Prospect Info: Matthew Tkachuk or PL Dubois

[F A N]

An interesting question, but I'm not sure it has the affect you'd want. I'm pretty sure in the many draft gripe discussions we've had on here, that we proved following central scouting's NA list led to better results than the Canucks have over the past 12-15 years.

Cherry picking one player and bust? What about all the ones they've gotten right?

I've only read that the Canucks were better off picking the highest scoring CHL player available and not following the central scouting's NA list. If you were to follow central scouting's NA list this season it would mean drafting Dubois ahead of Matthews and Laine. Besides, just because a team would have been better off following Central Scouting or some draft guide's rankings doesn't mean that following them was the right thing to do. It only highlights the team's bad scouting history.

Well in part because scouting extends beyond the first round, so unless you plan to have a top 5 pick every year it's probably a good idea to invest in a scouting staff.

That doesn't follow. Central Scouting's list is extensive. If you are to rely on them for a top 5 pick why not others?

And I'm not sure I get your point with Filitov. Are you saying it's because he "busted" (didn't really but for argument sake let's say he did)? ANY player *can* bust, no amount of scouting will ever change that. I mean Columbus obviously DID scout Filatov extensively with their own scouting staff and yet the results are, as you say, a bust nonetheless.

You don't think Filitov busted? My point is that Filatov was the consensus top 5 pick. Top 3 actually and was the #1 ranked European skater according to Central Scouting (which you place a reliance on or does that only apply to NA rankings?) But he was considered a faller in the draft (perhaps there' s a good reason?). Columbus' drafting wasn't good that was a big reason they made a GM change. Central Scouting rankings doesn't really mean much. Schroeder was ranked #5 among NA skaters yet he fell to the Canucks. Clearly team's own scouting matters more.

I'm arguing that Dubois doesn't represent an "extra" risk due to the Canucks poor record in the Q because those picks were largely "guesses" anyway. Brandon Reid, Alex Mallet, etc were all 95% likely to bust in the first place. I mean do you think Reid would have made the NHL if he'd been picked out of the WHL instead of the Q? He was a 5'9 skilled centre who just didn't pan out. NHL is littered with those, not just Vancouver.

I don't disagree since I think things are different with Benning at the helm and the scouting changes that have been implement. I'm not sure Mallet was a "guess" and there was a 95% likelihood that he would bust. That seems to be a criticism of Gillis and the scouts he relied on.

But how many 6'2 skilled centres scoring nearly 100 points and rated no. 1 in NA by CSS have we drafted from the Q in our history?

Because if you can show me a trail of busts that look like that then I'll agree with you that we should avoid the Q like the plague.

Otherwise don't use Brandon Reid and Alex Mallet to prop up an argument against Dubois, as it just makes no sense.

I think you confused me with another poster. In fact in the post you quoted me, I said "Well the Canucks' two QMJHL picks last season look promising. The Canucks also made scouting changes this season with Brackett replacing Crawford" in response to RJL saying "Our drafting from the Q has been bad. I don't know if there is any reason to believe that our scouting of that league is any better than it has been."

For what it's worth, Gillis and Crawford believes that OHL > QMJHL. Benning seems to scout the player and not rely on "odds".

 

[Icebreakers]

top 5 picks from the q have been panning out. Heck even top 10 picks

Top 10 picks from the q from past 8 years

Huberdeau
Couturier
Drouin
Mackinnon
Ehlers


Id include Meier but its too early for him as he hasnt played in the NHL.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I wouldn't put much stock in the Sekeres rumour. Guy throws a lot of **** against the wall .

Not liking that Sekeras rumor much. Would be a mistake to pass on an elite producing prospect just because he's a pure winger to move down for a D. .

It could be brushed off, but then there's this earlier information from Duplo:

Hey guys,

I know how much you LOVE unsolicited rumours, but everything Benning said in that interview reaffirmed what my friend told me. Take it or leave it, but my friend is a reputable source who works in the industry. If you look at my post history, I've never put anything out there like this and I generally try to avoid attention.

