strong argument to be made that when speaking about someone being a first liner, the correct assumption to make is that you're talking about a typical, average, median 1st liner, which would be the 15th best in the position or higher.

No because that would require a qualifier like "average first liner" or "above average top liner".

The term "first liner" is a general measure of quality. It doesn't specify if the player is an elite 1st liner, an average 1st liner, or a low end 1st liner. It just means you are of approximately comensurate value to a player who can play on a 1st line. In a 30 team league, it is a reasonable assumption that means one of the 30 best players. If you want to indicate something of a higher quality, then you need to add the appropriate qualifier.

Just like if you say someone is "over 6 feet" you can't say that means 6'6 or taller just because that is the mid-point. By the same turn a "1st liner" necessarily has to include low end ones as well as high end ones, unless you specify further.

 

[Shareefruck]

No because that would require a qualifier like "average first liner" or "above average top liner".

The term "first liner" is a general measure of quality. It doesn't specify if the player is an elite 1st liner, an average 1st liner, or a low end 1st liner. It just means you are of approximately comensurate value to a player who can play on a 1st line. In a 30 team league, it is a reasonable assumption that means one of the 30 best players. If you want to indicate something of a higher quality, then you need to add the appropriate qualifier.

Just like if you say someone is "over 6 feet" you can't say that means 6'6 or taller just because that is the mid-point. By the same turn a "1st liner" necessarily has to include low end ones as well as high end ones, unless you specify further.

It depends on if you're using the term as a qualitative label or a quantitative measurement though. A 1st liner is an entity with its own connotations rather than purely just a numerical measurement-- it's someone who can be relied on to carry offense on the front lines. You do not need to go out of your way to point out that qualifier in order for the assumption to be received.

If you tell someone that you think they're good enough to become a cook or a lawyer, or a doctor, or an artist, the way language generally works is that it's reasonably assumed that you're talking about a competent, respectable cook or lawyer or doctor or artist, and not one that barely meets the technical requirements, and doesn't hold up to the actual standard.

I'm not saying this is necessarily the objective, enforceable right way to look at it and the other way is wrong, but I think there is a very reasonable argument to look at it in either direction.

It isn't exactly the same thing as "over 6 feet" because that's a description of an exact measurement. The connotations between calling someone a top 30 center and a 1st line center are slightly different-- one is clear-cut and undeniable and the other isn't quite as absolute.

Particularly considering the context of what we're discussing here, it's very reasonable to assume that when a hockey fan is talking about a player projecting to be a 1st liner, they're talking about someone that they could reasonably actually want on their first line, rather than someone who would be frustrating to have on the first line. I mean, you're a hockey fan, seeing if you can get a 1st liner, in order to compete. I think it's pretty obvious that that's the actual message.

I think there's such a thing as an overly pedantic and literal when approaching discourse, and this seems like one of those cases to me.

 

[CanaFan]

It depends on if you're using the term as a qualitative label or a quantitative measurement though. A 1st liner is an entity with its own connotations rather than purely just a numerical measurement-- it's someone who can be relied on to carry offense on the front lines. You do not need to go out of your way to point out that qualifier in order for the assumption to be received.

If you tell someone that you think they're good enough to become a cook or a lawyer, or a doctor, or an artist, the way language generally works is that it's reasonably assumed that you're talking about a competent, respectable cook or lawyer or doctor or artist, and not one that barely meets the technical requirements, and doesn't hold up to the actual standard.

I'm not saying this is necessarily the objective, enforceable right way to look at it and the other way is wrong, but I think there is a very reasonable argument to look at it in either direction.

It isn't exactly the same thing as "over 6 feet" because that's a description of an exact measurement. The connotations between calling someone a top 30 center and a 1st line center are slightly different-- one is clear-cut and undeniable and the other isn't quite as absolute.

Particularly considering the context of what we're discussing here, it's very reasonable to assume that when a hockey fan is talking about a player projecting to be a 1st liner, they're talking about someone that they could reasonably actually want on their first line, rather than someone who would be frustrating to have on the first line. I mean, you're a hockey fan, seeing if you can get a 1st liner, in order to compete. I think it's pretty obvious that that's the actual message.

I think there's such a thing as an overly pedantic manner of approaching discourse, and this may be it.

Bolded may be true but it's the doldrums of summer so I'm good with it

As for your Lawyer analogy, technically saying someone is a Lawyer does simply mean they meet at least the minimum criteria required to earn the designation. It doesn't mean they aren't crooked or terrible, simply that they are a Lawyer. That said there are standards and oversight that would support your assumption that they aren't terrible or crooked. Just like calling someone a 1st liner, it simply means they meet the minimum criteria of a 1st liner and are in fact not a 2nd liner or 3rd liner in terms of their relative production level.

If you want it to mean more, then you need to qualify it by saying a high-end 1st liner / Lawyer. After all, if the 30th scoring Centre in the league doesn't meet your definition of a 1st liner, then what do you call them? A 2nd liner? Which isn't correct either, so the most correct label is to still call them a 1st liner.

