The Importance of Drafting a Defenceman With the 6th OA?

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
I want a defenseman, but I do have some fear about being one of the teams that pass on Oliver Wahlstrom. I think it could be like Filip Forsberg all over again. He’s going to go to BC next year with Jack McBain, and he’s probably going to have a hell of a year and get a lot of buzz.

If passing on him means we get this draft's Jacob Trouba, I think I could be pretty okay with that. We just have to not be the team that drafts Ryan Murray or Derrick Pouliot.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
If passing on him means we get this draft's Jacob Trouba, I think I could be pretty okay with that. We just have to not be the team that drafts Ryan Murray or Derrick Pouliot.

I want Wahlstrom or Hughes.

I saw the video on Bouchard against Owen Sound with the analysis by an HFboards guy who actually coaches, just awful hockey IQ out of him all game long. He seems like he'll be a more offensively talented Jonathan Ericsson.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
Also, I hadn't realized this was an article.

It's a bad take. It's more important than people who will completely discount taking a D (which is virtually no one) and less important than those who say we must. (90% of people). We need to get talent. Out of this draft and the next couple years, we need talent and lots of it. We don't have to lock in on a D with #6. The greatest likelihood is that a D is the best player available at 6, but if Oliver Wahlstrom is there and you love him, you take him and sort it out later. The Wings need elite talent everywhere so you can't limit yourself to only D options. Hell, if the board shakes out with Dobson, Hughes, and Wahlstrom on the table at 6, I see if the team at 8 is in love with any of them. Because I pretty happily take any of those three. If it shakes out with those three and Boqvist somehow (Dahlin, Svech, Zadina, Tkachuk, Bouchard), I ring the Rangers and see if they're crazy about a dude because I could grab a player I value equally at 9.

However, it is important that we don't miss on FA or with later picks if we skip on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hen Kolland

Lampedampe

Registered User
Feb 26, 2015
2,135
751
Also, I hadn't realized this was an article.

It's a bad take. It's more important than people who will completely discount taking a D (which is virtually no one) and less important than those who say we must. (90% of people). We need to get talent. Out of this draft and the next couple years, we need talent and lots of it. We don't have to lock in on a D with #6. The greatest likelihood is that a D is the best player available at 6, but if Oliver Wahlstrom is there and you love him, you take him and sort it out later. The Wings need elite talent everywhere so you can't limit yourself to only D options. Hell, if the board shakes out with Dobson, Hughes, and Wahlstrom on the table at 6, I see if the team at 8 is in love with any of them. Because I pretty happily take any of those three. If it shakes out with those three and Boqvist somehow (Dahlin, Svech, Zadina, Tkachuk, Bouchard), I ring the Rangers and see if they're crazy about a dude because I could grab a player I value equally at 9.

However, it is important that we don't miss on FA or with later picks if we skip on it.

You're completely gonna disaprove of my opinion without making any counter argument whatsoever and call it a bad take? I even said we need talent at all positions, the point i was trying to make is that developing and finding a defenseman outside of the top picks is pretty damn difficult and they take longer to develop and they stay in their prime for longer, thus it becomes important to bolster the defense early (hence the title.. And it ain't science exactly). You've got to give a counter argument to that, because otherwise you just look like a complete idiot calling my post a bad take. All i'm doing is making a case for drafting a defenseman and to give context. I've already acknowledged every point you made, but i've also made an argument as to why it's a bad idea IMO.

I'm also gonna assume you have no clue of how articles work on this website, i have no idea why this got featured as an article, i just made a normal thread and it got featured.
 

Hen Kolland

Registered User
Feb 22, 2018
9,470
8,336
You're completely gonna disaprove of my opinion without making any counter argument whatsoever and call it a bad take? I even said we need talent at all positions, the point i was trying to make is that developing and finding a defenseman outside of the top picks is pretty damn difficult and they take longer to develop and they stay in their prime for longer, thus it becomes important to bolster the defense early (hence the title.. And it ain't science exactly). You've got to give a counter argument to that, because otherwise you just look like a complete idiot calling my post a bad take. All i'm doing is making a case for drafting a defenseman and to give context. I've already acknowledged every point you made, but i've also made an argument as to why it's a bad idea IMO.

I'm also gonna assume you have no clue of how articles work on this website, i have no idea why this got featured as an article, i just made a normal thread and it got featured.

I can't speak for him, but my counter argument is simple: your odds of getting a good defenseman at 6 are comparable to your odds of getting a good center at 6 are comparable to your odds of getting a good winger at 6. The odds of getting a good player in general at 6 are higher than 7, which are higher than 10, and 15, and 30, etc. YES, picking a defenseman at 6 is immensely more "important" than relying on later picks to turn out as an impact defenseman, but that's just stating the obvious...players drafted higher in the draft are drafted there for a reason, but that statement by itself is not what a majority of people have been arguing.