Here's the deets I was given yesterday:

- Benning and the gang are all about drafting a centre or a d-man. They don't care about wingers at all.

- That being said, the big three is the big three. They won't hesitate to draft any of those three if they're lucky enough to. Here's the thing though. There's an outside chance they'd take Puljujärvi over Laine, but it's doubtful. The reason is they could try and convert Pulju as a centre.

- It's the same reason they definitively like Dubois at the 4 spot. They'd want to develop him as a centre.

- What's SUPER NOT COOL is that after that, they're all about a d-man. Juolevi is their guy right now, followed by Sergachev. He said he's 90% sure they'd take Juolevi at 6, with a strong chance of reaching even further and taking him if they draft at 5. I hope he's wrong, but as of now they're saying that's where they're leaning.

Could these rumours be coming from the same source? They align in that the C and D positions are targeted. Wingers ignored.

Yet, both of these contradict Benning's latest TSN1040 interview.

Confusing.

 

[yoss]

^ well i guess it's good to be prepared for any possible colossal blunders scenarios playing out which honestly would not surprise me.

Maybe Weisbrod is keen on putting his stamp on the draft and talking them into something.

Who knows, maybe they're right to take a defensemen? what do i know of the prospects really. I will be pissed if they reach for a guy at 5 nonetheless. Plus side, quicker mgmt is gone if it backfires. Which would be small comfort come draft day should it go down.

Hopefully whoever ends up with 4th oa takes Tkachuk so it won't be an issue. Not to say whether that is likely or not.

 

[Jay Cee]

I think Weisbrod is always really heavily involved in the team's scouting.

Also guys watch out it starts to get personal around here when you disagree with certain people's choices for the Canucks pick.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

"he's a highly explosive defenseman who can skate like the wind"

Every memory I have of Murzyn involves him trying to skate with a piano attached to his ass.

Dana was good his first year here than lost a step and was terrible for most of the rest of his time here. That scoring report is unbelievable he was never fast shows how junior hockey could be misread. Hope our number 5 pick is a bit more dynamic than he was.

 

[Josepho]

Could these rumours be coming from the same source? They align in that the C and D positions are targeted. Wingers ignored.

Yet, both of these contradict Benning's latest TSN1040 interview.

Confusing.

The same guy also said this after Benning's comments.

Yeah, Benning has NO filter. I'm usually pretty annoyed by it, but it was a relief hearing it in this particular instance.

 

[thepuckmonster]

It could be brushed off, but then there's this earlier information from Duplo:






Could these rumours be coming from the same source? They align in that the C and D positions are targeted. Wingers ignored.

Yet, both of these contradict Benning's latest TSN1040 interview.

Confusing.

I would probably listen to the words that come out of someone's mouth rather than things that can be easily fabricated on the Internet. Correlation =/= causation, the only people saying Benning is thinking D are anyone but himself. It's such a half assed attempt to seem connected, "Vancouver needs defensemen ergo I will assume Benning will draft one!"

He's said he doesn't see any #1D potential in this draft worth taking high, said they will take top line talent as a priority and has spoken highly of both Tkachuk and Dubois. Since everyone believes Benning is incapable of smoke screening I would probably go with what he says over Internet and media rumours made to illicit response.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

It could be brushed off, but then there's this earlier information from Duplo:

Could these rumours be coming from the same source? They align in that the C and D positions are targeted. Wingers ignored.

Yet, both of these contradict Benning's latest TSN1040 interview.

Confusing.

Do they really contradict his interview? I think his interview statements have been taken out of context.

 

[Josepho]

Do they really contradict his interview? I think his interview statements have been taken out of context.

(Paraphrased)

"If there's a top line forward and top pair defenceman available we're taking the forward"

"No real 1D in the draft, Tkachuk and Dubois are 1st line potential."

"Fair to say we take Dubois/Tkachuk at 5"

I dont think anything is out of context here.

 

[CanaFan]

That doesn't follow. Central Scouting's list is extensive. If you are to rely on them for a top 5 pick why not others?