 

[Verviticus]

shareefruck I agree with you I think 99% of the time, but in this case I think the flaw is in the term "1st line centre" and that its just an inadequate paradigm for most of these convos

I'm on my phone so **** quoting, but cana's unusally incisive point: if #30 isn't a 1st liner, what is he? perfectly expresses what I mean

 

[Proto]

The problem is that Benning likes bad hockey players, so his version of getting the doors blown off is probably a grotesque horrorshow

 

[TruGr1t]

Found this on the Oilers board as I don't usually find NHL.com worth perusing.

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-draft-pierre-luc-dubois-vs-matthew-tkachuk/c-280963710

Some interesting takes from scouts on Dubois and Tkachuk. Overwhelmingly positive about both guys and generally don't see much distance between them.

Gawd, imagine if we simply drafted whichever of these guys was left at 5. It could be the first summer in recent memory where the board doesn't eat itself alive over its 1st round pick. Granted Boeser wasn't too bad but 2014 and 2013 were nightmares ...

Maybe it's just me, but reading this it seems like the majority like Tkachuk better due to the fact he has a higher offensive upside.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Maybe it's just me, but reading this it seems like the majority like Tkachuk better due to the fact he has a higher offensive upside.

Tkachuk is the sure thing. Dubois is considered to have a higher potential ceiling, but more variance (possibly a lot more, depending on how much stock you put in the whole "QMJHL stats are inflated" business).

If you wanted to rank the three possible Canucks picks (barring Benning shenanigans), Tkachuk would be the surest bet and the closest to "What you see is what you get", Dubois would be slightly higher risk/ceiling, and Brown would have the highest potential ceiling accompanied by the highest potential risk.

So if you just want to come away comfortable you've got a blue chip prospect in your bag, you take Tkachuk. If you want to roll some dice, you take Dubois. If you want to swing for the fences, you take Brown.

 

[Proto]

Tkachuk is the sure thing. Dubois is considered to have a higher potential ceiling, but more variance (possibly a lot more, depending on how much stock you put in the whole "QMJHL stats are inflated" business).

QMJHL is a lower scoring league than the OHL, which is where stats are likely inflated at the moment. I'd also wager there is a bit more talk about Tkachuk's stats and whether they're inflated.

I'm far from a prospect expert, but Dubois seems like a relatively safe bet to have an NHL career (size, skating, defensive acumen, etc.). I think most of his variance is in the likelihood of whether he's an impact player.

 

[lawrence]

Tkachuk is the sure thing. Dubois is considered to have a higher potential ceiling, but more variance (possibly a lot more, depending on how much stock you put in the whole "QMJHL stats are inflated" business).

If you wanted to rank the three possible Canucks picks (barring Benning shenanigans), Tkachuk would be the surest bet and the closest to "What you see is what you get", Dubois would be slightly higher risk/ceiling, and Brown would have the highest potential ceiling accompanied by the highest potential risk.

So if you just want to come away comfortable you've got a blue chip prospect in your bag, you take Tkachuk. If you want to roll some dice, you take Dubois. If you want to swing for the fences, you take Brown.

exactly. I always found Dubois is a "harder" read. Tkachuk is going to be at least a puck possession player that is strong with the puck, good offensive vision, good offensive positioning, a gritty in your face guy that will not be afraid when lined up against the Chara's and bigger meaner guys. also brings value if he doesn't score.

 

[lawrence]

exactly. I always found Dubois is a "harder" read. Tkachuk is going to be at least a puck possession player that is strong with the puck, good offensive vision, good offensive positioning, a gritty in your face guy that will not be afraid when lined up against the Chara's and bigger meaner guys. also brings value if he doesn't score.

and this is also why my pick was Tkachuk the second time around. We also can use "left winger" that said will be delighted with Dubois too.

 

[CanaFan]

Maybe it's just me, but reading this it seems like the majority like Tkachuk better due to the fact he has a higher offensive upside.

That's how I see it too. If I was to break down the two players, I would say Tkachuk has a better chance of being a more productive scorer in the offensive zone than Dubois. His vision and passing in heavy traffic borders on elite, his puckhandling in tight and overall is better than Dubois', and his finish around the net seems to be a bit higher, esp his ability to get tips and deflections.

Dubois seems to have good offensive skills and I like his projection at the NHL level, but I don't think he is as "naturally" gifted as Tkachuk, esp around his vision and quick decision making. Which isn't to say Dubois doesn't also have good vision and hockey sense - he certainly does - but it doesn't look to be at Tkachuk's level.

