The All-Purpose 6th Overall Discussion Thread PT V

[DadBod]

Not that anyone cares but here's my #6 draft pick wish list, as long as none of the consensus top 5 fall.

#1
WILLIAM NYLANDER
Team: #88, MODO, SHL
Position: Centre/Right Wing
Shoots: Right
Height: 5’11
Weight: 169 lb.
Born: Calgary, AB, 1-May-96
Twitter: @snizzbone

STRENGTHS: Like his father, Michael Nylander, he has excellent playmaking skills. However, he's also a better skater than his dad and should score more goals, too. Can play either wing position, as well as center. “William is an exceptional talent with all the tools needed to become a star. He’s an artist on the ice. William is an excellent offensive player with an extremely high skill level. He’s not a selfish player, but does tend to hold on to the puck too long at times. He needs to improve his defensive game, but he’s a fun player to watch and a real crowd-pleaser.â€

WEAKNESS: Is undersized for the National Hockey League game, so he must continue to get stronger in order to maximize his scoring output at the highest level. Also, he must work on his play without the puck.

#2
Jake Virtanen
Team: #18, Calgary, WHL
Position: Left Wing
Shoots: Right
Height: 6’1
Weight: 210 lb.
Born: Abbotsford, BC, 17-Aug-96
Twitter: @Jake_Virtanen

STRENGTHS: speed – Big man speed with acceleration, agility, balance. Won the 30 metre sprint, backward and forward, at the CHL Top Prospects game.
Shot – Big gun, quick finger, hits target, penetrates net.
Power forward – Jake Virtanen has the size, skating, drive and physicality teams look for in a power forward – Jake is probably the purest power forward in the draft. “Jake has been playing outstanding hockey for the Hitmen as of late. Everything he touches seems to find the back of the net. He is starting work harder to get his chances and is bringing a little bit more creativity to the ice making him a handful for opposing teams.â€

WEAKNESS: judging by his performance in January (13 goals and 20 points in 14 games), Jake has already come a long way. However, he should continue to work on using his teammates better, push for excellence in his defensive work and exert his physicality on a constant basis to win puck battles.



#3
NICK RITCHIE
Date of birth: 12/5/1996
Place of birth: Orangeville, ON, CAN
Ht: 6’3″ Wt: 236 lbs
Shoots: Left
Position: RW/LW

STRENGTHS:
Large body who uses it willingly
Fast wrist shot
Agility is key, especially for his size.
Isn’t afraid to drop the gloves
Excellent along the boards and getting to the crease
“Nick Ritchie is a power forward prospect who finishes his checks, and plays a very straight line game, taking the puck right to the front of the net and not caring if he has to go through a defenceman to do it. He loves to stand in front of the net and has the quick, soft hands necessary to score on rebounds and deflections. Ritchie might have the best wrist shot in this draft class. It is tremendously powerful, and features a very good release. It can be in the back of the net before the goaltender even knows that he’s shot the puck. That wrist shot is already NHL ready. He is powerful in board battles, overpowering defencemen and winning pucks. While plenty of Draft Eligible prospects need to add muscle to their frames before going pro, Ritchie is already built like a truck. On top of that he’s still got room to get even bigger and stronger"


WEAKNESS:
Consistency
Taming his game down and knowing when to fight
could lose some baby fat
History of concussion and shoulder injuries

 

[huntison]

Thanks for sharing these Jammyrft

 

[Canucker]

Ekblad is more of a Brent Seabrook type. A great #2, a lackluster #1.

I'd be pretty happy to get a great #2 like Seabrook in this draft...plus I think Ekblad's ceiling is still greater than Seabrook's...at his peak I think he'll be able to log more ice time in all situations. I think he'll top out between Weber and Seabrook...but I think it'll also depend where he lands and who he has to mentor him at the NHL level.

 

[D0ctorCool]

Thanks for sharing these Jammyrft

Agreed. Got me giddy realizing we might get one of these guys.

 

[MikeK]

I would actually be upset if we acquired the top pick and used it on Ekblad. I'd want to target Reinhart. I don't see Ekblad being any better than someone like Erik Johnson.

Yeah, It'd be a disappointment if he peaked at that range. I think it's the potential that really has me favoring him over Reinhart. Ekblad, in my opinion, has the potential to be a very good #1 NHL Dman and that is something we have never had. A true legit NHL #1 Dman. We've had plenty of very good ones, but never a top Dman league wide.

It's a risk with any one of these kids. I wish we had a crystal ball to look a few years ahead. These high picks don't come our way too often so I really don't want a screw up.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Yeah, It'd be a disappointment if he peaked at that range. I think it's the potential that really has me favoring him over Reinhart. Ekblad, in my opinion, has the potential to be a very good #1 NHL Dman and that is something we have never had. A true legit NHL #1 Dman. We've had plenty of very good ones, but never a top Dman league wide.

