The All-Purpose 6th Overall Discussion Thread PT V

[Bleach Clean]

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.

The preference is fine. It's not wrong or right, it's just what you prefer. But I think when people say we "just have X" - I don't agree. Our prospects are all years out from making an impact. A lot can happen in that time. Acquisitions/Trades. The current need may not be the future need.

A simpler way to put this is that we need both, and more. As a result, this #6 pick will fill a general long-term need (more quality players).

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

Reinhart
Bennett
Ekblad

Draisaitl

MDC

Nylander
Ritchie
Ehlers

Virtanen

I don't see MDC as a tier above. There's a real chance NYI goes with Ritchie, Ehlers, Virtanen or Nylander at their position IMO. Each offers something MDC does not, and the opposite is also true.

 

[Addison Rae]

Wait, is that actually Ritchie's birth date?

 

[CanaFan]

Wait, is that actually Ritchie's birth date?

It's just a typo in the year. He's a Dec '95, not '96 (wouldn't be eligible til next year if he was).

 

[VanillaCoke]

After more reading and video watching I'm going with jake virtanen

 

[thefeebster]

I don't agree with Brock's assessment on MDC, tbh. I simply don't see MDC as a purely one-dimensional player. I've seen him backcheck enough to know that he is defensively responsible. He is no Horvat or Laughton defensively, but is average to above average for a winger. I've seen Ritchie make more bone-deaded plays defensively than MDC has.

There is no doubt in my mind, MDC is better than Ritchie and for that reason, MDC deserves to be in a higher tier. MDC has something Ritchie lacks so dearly; consistency. IMO, MDC has better vision, softer hands, smarter and has higher offensive potential than both Virtanen and Ritchie. I simply don't see any debate in my mind.

I'm curious why there is the belief that MDC is readily available at #6. Bobby Mac just tweeted tonight:

Lowetide ‏@Lowetide_ 4h
@TSNBobMcKenzie @Maxito4000 Now, Bob, is Dal Colle 5 or 6? #why #not #ask

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie 3h
@Lowetide_ I would say the better question is Dal Colle No. 4 or 5. Seems like he and Draisaitl have bounced around in those spots all year.

----

Hey Feebs, do you know of anyone I can follow on Twitter that might have updates on the combine?

No one specifically. I remember Brian Huddle used to post about it on Hockey Buzz, which was pretty much the extent of my use of that site. Now i don't think he does.

Maybe just reading media in general. Some kids do interviews and let it slip.

 

[CanaFan]

A simpler way to put this is that we need both, and more. As a result, this #6 pick will fill a long-term need (more quality players).

This is so true and why I think this fan base is so split on the pick. I personally go back and forth between all 4 of the likely candidates and whether I prefer a big, nasty goal scoring winger like Virtanen and Ritchie or whether I prefer a highly skilled puck possessor and distributor like Nylander or Ehlers. It's so tough because honestly we need both _so badly_ in our system. JV and Ritchie suit the Western Conference "style" so well and I feel we will regret passing on them the next time we face LA or San Jose in the PO's. At the same time I feel Nylander could do so much for us in terms of controlling the play and distributing to our heavier bodied players like Horvat and Kassian.

Really hope Benning can swing a deal for another top 10 pick so that we can avoid choosing just one but rather fill both needs.

 

[Patchey*]

The preference is fine. It's not wrong or right, it's just what you prefer. But I think when people say we "just have X" - I don't agree. Our prospects are all years out from making an impact. A lot can happen in that time. Acquisitions/Trades. The current need may not be the future need.

A simpler way to put this is that we need both, and more. As a result, this #6 pick will fill a general long-term need (more quality players).





I don't see MDC as a tier above. There's a real chance NYI goes with Ritchie, Ehlers, Virtanen or Nylander at their position IMO. Each offers something MDC does not, and the opposite is also true.

Of course prospects aren't a sure thing otherwise they wouldn't be prospects. Of course we have to assess our prospect and fill a need. If a team had 5-6 goalie prospects would it pick another one? Probably not, it doesn't fill a need. Obviously needs aren't as important as picking BPA but needs can factor into BPA. I see some nice two-way prospects in our system but not a PPG scorer.

Why do you not see MDC a tier above? Everytime I have watched Guelph play (5-6 times) he has played very well. Obviously the eye test isn't everything but he looks pretty good, I would say better than other prospects a tier below barring Nylander IMO, he has looked exceptional in the U18s

MDC has been very consistent all year with his play. Something that other prospects like Ritchie lack. Ritchie could look amazing or be invisible. MDC could be the best player out of the draft, he has all the tools and the smarts to do so, I could say that exact sentence about other prospects but I digress.

 

[Addison Rae]

It's just a typo in the year. He's a Dec '95, not '96 (wouldn't be eligible til next year if he was).

Thanks, I was thinking the exact same thing.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

I don't agree with Brock's assessment on MDC, tbh. I simply don't see MDC as a purely one-dimensional player. I've seen him backcheck enough to know that he is defensively responsible. He is no Horvat or Laughton defensively, but is average to above average for a winger. I've seen Ritchie make more bone-deaded plays defensively than MDC has.

There is no doubt in my mind, MDC is better than Ritchie and for that reason, MDC deserves to be in a higher tier. MDC has something Ritchie lacks so dearly; consistency. IMO, MDC has better vision, softer hands, smarter and has higher offensive potential than both Virtanen and Ritchie. I simply don't see any debate in my mind.

I'm curious why there is the belief that MDC is readily available at #6. Bobby Mac just tweet tonight:


----

No one specifically. I remember Brian Huddle used to post about it on Hockey Buzz, which was pretty much the extent of my use of that site. Now i don't think he does.

Maybe just reading media in general. Some kids do interviews and let it slip.

I'd have to agree on MDC, I watched more games with him than any of the other top 10 or so pick players and he always seemed to be making players on his line better.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I don't agree with Brock's assessment on MDC, tbh. I simply don't see MDC as a purely one-dimensional player. I've seen him backcheck enough to know that he is defensively responsible. He is no Horvat or Laughton defensively, but is average to above average for a winger. I've seen Ritchie make more bone-deaded plays defensively than MDC has.

There is no doubt in my mind, MDC is better than Ritchie and for that reason, MDC deserves to be in a higher tier. MDC has something Ritchie lacks so dearly; consistency. IMO, MDC has better vision, softer hands, smarter and has higher offensive potential than both Virtanen and Ritchie. I simply don't see any debate in my mind.

I'm curious why there is the belief that MDC is readily available at #6. Bobby Mac just tweet tonight:

The belief comes from there being no set "big5". I think there was debate on here where many remarked that the top5 is set, but I'm not so sure. Maybe one of Ehlers, Nylander, Virtanen or Ritchie can sneak in and upset the balance? Edit: I seem to recall that you said there was no set 5 correct?

There's "debate" feebs because of MDC's potential impact away from the puck. This is exactly what Otten is talking about. I know you don't agree with him in this case, but it's at least a question in my mind. Not "no debate".




For instance, let's say both Ritchie and MDC project to be mediocre/average on the defensive side of the puck. MDC has the offensive edge, but Ritchie has the edge without the puck (forecheck mostly). MDC the better passer, Ritchie the better shooter. Still no debate?

Flip this around and say it's MDC vs. Nylander, while Nylander realizes his offensive potential in the pros. He's got that type of ceiling, as we know. So if MDC brings primarily offense to the table, again at the NHL level, is he still favoured in the comparison? At that point, they would both be known as "offensive" players.

 

[The Stig]

Almost 1000. Go here now
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=85655403#post85655403