Variability. CSS's list will closely align with every other team and scouting service's list at the top and begin to diverge heavily as it progresses into the later rounds. Early on the draft has an element of science and reliability to it. Later in the draft it is most guesswork and taking a chance. Alex Edler wasn't even ranked in 2004 yet our scout (and Detroit's) found him and the rest is history.

If Toronto didn't have a single scout on their payroll do you think they wouldn't know to take Matthews or Laine first? With a high pick, your GM or AGM can do the scouting for you. These kids at the top of the draft are so polished and well known that you can just tell that they are future NHLers. But some 155 kid in the Russian junior league who might turn out to be the next Datsyuk or the next nobody? You'd better have your own people with their own eye for talent on that.

You don't think Filitov busted?

Not really. He just ran back to Russia. Probably could still have played in the NHL but we'll never know because he didn't stick it out. Part of the reasons Gillis and others soured on Russian and KHL draftees.

My point is that Filatov was the consensus top 5 pick. Top 3 actually and was the #1 ranked European skater according to Central Scouting (which you place a reliance on or does that only apply to NA rankings?) But he was considered a faller in the draft (perhaps there' s a good reason?). Columbus' drafting wasn't good that was a big reason they made a GM change. Central Scouting rankings doesn't really mean much. Schroeder was ranked #5 among NA skaters yet he fell to the Canucks. Clearly team's own scouting matters more.

What about Mark Jankowski? Or Thomas Hickey? Or any of the other guys that teams drafted higher than their CSS ranking who busted or at least proved not worthy of the reach? Does that not "prove" the opposite of your examples? That teams scouts are just as capable of being wrong as CSS? We can both cherry pick examples but all it does is show that no one is right all the time.

Besides I'm not talking about a Schroader or a kid who gets homesick for borscht and cabbage. I'm talking about a kid who plays in a Canadian league and who will not run away to another country nor is a 5'9 who was a risky pick in the first place. You can just look at Dubois, his numbers, and talk to other people who've watched him to know he is a worthwhile pick at 5. There's no voodoo or guesswork here, he is clearly an NHL talent. Yes he may bust, but that can happen with extensive scouting just as well as with little. The future is fuzzy for almost all players outside of McDavid.

I don't disagree since I think things are different with Benning at the helm and the scouting changes that have been implement. I'm not sure Mallet was a "guess" and there was a 95% likelihood that he would bust. That seems to be a criticism of Gillis and the scouts he relied on.

Mallet was a reach the moment he was drafted. A draft+2 player who put up his first decent production in the year Gillis took him. I don't know where CSS ranked him but clearly it was a case of Gillis thinking he knew something no one else did. Turned out he was wrong.

I think you confused me with another poster. In fact in the post you quoted me, I said "Well the Canucks' two QMJHL picks last season look promising. The Canucks also made scouting changes this season with Brackett replacing Crawford" in response to RJL saying "Our drafting from the Q has been bad. I don't know if there is any reason to believe that our scouting of that league is any better than it has been."

Fair enough. I lose track of posters when the conversation extends for a while. My apologies. Sounds like we agree on the basic premise that there is no need to avoid the Q due to past track record. And that was my only point about not really needing our Q scouts to make a call on Dubois. For lower ranked prospects then sure, there is more to see and project. But Dubois is widely seen and known, there isn't much "personal insight" that a Vancouver scout could glean that every other scout that has seen him hasn't already gleaned.

For what it's worth, Gillis and Crawford believes that OHL > QMJHL. Benning seems to scout the player and not rely on "odds".

Which is smart I agree.

 

[CanaFan]

Do they really contradict his interview? I think his interview statements have been taken out of context.

Well his interview can be read word for word so the context is at least known as is his exact response. Duplo's source is heavily paraphrased even if it is true, ditto for Sekeras. Sekeras also has long argued that the team needs to take a D and has stated it numerous times on his show. His objectivity is suspect in this matter.

Also there is the Benning interview in the Sun last week where he clearly states a top line F > top pair D. He doesn't say "centre", he says "forward".