It's a risk with any one of these kids. I wish we had a crystal ball to look a few years ahead. These high picks don't come our way too often so I really don't want a screw up.

I don't see Ekblad's #1 Dman potential, and there have been reports that he would likely top out as a very good 2nd pairing defenseman.

 

[Baby Pettersson]

I don't see Ekblad's #1 Dman potential, and there have been reports that he would likely top out as a very good 2nd pairing defenseman.

I get the same feeling. He will be good. But not a franchise defenseman like some believe.

 

[ginner classic]

I don't see Ekblad's #1 Dman potential, and there have been reports that he would likely top out as a very good 2nd pairing defenseman.

One of the following must be true...

Any defender that plays the most minutes per game on his team in an NHL season is a #1 by definition.

and/or

Any defender that is among the top 30 players at his position is a #1.

Given that pretty simple logic....I don't see how it's unreasonable to project Ekblad as a #1. If you think he can be in the top 30 in the NHL and the top dman on his team he certainly projects as a number 1.

Hedman is a #1. Hamhuis is a #1. Ohlund was a #1. Edler was a #1. Jovo was a #1. Lumme was a #1.

It's unfortunate that this site assumes that a #1 must be considered a contender for a Norris trophy.

 

[y2kcanucks]

One of the following must be true...

Any defender that plays the most minutes per game on his team in an NHL season is a #1 by definition.

and/or

Any defender that is among the top 30 players at his position is a #1.

Given that pretty simple logic....I don't see how it's unreasonable to project Ekblad as a #1. If you think he can be in the top 30 in the NHL and the top dman on his team he certainly projects as a number 1.

Hedman is a #1. Hamhuis is a #1. Ohlund was a #1. Edler was a #1. Jovo was a #1. Lumme was a #1.

It's unfortunate that this site assumes that a #1 must be considered a contender for a Norris trophy.

Well based on your first criteria I guess we can trade away Bieksa, Hamhuis, Edler, Garrison, and Tanev. Then we can say Andrew Alberts is a number 1 defenseman. Perhaps some other team, at that point, looking for a number 1 defenseman would be interested in giving us a 1st line center for him.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Alright, I'm going to be that guy... I've had MDC as the guy right after Reinhart for the best forward in this draft (similar to arsmaster), narrowly edging out Bennett, but I think it's time to re-think this _AND_ his placement in general.

I really like MDC. A lot of tools and he's dynamic, but I think there has to be a question of what he projects to be, and is it better than what we think is available at #6?

This blurb from Brock got my attention on this:

While Dal Colle can play either center or wing, I think it's safe to assume he projects as a winger because it's been his primary position the last few years. So why the lower ranking than Ritchie and Fabbri? I don't think Dal Colle will ever be the type of player who impacts the game more than just offensively. He's big, but I don't ever see him being the physical brute that Ritchie is, or the forechecking puck hound that Fabbri is. And while I'm sure he'll put in work to be better defensively, again, I think the other two have greater potential in that area. Offensively, he might be a touch better and has a more dynamic skill set, but if were talking about choosing between an 80 point one dimensional player, or a 60 point two-way player, I'm taking the 60 point guy.

http://ohlprospects.blogspot.ca/

So there it is... Let's discuss MDC as a viable pick for #6. I'm not sure every GM has a set big5, and there's a real possibility MDC slips if there is variation. If that happens, do we know and accept the type of player we would actually get?

 

[ginner classic]

Well based on your first criteria I guess we can trade away Bieksa, Hamhuis, Edler, Garrison, and Tanev. Then we can say Andrew Alberts is a number 1 defenseman. Perhaps some other team, at that point, looking for a number 1 defenseman would be interested in giving us a 1st line center for him.

Reread the post and skip the strawman and while you are at it come up with a more logical definition of a #1 dman.

 

[TLinden]

Alright, I'm going to be that guy... I've had MDC as the guy right after Reinhart for the best forward in this draft (similar to arsmaster), narrowly edging out Bennett, but I think it's time to re-think this _AND_ his placement in general.

I really like MDC. A lot of tools and he's dynamic, but I think there has to be a question of what he projects to be, and is it better than what we think is available at #6?

This blurb from Brock got my attention on this:



http://ohlprospects.blogspot.ca/

So there it is... Let's discuss MDC as a viable pick for #6. I'm not sure every GM has a set big5, and there's a real possibility MDC slips if there is variation. If that happens, do we know and accept the type of player we would actually get?

100% taking MDC if he falls to 6 IMO.