The point that tsweeney made, that I have been making is.. for a team that is in desperate need of talent across every position, there can't be a mandate that a defenseman is a necessity at #6. This is because the "better odds" applies to every position. Sure, pick one if you think it is the best available option, but don't skip out on a forward because of shortsightedness. It doesn't matter position if you turn out Sidney Crosby or Alex Ovechkin or Drew Doughty as long as you are getting the best caliber of player and not skipping out on Ovi for Cam Barker, or skipping out on Doughty for Nikita Filatov. If you think a player is clearly better, don't second guess because of position.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
We're kind of going in circles here. Yeah, we need a good player. So tell me why Wahlstrom or Tkachuk are going to be better than Bouchard and Dobson. Or vice versa.

Because otherwise, we're not really accomplishing anything.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,852
8,576
We're kind of going in circles here. Yeah, we need a good player. So tell me why Wahlstrom or Tkachuk are going to be better than Bouchard and Dobson. Or vice versa.

Because otherwise, we're not really accomplishing anything.
I rate those four players close to even. But in addition to development time, I think better defensemen helping the current young forwards makes for a better roster than getting better forwards to help the current young defensemen. (Aka, a Dobson or Bouchard would help guys like Mantha and Bertuzzi more in the long run than a Tkachuk or Wahlstrom would help guys like DDK in the long run.)
 

Lampedampe

Registered User
Feb 26, 2015
2,135
751
I can't speak for him, but my counter argument is simple: your odds of getting a good defenseman at 6 are comparable to your odds of getting a good center at 6 are comparable to your odds of getting a good winger at 6. The odds of getting a good player in general at 6 are higher than 7, which are higher than 10, and 15, and 30, etc. YES, picking a defenseman at 6 is immensely more "important" than relying on later picks to turn out as an impact defenseman, but that's just stating the obvious...players drafted higher in the draft are drafted there for a reason, but that statement by itself is not what a majority of people have been arguing.

The point that tsweeney made, that I have been making is.. for a team that is in desperate need of talent across every position, there can't be a mandate that a defenseman is a necessity at #6. This is because the "better odds" applies to every position. Sure, pick one if you think it is the best available option, but don't skip out on a forward because of shortsightedness. It doesn't matter position if you turn out Sidney Crosby or Alex Ovechkin or Drew Doughty as long as you are getting the best caliber of player and not skipping out on Ovi for Cam Barker, or skipping out on Doughty for Nikita Filatov. If you think a player is clearly better, don't second guess because of position.

You've gotta be kidding me. I really hope you're not saying that's my only point, because yes that is very obvious. Let me get my points across, which i already have i even said it in the post you're replying to.

- Drafting a developing a top-pairing defenseman outside the top picks is rare and should not be relied upon.. And yes i'm bringing this up again because contrary to what you just said, a lot people still buy into the notion that a lot of top-pairing defenseman can be found in later rounds (between 2010-2015 only 8, and 4 of those were drafted by Carolina and Anaheim).

- Now to my main argument, top-pairing defensemen take a longer time to develop and stay in their prime longer than forwards. So you should address defensemen early in a rebuild with high picks to increase your chances at drafting a top pairing defenseman early, that's why i believe it's important that Holland play the odds and try to address our number 1 positional need. Because if you go BPA every year, you can't rely on there going to be a defenseman as the BPA . If Holland goes the 2 coming years without pulling a potential first pairing defenseman out of his ass we might aswell trade Mantha and Larkin asap because we won't compete before they are past their primes, literally wasted. Going BPA is flawed because if you're unlucky you're gonna end up with a front heavy or back heavy team.

Let's say Holland sees Wahlstrom as the BPA available when our pick comes around, and he picks him. Same thing next year, another winger is the BPA available with our pick. Then all of the sudden we're 3 years of drafting in and we haven't done anything to increase our chances of getting a top-pairing defenseman, the tactic is flawed. My argument is that we should increase our chances of getting a top-pairing defenseman early, and then after that you can go BPA. Because if you're unlucky you will have to ditch the BPA at some point down the line becuase the next 3 drafts might have forwards as BPA, and the year you go for positional need you might also miss out on a really good forward.

- Since a defenseman take longer to develop, they'll impact the team generally speaking later than a Forward which also increases our chances of getting more high picks.

I respect that people see BPA as the best drafting strategy, but in my personal opinion it's flawed and the point of this thread is to share my opinion why i see it as flawed. I find it annoying when people say "no you're wrong, draft BPA, we need players at every position". It doesn't address my argument at all and i addressed the fact that we need players at every postion, it's not like i'm blissfully unaware of that.
 
