Prospect Info: Matthew Tkachuk or PL Dubois ~ Round 4: Thread closes after selection (CHECK OP)

[Raistlin]

If Jim truly believes that the defenceman is a "possible first-pairing, #2 defenceman but a guaranteed second-pairing defenceman," why would he prefer that player over two players he believes are first-line forwards? I don't buy it. The first person he listens to when he evaluates amateur talent is himself.

Defencemen also take longer to develop than forwards. If he wants to see his player join the Canucks' lineup soon, he'll take a forward. He already addressed the need on defence by trading away his forward prospect.

From your quote he is saying that Juo could be a first pairing #2 though. Some people could value a Tanev over a Landeskog for instance....

 

[Scygen]

trading for Subban sounds like a bad idea.. as it would most likely cost us Horvat and the 5th. Don't think we can afford that. Benning has had enough good things to say about Tkachuk that if Dubois is taken 4th, I'm confident we will take Tkachuk instead and be just as happy.

 

[oceanchild]

I think we get Puljujarvi at 5.

#3 is Dubois
#4 Tkachuk

 

[JA]

From your quote he is saying that Juo could be a first pairing #2 though. Some people could value a Tanev over a Landeskog for instance....

Do you see Juolevi as a Tanev equivalent, and Tkachuk/Dubois as Landeskog equivalents?

The best-case scenario for Juolevi is for him to a top-pairing defenceman, but he is more likely to become a second-pairing defenceman. Tkachuk and Dubois are both first-line players with high-end offensive ability.

Gabriel Landeskog scored 66 points in 53 games in his draft year in the OHL and was billed as a physically-mature, two-way player. I don't see him as someone who can carry the offense on his line. He is a fringe first-line player, in my opinion. He is probably better suited as a second-line player on a competitive team.

 

[CanaFan]

Dude, every fibre of me wants that to be the case. I really wish he didn't have a change of heart between then and now. Simple Jim is easy to be blinded by the organisational need of a bluechip Dman.

As much as I disliked the trade, I do think McCann-for-Gudbranson lessens the "need" to draft and develop a potential top 4 D and increases the need for a potential top line F.

I mean we currently have Tanev (26), Gudbranson (24), and Hutton (22) who project as 3/4 of a good-not-great D core. Plus Edler at 30 should be good for another 3-4 years before a sharp decline can be expected and Tryamkin (21) has very good potential as a top 4 D as well.

Outside of drafting a clear cut stud #1D a la Ekblad, Doughty, or Hedman I think our need to add another #2-3 to that mix is fairly low actually.

On the other hand our first line consists of ...

2x 36 year olds who have 2 years left in their contracts

A career 3rd liner who broke the 20 goal plateau for the first time ever at age 30

We also have a nice prospect who just finished his Freshman year of college.

Even if it's not a Centre I'd suggest adding ANY potential top line F prospect to our system should be a priority.

We may have drafted wingers recently but I don't see how that really changes the fact that we don't have much in the way of future FIRST line talents anywhere on our team or in our system.

 

[CanaFan]

Do you see Juolevi as a Tanev equivalent, and Tkachuk/Dubois as Landeskog equivalents?

The best-case scenario for Juolevi is for him to a top-pairing defenceman, but he is more likely to become a second-pairing defenceman. Tkachuk and Dubois are both first-line players with high-end offensive ability.

Gabriel Landeskog scored 66 points in 53 games in his draft year in the OHL and was billed as a physically-mature, two-way player. I don't see him as someone who can carry the offense on his line.

2011 was generally a down year for talent with RNH and Landeskog two of the more "pedestrian" #1 and #2 picks in recent years. Landeskog does have a great all-around game so that gives him value well above his scoring numbers, but I think even as a lower pick in this draft Tkachuk has better offensive upside than Landeskog (though not as complete in the rest of his game).

 

[McHortton]

As much as I disliked the trade, I do think McCann-for-Gudbranson lessens the "need" to draft and develop a potential top 4 D and increases the need for a potential top line F.

I mean we currently have Tanev (26), Gudbranson (24), and Hutton (22) who project as 3/4 of a good-not-great D core. Plus Edler at 30 should be good for another 3-4 years before a sharp decline can be expected and Tryamkin (21) has very good potential as a top 4 D as well.

Outside of drafting a clear cut stud #1D a la Ekblad, Doughty, or Hedman I think our need to add another #2-3 to that mix is fairly low actually.

On the other hand our first line consists of ...

2x 36 year olds who have 2 years left in their contracts

A career 3rd liner who broke the 20 goal plateau for the first time ever at age 30

We also have a nice prospect who just finished his Freshman year of college.

Even if it's not a Centre I'd suggest adding ANY potential top line F prospect to our system should be a priority.

We may have drafted wingers recently but I don't see how that really changes the fact that we don't have much in the way of future FIRST line talents anywhere on our team or in our system.

This is my thinking every year. However it's mostly because there's a decent chance that you find those #3/4 dmen in the 2nd round+ , unfortunately we don't possess a 2nd.

Either way I've had Dubois as my choice for the most part of the year, teetered between him and Tkachuk for awhile there but I think I've been locked into to Dubois ever since his coach said that he's better than Giroux (who he coached as well).

 

[Grub]

Round 4 sees Dubois taking the lead by a very large margin.