A) I don't necessarily agree with his opinion on the matter. His defensive play could easily develop to an acceptable NHL level

B) If he's putting up 80pts+ but his defensive prowess isn't quite there, I'm still happy with the pick. Horvat, Gaunce, Fox - If these types of players make it into the NHL they're going to be relied upon for 30-60 points (hopefully more from Horvat, but we'll see) and defensive minutes along with some scoring touch. What the team lacks is a player who can create his own offense, possesses creative vision.

 

[Britton]

Alright, I'm going to be that guy... I've had MDC as the guy right after Reinhart for the best forward in this draft (similar to arsmaster), narrowly edging out Bennett, but I think it's time to re-think this _AND_ his placement in general.

I really like MDC. A lot of tools and he's dynamic, but I think there has to be a question of what he projects to be, and is it better than what we think is available at #6?

This blurb from Brock got my attention on this:



http://ohlprospects.blogspot.ca/

So there it is... Let's discuss MDC as a viable pick for #6. I'm not sure every GM has a set big5, and there's a real possibility MDC slips if there is variation. If that happens, do we know and accept the type of player we would actually get?

It's an interesting question for sure. I'm of the opinion that difference between the top 5 in this draft and next five (Ritchie, Nylander, Ehlers, Virtanen, Fabbri for me) isn't very big. While I would probably take MDC still if he's on the board at 6, I really wouldn't be that upset if we passed on him for one of those five. I don't think there is really going to be a wrong answer at 6 this year unless we do something truly wacky, the players that should be available there are all so solid. Maybe there isn't a Franchise player this year, but the balance of the top 10 this year is really good.

 

[shortshorts]

I'm telling you guys.

Fabbri is going to be the best player from this draft

 

[CanaFan]

Alright, I'm going to be that guy... I've had MDC as the guy right after Reinhart for the best forward in this draft (similar to arsmaster), narrowly edging out Bennett, but I think it's time to re-think this _AND_ his placement in general.

I really like MDC. A lot of tools and he's dynamic, but I think there has to be a question of what he projects to be, and is it better than what we think is available at #6?

This blurb from Brock got my attention on this:



http://ohlprospects.blogspot.ca/

So there it is... Let's discuss MDC as a viable pick for #6. I'm not sure every GM has a set big5, and there's a real possibility MDC slips if there is variation. If that happens, do we know and accept the type of player we would actually get?

Good post and similar my thoughts recently as well (posted a couple pages back that MDC is not as much a lock for top 5 as many think). Base this on a few scouting reports (Brock's and Pronman's mostly) as well as his heavy PP production relative to others in the same range. In fact I believe MDC's EV PPG is close or tied with Ritchie and Virtanen and well below Bennett, Reinhart, and Draisaitl. Combine with his low level of physicality (at least initiating) and it takes a bit of the luster off of his otherwise dazzling package of size, skill, and shot.

I'd still be very happy to take him at 6 if he fell, but I don't think the gap between him and the "next 4" is tremendously large. Depending on what a team wants to prioritize (esp Calgary and NYI) MDC isn't necessarily a lock to be taken before us, though he certainly deserves to be in the conversation.

 

[Bure All Day]

The rankings of the poll is exactly how I would rank them

 

[Patchey*]

I'm telling you guys.

Fabbri is going to be the best player from this draft

Let's trade down and pick him then get Benning to say that Fabbri will be talked about as the best player of the draft in 10 years!

 

[Smokey McCanucks]

Canucks have the assets to trade up. We don't need another young forward, we have literally no NHL-caliber defensive prospects in the system. Canucks should be targeting Ekblad and Florida's #1 pick, with the 6th overall, Kesler, Hansen, and one of our top-four blueliners as trade chips it should be no problem to find a reasonable deal for the trade up.

The top half-dozen forwards are all around the same caliber of prospect, all obviously different players with different strengths and weaknesses but as prospects you can't really look at these guys and say, one is clearly better or clearly worse. With the d-men, it's Ekblad all the way.

We have a need and the opportunity to fill that need, now is the time to be aggressive and make a mark. Our scouting is questionable, our front office is in transition, going after the kid who has the most consensus surrounding his talent level is a wise decision and minimizes risk.

 

[Willting*]

Reread the post and skip the strawman and while you are at it come up with a more logical definition of a #1 dman.

Don't bother arguing with y2k. It's like chasing your own tail.

 

[Patchey*]

Canucks have the assets to trade up. We don't need another young forward, we have literally no NHL-caliber defensive prospects in the system. Canucks should be targeting Ekblad and Florida's #1 pick, with the 6th overall, Kesler, Hansen, and one of our top-four blueliners as trade chips it should be no problem to find a reasonable deal for the trade up.