Last edited:

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
You're completely gonna disaprove of my opinion without making any counter argument whatsoever and call it a bad take? I even said we need talent at all positions, the point i was trying to make is that developing and finding a defenseman outside of the top picks is pretty damn difficult and they take longer to develop and they stay in their prime for longer, thus it becomes important to bolster the defense early (hence the title.. And it ain't science exactly). You've got to give a counter argument to that, because otherwise you just look like a complete idiot calling my post a bad take. All i'm doing is making a case for drafting a defenseman and to give context. I've already acknowledged every point you made, but i've also made an argument as to why it's a bad idea IMO.

I'm also gonna assume you have no clue of how articles work on this website, i have no idea why this got featured as an article, i just made a normal thread and it got featured.

It is difficult to find elite talent at every position. Finding and developing ANY position takes a long time unless you're picking top 3.

And the counter-argument is that when you say "Oh, we NEED to take a D at #6" cuts you off from all of the available options. It puts limits on your thinking and possible solutions. You could say "we love players 6-11 ranked on the board". So, you could swap 6 and 11 this year and take a guy like Wahlstrom or Kotkaniemi if there and get a 1st next year from the Islanders that should still be lotto-eligible.

When you go into a draft with a pre-determined "this needs to happen", you shut yourself off from the unforeseen. It's why teams interview Rasmus Dahlin when it's clear as day to everyone that he's going #1. It's why teams with pick 10-15 interview Laremy Tunsil in the NFL draft. He had a video come out with smoking weed in a gas mask that dropped him about 10 spots. If a team at 13 was like "we don't think he'll be there so why waste our time", they'd have no/limited knowledge of the guy's character. Hell, Rasmus Dahlin in the next two weeks shatters his leg or tears an ACL while working out... does he still go #1?

You unnecessarily limit yourself by saying "we need to pick this, come hell or high water". It will cause you to gloss over a potential negative by saying "we really need a D". And also, the Wings are going to be bad for quite a bit here and they're not going to rush whoever they take. Lastly, each of the four D that are about equal (Boqvist, Bouchard, Dobson, Hughes) have a wart that could bite you big time.

Boqvist - Concussions
Bouchard - hockey IQ
Dobson - overall talented, no real elite breakthrough skill
Hughes - size

So taking one of them is not this sure-fire 1D solution. Just framing it as "the importance of taking a D at #6" paints it as if it's the only choice and it's not. It's more the mindset of it I don't like than the actual argument. It is weighting a D like Bouchard's talents more heavily than a guy like Wahlstrom's because he's a D and I'm just of the opinion that you don't do that this early in the draft.
 

Hen Kolland

Registered User
Feb 22, 2018
9,470
8,336
You've gotta be kidding me. I really hope you're not saying that my only point, because yes that is very obvious. Let me get my points across, which i already have i even said it in the post you're replying to.

- Drafting a developing a top-pairing defenseman outside the top picks is rare and should not be relied upon.. And yes i'm bringing this up again becuase contrary to what you just said a lot people do still buy into the notion that a lot of top-pairing defenseman can be found in later rounds (between 2010-2015 only 8, and 4 of those were drafted by Carolina and Anaheim).

- Now to my main argument, top-pairing defensemen take a longer time to develop and stay in their prime longer than forwards. So you should address defensemen early in a rebuild so you increase your chances at drafting a top pairing defenseman early, that's why i believe it's important that Holland play the odds and try to address our number 1 positional need. Because if you go BPA every year, you can't rely on there going to be a defenseman as the BPA . If Holland goes the 2 coming years without pulling a potential first pairing defenseman out of his ass we might aswell trade Mantha and Larkin asap because we won't compete before they are past their primes, literally wasted. Going BPA is flawed because if you're unlucky you're gonna end up with a front heavy or back heavy team.

Let's say Holland sees Wahlstrom as the BPA available when our pick comes around, and he picks him. Same thing next year, another winger is the BPA available with our pick. Then all of the sudden we're 3 years of drafting in and we haven't done anything to increase our chances of getting a top-pairing defenseman, the tactic is flawed. My argument is that we should increase our chances of getting a top-pairing defenseman early, and then after that you can go BPA. Because if you're unlucky you will have to ditch the BPA at some point down the line becuase the next 3 drafts might have forwards as BPA, and the year you go for positional need you might also miss out on a really good forward.

- Since a defenseman take longer to develop, they'll impact the team generally speaking later than a Forward which also increases our chances of getting more high picks.

I respect that people see BPA as the best drafting strategy, but in my personal opinion it's flawed and the point of this thread is to share my opinion why i see it as flawed. I find it annoying when people say "no you're wrong, draft BPA, we need players at every position". It doesn't address my argument at all and i addressed the fact that we need players at every postion, it's not like i'm blissfully unaware of that.