But where Dubois makes up ground is on 3 things: 1) His skating is much better in terms of acceleration and top end speed, meaning he can transition from offense to defense and back again much better. I've read that Tkachuk cheats a lot defensively and that was apparent in the OHL finals and Mem Cup, though some of that was likely made worse by the ankle sprain; 2) His overall attention to detail. Related to the above, Dubois competes hard in all 3 zones from what I've seen. Defensive, Neutral zone, and Offensive zone he covers a lot of ground and works extremely hard. Tkachuk is less ... dedicated in the defensive zone and usually is already at the other team's blue line while Marner or Dvorak are bringing the puck through the neutral zone. This devalues his game a little. 3) Ability to play centre. Fair or unfair, there is a premium put on players who can play the middle and handle both the offensive and defensive roles that come with that. As a pure winger, Tkachuk loses a bit of ground when compared to a potential centre in Dubois.

So each player brings their own strengths and not-as-much-strengths to the table and the net result seems to be almost a tie for most scouts. Which is good news for us, since whichever one remains at 5 is likely nearly as good as the one that gets taken before us, in which case we can't lose really.

 

[ahmon]

That's how I see it too. If I was to break down the two players, I would say Tkachuk has a better chance of being a more productive scorer in the offensive zone than Dubois. His vision and passing in heavy traffic borders on elite, his puckhandling in tight and overall is better than Dubois', and his finish around the net seems to be a bit higher, esp his ability to get tips and deflections.

Dubois seems to have good offensive skills and I like his projection at the NHL level, but I don't think he is as "naturally" gifted as Tkachuk, esp around his vision and quick decision making. Which isn't to say Dubois doesn't also have good vision and hockey sense - he certainly does - but it doesn't look to be at Tkachuk's level.

But where Dubois makes up ground is on 3 things: 1) His skating is much better in terms of acceleration and top end speed, meaning he can transition from offense to defense and back again much better. I've read that Tkachuk cheats a lot defensively and that was apparent in the OHL finals and Mem Cup, though some of that was likely made worse by the ankle sprain; 2) His overall attention to detail. Related to the above, Dubois competes hard in all 3 zones from what I've seen. Defensive, Neutral zone, and Offensive zone he covers a lot of ground and works extremely hard. Tkachuk is less ... dedicated in the defensive zone and usually is already at the other team's blue line while Marner or Dvorak are bringing the puck through the neutral zone. This devalues his game a little. 3) Ability to play centre. Fair or unfair, there is a premium put on players who can play the middle and handle both the offensive and defensive roles that come with that. As a pure winger, Tkachuk loses a bit of ground when compared to a potential centre in Dubois.

So each player brings their own strengths and not-as-much-strengths to the table and the net result seems to be almost a tie for most scouts. Which is good news for us, since whichever one remains at 5 is likely nearly as good as the one that gets taken before us, in which case we can't lose really.

That's a good summary of these two prospects.

Although I would say the strengths of Tkachuk's vision, decision making are more "innate" while the speed/defensive advantage of Dubois are probably easier to learn or improve upon.

Hence why I've had Tkachuk rated higher than Dubois since day 1.

 

[CanaFan]

That's a good summary of these two prospects.

Although I would say the strengths of Tkachuk's vision, decision making are more "innate" while the speed/defensive advantage of Dubois are probably easier to learn or improve upon.

Hence why I've had Tkachuk rated higher than Dubois since day 1.

That's fair. I agree Tkachuk's offense comes more 'naturally' to him while Dubois' will come through a combination of his innate skill plus his high work ethic. And certainly Tkachuk can improve his game in those areas however I am not sure he'll ever get to the level that Dubois can. But no argument that it is the more 'improvable' of the two.

 

[Nuckles]

I guess that answers our question of what position Dubois would play here.

 

[CanaFan]

I guess that answers our question of what position Dubois would play here.

Foundational eh? So he thinks they could be at least as good as a 30-point defensive centre then. Nice.

 

[Bad News Benning]

Foundational eh? So he thinks they could be at least as good as a 30-point defensive centre then. Nice.

you could easily write a book of Benningisms

 

[ItsAllPartOfThePlan]

Foundational eh? So he thinks they could be at least as good as a 30-point defensive centre then. Nice.

What an insult to Steel Oats.

 

[CanaFan]

What an insult to Steel Oats.

Hehe, 'Steel Cut'. So good

 

[TruGr1t]

Foundational eh? So he thinks they could be at least as good as a 30-point defensive centre then. Nice.

Hah, yes! Draft more foundational Sutters.

On a more serious note, at least he recognizes we should be picking one of these guys.

 

[SvenBaertschi]

I guess that answers our question of what position Dubois would play here.

End thread/ Benning sees PLD as a center so if he had a choice he would take PLD. I'm still enamored with Tkachuk though.

 

[CanaFan]

End thread/ Benning sees PLD as a center so if he had a choice he would take PLD. I'm still enamored with Tkachuk though.

I've never been too worried that Benning would pass on Dubois at 5, but rather that he would pass on Tkachuk if Dubois were gone. While Dubois is my preference, I'd take Tkachuk by a wide margin over anyone else that would be there.