The top half-dozen forwards are all around the same caliber of prospect, all obviously different players with different strengths and weaknesses but as prospects you can't really look at these guys and say, one is clearly better or clearly worse. With the d-men, it's Ekblad all the way.

We have a need and the opportunity to fill that need, now is the time to be aggressive and make a mark. Our scouting is questionable, our front office is in transition, going after the kid who has the most consensus surrounding his talent level is a wise decision and minimizes risk.

We don't have a prospect that will probably develop in to a 1C. Sure one prospect can surprise us but I don't want to count on that to happen. Gaunce is probably a 3C, Horvat is probably a Bergeron-type Elite 2C/Decent 1C. I would like to get another Centre and build our depth in the centre position. That is mainly the reason I'm advocating taking Nylander as opposed to Ehlers, Ritchie or Virtanen. I would also want to take either Bennett or Reinhart

 

[SvenBaertschi]

Canucks have the assets to trade up. We don't need another young forward, we have literally no NHL-caliber defensive prospects in the system. Canucks should be targeting Ekblad and Florida's #1 pick, with the 6th overall, Kesler, Hansen, and one of our top-four blueliners as trade chips it should be no problem to find a reasonable deal for the trade up.

The top half-dozen forwards are all around the same caliber of prospect, all obviously different players with different strengths and weaknesses but as prospects you can't really look at these guys and say, one is clearly better or clearly worse. With the d-men, it's Ekblad all the way.

We have a need and the opportunity to fill that need, now is the time to be aggressive and make a mark. Our scouting is questionable, our front office is in transition, going after the kid who has the most consensus surrounding his talent level is a wise decision and minimizes risk.

I would reconsider trading up this draft its been mentioned that the 2014 draft is weak not because of the depth of talent 6-12 (average) but because the picks 1-5 are below average compared to other drafts not to mention the cost of trading up will be substantial... in my opinion I would try to trade Kesler/other parts for a package that includes 2015 picks which is supposedly a deeper draft that has franchise players (Mcdavid, Eichel, a few others I believe).

 

[Bleach Clean]

I don't necessarily agree with his opinion on the matter.

If he's putting up 80pts+ but his defensive prowess isn't quite there, I'm still happy with the pick.

Comes down to preference. Like Brock, I too prefer a player that brings more to the game than just offense. If he thinks that's what MDC will primarily be, then it raises some real questions about just how far MDC is from Ritchie, Virtanen, Ehlers, Fabbri and Nylander.

While I would probably take MDC still if he's on the board at 6, I really wouldn't be that upset if we passed on him for one of those five. I don't think there is really going to be a wrong answer at 6

I think the these 4 get picked first, in whatever order: Bennett, Reinhart, Draisaitl and Ekblad. Beyond them, it's quite open. NYI could like Ritchie's physicality the best, or Ehlers's speed, or Virtanen's shot etc... But where MDC was talked about as a lock for the top5, I'm not sure I see it that way anymore.

I think he belongs more in the next group. Which means that he can swap spots with any of those players.

G In fact I believe MDC's EV PPG is close or tied with Ritchie and Virtanen and well below Bennett, Reinhart, and Draisaitl. Combine with his low level of physicality (at least initiating) and it takes a bit of the luster off of his otherwise dazzling package of size, skill, and shot.
.

Yeah, MDC had 52 ESPs in 67 games while Ritchie had 55 in 61 games. The latter was more efficient at ES, on a weaker team. Better goal scoring ratio too. But MDC was very dangerous on the PP... So there's pros and cons (just to make sure people don't get too caught up with the splits)

I think Otten sees him as holding his own defensively at the NHL level, but not a plus player there. The same for his physicality. So like a Bobby Ryan. Big, rangy and creative. He will get his points and be able to dangle, but others like Fabbri can do more without the biscuit.

Could fall a bit for that reason.

 

[Patchey*]

Snip

I would prefer a PPG player with less defensive prowess to a 60 point two-way player. Not every player needs to have Selke level defence. If you build a team with just two-way players you end up like the St. Louis Blues. The Blues obviously have scoters but lack the PPG player. The Canucks already have some solid two-way prospects. We need a point getter.

I personally rank the Top 9 of the draft like this:
I use tiers.

Reinhart
Bennett
Ekblad

Draisaitl

MDC

Nylander
Ritchie
Ehlers

Virtanen

 

[Rick Rocket]

Hey jammy nice post. Do u have a scout report for Ehlers?

 

[oceanchild]

Since the consensus seemed to be MDC is no longer considered a lock in the top 5 can we change the poll to include him as an option for the #6 selection and now consider it a top 4? I'm wondering what the ratio of votes MDC would get, and if his selection is the preference of this board that seems to be stated as a given?