 

[thefeebster]

I've only read that the Canucks were better off picking the highest scoring CHL player available and not following the central scouting's NA list. If you were to follow central scouting's NA list this season it would mean drafting Dubois ahead of Matthews and Laine. Besides, just because a team would have been better off following Central Scouting or some draft guide's rankings doesn't mean that following them was the right thing to do. It only highlights the team's bad scouting history.

But if the team would have been better off and more successful following a 3rd party list than their own eyes, wouldn't it be the better thing to do at a certain point? That Einstein's definition of insanity may apply here.

I think Weisbrod is always really heavily involved in the team's scouting.

Also guys watch out it starts to get personal around here when you disagree with certain people's choices for the Canucks pick.

Still salty about getting called out, i see.

Let's go back down memory lane. You were very negative regarding Ehlers pre-draft, comparing him to Brandon Reid, then did a 180 and pulled the victim card out when labelled as a guy who didn't like Ehlers, which was the only conclusion we could come to because of your comments pre-draft. This was no disagreement about who should have been taken in 2014, only disagreement about pulling out the victim card. I think anyone could have made a good argument for at least 4 players in our spot and that was evidenced with the record number of threads regarding the 6th overall pick.

My issue with dwarf has nothing to do with player choice, everyone can have their own opinion. I think there is a good argument to be had for Tkachuk going ahead of Dubois and vice versa. They are really close in my mind and many others' mind, now that they can see he isn't some coattail-rider; with where we are drafting, we are just going to take the one that falls to us and be happy about getting a good player. The issue here is that a poster doesn't need to make something up to put down one player over another player.

 

[Street Hawk]

They should be happy with either guy.

1) Dubois - I prefer him only due to his ability to play both Centre and wing. It provides the option of having McCann as the 2nd line centre down the line, rather than currently relying on him to be the top offensive centre for the future. Nice to have that flexibility. If McCann can turn into a legit 1st line skilled centre, then you can have Boeser and Dubois on his wings.
2) Tkachuck - his game is made for playoffs. Great down low game. He's a pure LW, which is the only negative you can say about his game. Only issue for him is to get stronger in order to play his style of game in the NHL.

So, either guy would be a welcome addition to the Canuck prospect pool. I don't see a need to try to pick an asset to the Oilers to move up to secure Dubois at #4.

 

[dwarf]

But if the team would have been better off and more successful following a 3rd party list than their own eyes, wouldn't it be the better thing to do at a certain point? That Einstein's definition of insanity may apply here.

Still salty about getting called out, i see.

Let's go back down memory lane. You were very negative regarding Ehlers pre-draft, comparing him to Brandon Reid, then did a 180 and pulled the victim card out when labelled as a guy who didn't like Ehlers, which was the only conclusion we could come to because of your comments pre-draft. This was no disagreement about who should have been taken in 2014, only disagreement about pulling out the victim card. I think anyone could have made a good argument for at least 4 players in our spot and that was evidenced with the record number of threads regarding the 6th overall pick.

My issue with dwarf has nothing to do with player choice, everyone can have their own opinion. I think there is a good argument to be had for Tkachuk going ahead of Dubois and vice versa. They are really close in my mind and many others' mind, now that they can see he isn't some coattail-rider; with where we are drafting, we are just going to take the one that falls to us and be happy about getting a good player. The issue here is that a poster doesn't need to make something up to put down one player over another player.

And again, I don't feel I made up anything. I simply don't believe Dubois should be in this conversation. I think he is a safer pick around 8th.

I know you and many posters like Dubois at 4th or 5th, and hope we draft him.

I do not. I would rank Tkachuk, Nylander, Chychrun and Juolevi ahead of him.

 

[thefeebster]

And again, I don't feel I made up anything.

Again, this is a lie.

His ability to play center has been fabricated to make him more of a sell. Same with his defensive play

I'm going to ask you bluntly, do you know what the word fabricate meant when you used it or what it means now?

 

[CanaFan]

And again, I don't feel I made up anything. I simply don't believe Dubois should be in this conversation. I think he is a safer pick around 8th.