 

[Emerz]

http://leafshub.com/pierre-luc-dubois-a-story-from-home/

 

[GPNuck]

I want Dubois huge, fast and mean. Will be perfectly fine with Tkachuk as well though.. One more ****ing sleep !

 

[Nick Lang]

From your quote he is saying that Juo could be a first pairing #2 though. Some people could value a Tanev over a Landeskog for instance....

That seems like an insane stretch that only a Canuck fan could conceive of. Seriously Tanev is good but that's quite ridiculous.

 

[thefeebster]

http://leafshub.com/pierre-luc-dubois-a-story-from-home/

Stuff like this makes me get attached to the player... whenever that happens, it means we won't get him.

 

[WonderTwinsUnite]

Stuff like this makes me get attached to the player... whenever that happens, it means we won't get him.

I've had him at three for a long time now - when Tkachuk was rising after his Memorial Cup run, I thought that maybe, just this time, the Hockey Gods might let us have this one. Looking more and more unlikely now.

 

[Raistlin]

That seems like an insane stretch that only a Canuck fan could conceive of. Seriously Tanev is good but that's quite ridiculous.

I think you underrate Tanev. Its tough to compare, but Landeskog is not that much better than Tanev, both have potential to shape a series.

Jets, I view Juolevi more like a Brodie given more time to think about it. Dubois.... I don't want to say baby Benn like all the scouts, but yeah the size strength meanstreak does remind me of Landeskog but with more motor and offensive instincts. and I always compared Tkachuk to a more offensive Deadmarsh.

 

[The Stig]

Me every time an alert goes off on my phone between now and the draft

 

[NeoCanuck]

Over/under:

I dress up completely in various kinds of meat and potatoes tomorrow, drive over to Rogers Arena and I immediately become a millionaire.

 

[Nick Lang]

I think you underrate Tanev. Its tough to compare, but Landeskog is not that much better than Tanev, both have potential to shape a series.

Jets, I view Juolevi more like a Brodie given more time to think about it. Dubois.... I don't want to say baby Benn like all the scouts, but yeah the size strength meanstreak does remind me of Landeskog but with more motor and offensive instincts. and I always compared Tkachuk to a more offensive Deadmarsh.

I like the comparisons, they are all great players, with Brodie a little behind.

With regards to the other issue Landeskog has 65, 55, 53 points in 3 NHL years. He is also a leader and a defensive specialist. Pretty damn good, I would guess that's close to top 25 in the league for points in the last 3 years, maybe better?

Tanev, while awesome and improving every day has yet to add an offensive element, or style that actually threatens other teams defensively. I have high hopes though but in my opinion that comparison is crazy. No offense.

Edit:
So it's 34th for forwards in the NHL for Landeskog, 238 gp - 177 pts, and 93rd for Tanev for dmen, 205 gp - 55 pts. He still has supreme accumen and pedigree.

 

[WonderTwinsUnite]

I like the comparisons, they are all great players, with Brodie a little behind.

With regards to the other issue Landeskog has 65, 55, 53 points in 3 NHL years. He is also a leader and a defensive specialist. Pretty damn good, I would guess that's close to top 25 in the league for points in the last 3 years, maybe better?

Tanev, while awesome and improving every day has yet to add an offensive element, or style that actually threatens other teams defensively. I have high hopes though but in my opinion that comparison is crazy. No offense.

Edit:
So it's 34th for forwards in the NHL for Landeskog, 238 gp - 177 pts, and 93rd for Tanev for dmen, 205 gp - 55 pts. He still has supreme accumen and pedigree.

Can you explain exactly what you mean by that, especially within the context of Landeskog as a hockey player? In which way does his "accumen and pedigree" help him on the ice? Genuinely curious.

 

[WTG]

Just so that that there is no confusion.

This thread will close once our selection is made. All talk about who we should pick/opinions on the pick should go into the draft GDT linked below. The reasoning behind the thread closing is that we want to centralize the discussion making it easier to moderate.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2095047

 

[DCantheDDad]

Honestly I would be very happy with either, but man, I really would prefer both

 

[F A N]

I have finally made up my kind lol. I hope the Canucks get Dubois. Dubois's better skating and potential ability to play centre and impact the game in all zones seems like a natural fit for this team. The Canucks are building a team that can play a heavy game. Horvat, Virtanen, Boeser, and Dubois in the top 6 gives the team plenty of size. And extra points for Dubois being a good Canadian kid who is just an outstanding person. With guys like Horvat, Dubois, and Gudbranson in the room there is going to be plenty of young leadership.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

I think we get Puljujarvi at 5.

#3 is Dubois
#4 Tkachuk

I will do backflips down Robson if this happens

 

[oceanchild]

I will do backflips down Robson if this happens

Start doing your stretches.

 

[Desai87]

I played mainly center coming down the stretch and in the playoffs. I think I’ll be a center, I like to play there. I can use my body down low in the defensive zone and win battles to break us out, so I like the middle that way. But I’ll play left wing, right wing, whatever. There’s a responsibility playing center though and I enjoy it.

PLD on playing C.

 

[CherryToke]

I can't see Edmonton passing on Puljujarvi if he falls to 4. They are weak on RW and he could step in immediately to play with McDavid.