I know you and many posters like Dubois at 4th or 5th, and hope we draft him.

I do not. I would rank Tkachuk, Nylander, Chychrun and Juolevi ahead of him.

Curious about Chychrun. There's a guy who has fallen in almost every ranking and showed average-to-poor at the recent U18's. How much "risk" do you see in picking him at 5 rather than Dubois?

 

[dwarf]

Curious about Chychrun. There's a guy who has fallen in almost every ranking and showed average-to-poor at the recent U18's. How much "risk" do you see in picking him at 5 rather than Dubois?

I don't think he was poor at the U18s. I was actually impressed with his play in clutch situations. Coming back to tie games, jumping into the rush etc.

There is some risk in taking Chychrun, I think he has the potential to be a Scott Stevens, or an Eric Johnson. So a second pairing guy at the worst.

Also when it comes to need, we really need to look at the right side D. And Chychrun is a left.

I am afraid to say anything about Dubois without it being picked apart, but again I feel he is more a boom or bust prospect, with a higher chance to bust.

I love how much he shoots and his motor, but his shot is not as elite as some others ranked around the same. I feel he should be playing the left side with a left shot in the NHL, but if he was doing that in Junior, his stats would not be as lofty as they are.

Granted they tried him at all forward positions, and he was the most productive from the right side. Where a left shot is mathmatically the best option offensively and is smart coaching.

 

[dwarf]

Again, this is a lie.


I'm going to ask you bluntly, do you know what the word fabricate meant when you used it or what it means now?

Sigh.

I have enjoyed many of your posts for years. But calling me a lair is again rude.

I am not fabricating anything. I believe junior teams will try to put players in the best possible light to make them have a higher draft value. Playing center does that for forwards. If Dubois grew up playing center from age 5 to 18 I would say he is a center and that is his projection.

He has not, he has played most of his life at wing. He was played for some games this season at center. If you don't like me calling it as I see it, that is fine.

Could he end up playing center at the NHL level? Yes anything is possible, he is big strong and could learn. But I do not believe that is his best position to play, and that is my opinion.

 

[The Drop]

i dont think Stevens is the proper comparison for Stevens. Like not even in the same realm

 

[dwarf]

i dont think Stevens is the proper comparison for Stevens. Like not even in the same realm

I get what you are trying to say.

I do believe Chychrun has amazing tools. He is big and strong and with proper coaching and good health, the sky is the limit. At this point though he is just a prospect, and all anyone can do is project.

 

[The Drop]

I get what you are trying to say.

I do believe Chychrun has amazing tools. He is big and strong and with proper coaching and good health, the sky is the limit. At this point though he is just a prospect, and all anyone can do is project.

Ya I meant Chychrun

 

[CanaFan]

Sigh.

I have enjoyed many of your posts for years. But calling me a lair is again rude.

I am not fabricating anything. I believe junior teams will try to put players in the best possible light to make them have a higher draft value. Playing center does that for forwards. If Dubois grew up playing center from age 5 to 18 I would say he is a center and that is his projection.

He has not, he has played most of his life at wing. He was played for some games this season at center. If you don't like me calling it as I see it, that is fine.

Could he end up playing center at the NHL level? Yes anything is possible, he is big strong and could learn. But I do not believe that is his best position to play, and that is my opinion.

Bolded is simply wrong. Junior teams put players where it most helps them to win games, not to boost a particular players draft stock.

You're reaching on this theory and it damages you're entire argument.

 

[bossram]

https://twitter.com/GarretHohl/status/729004010410102784

Interesting. Adjusted for age and primary points, Dubois is ahead in terms of scoring.

 

[dwarf]

Bolded is simply wrong. Junior teams put players where it most helps them to win games, not to boost a particular players draft stock.

You're reaching on this theory and it damages you're entire argument.

Perhaps you are right. Though, I feel that my theory does have some value.

I look at the NHL as an art form, and it requires patronage to exist. The NHL, the fans, the parents, everything is a culmination from the grass root to the final product.