I understand your thought process, but when I read your viewing of BPA, I read it to be too much all encompassing; that it doesn't consider that the teams 100% take positional need into consideration when determining who is going to top their lists. Here's an example of my point, let's say something ridiculous happens and Svechnikov is sitting on the board at #6. Are you telling me that because of the positional need, it's more important to take the defenseman of your choosing over Svechnikov? Because on my personal board, I have Svechnikov significantly higher than Bouchard/Dobson/Hughes, even though I have been vocal that I want this team to have a legitimate defenseman as much as anyone else, so much so that I would sacrifice a combination of draft picks, prospects, and players to get an already proven, young defenseman when virtually nobody else would be willing to. There is a tipping point where the projections of a forward will surpass the need of a defenseman, and conversely, when the need of a defenseman will outweigh the projections of a forward.

With our current status, I think the need of a defenseman is a little bit overstated when you consider that our high water mark for goals scored by a single player in the past 3 years is 25, done by a player no longer with the team. We haven't had a 30 goal scorer since the 08-09 season...think about that for a minute. If Mantha (our best chance) falls short next year, we are likely looking at 10 straight years without a 30 goal scorer. My guess is we might be the only team that can say that.

I will never attempt talk anyone out of their opinion on who they think is the best player; I think it's 100% up to each person to determine how much they value filling positional need, or size, or play style, or character, or skill level. But when it comes down to building a list when dealing with a top 10 pick, it isn't going to be set up like "this is the best player, but we might like a lesser player because of the position he plays," that position is going to be rolled up into the rankings so, given the choice, you're just circling the highest name on the list. My list is my own; it won't match yours, it won't match the Holland's, but I won't drift from my rankings because I've already considered every possible variable when coming to my conclusions. I have Dobson and Bouchard very high on my list, so high that if either one are there at 6 I'm considering it a steal.

I hope that kind of clarifies what is going through my head in this discussion. It's not that I think picking a defenseman is the wrong choice or that the value you personally put on the positional need of the organization is invalid, but there's always a chance that a forward could be held in such high regard that positional need goes out the window.

EDIT: When I say our need of a defenseman is overstated, I am not saying that as an absolute. We desperately need defensive help. I am saying that in comparison to our need for help at the other positions as well.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
I understand your thought process, but when I read your viewing of BPA, I read it to be too much all encompassing; that it doesn't consider that the teams 100% take positional need into consideration when determining who is going to top their lists. Here's an example of my point, let's say something ridiculous happens and Svechnikov is sitting on the board at #6. Are you telling me that because of the positional need, it's more important to take the defenseman of your choosing over Svechnikov? Because on my personal board, I have Svechnikov significantly higher than Bouchard/Dobson/Hughes, even though I have been vocal that I want this team to have a legitimate defenseman as much as anyone else, so much so that I would sacrifice a combination of draft picks, prospects, and players to get an already proven, young defenseman when virtually nobody else would be willing to. There is a tipping point where the projections of a forward will surpass the need of a defenseman, and conversely, when the need of a defenseman will outweigh the projections of a forward.

With our current status, I think the need of a defenseman is a little bit overstated when you consider that our high water mark for goals scored by a single player in the past 3 years is 25, done by a player no longer with the team. We haven't had a 30 goal scorer since the 08-09 season...think about that for a minute. If Mantha (our best chance) falls short next year, we are likely looking at 10 straight years without a 30 goal scorer. My guess is we might be the only team that can say that.

I will never attempt talk anyone out of their opinion on who they think is the best player; I think it's 100% up to each person to determine how much they value filling positional need, or size, or play style, or character, or skill level. But when it comes down to building a list when dealing with a top 10 pick, it isn't going to be set up like "this is the best player, but we might like a lesser player because of the position he plays," that position is going to be rolled up into the rankings so, given the choice, you're just circling the highest name on the list. My list is my own; it won't match yours, it won't match the Holland's, but I won't drift from my rankings because I've already considered every possible variable when coming to my conclusions. I have Dobson and Bouchard very high on my list, so high that if either one are there at 6 I'm considering it a steal.

I hope that kind of clarifies what is going through my head in this discussion. It's not that I think picking a defenseman is the wrong choice or that the value you personally put on the positional need of the organization is invalid, but there's always a chance that a forward could be held in such high regard that positional need goes out the window.

EDIT: When I say our need of a defenseman is overstated, I am not saying that as an absolute. We desperately need defensive help. I am saying that in comparison to our need for help at the other positions as well.

And this is basically what I'm saying. Basically to be a bona-fide contender again...

We need at minimum 4 top 6 forwards (Larkin and Mantha are givens) and probably a whole new group of 6 D as well as a #1G.


Now, we've taken Rasmussen and you hope he can be one of those 4.

We've taken Cholowski and Hronek, you hope they can be two of the D.

Basically, to be good again? We still need 3 top 6 forwards (and that's if Razzy is any good) and 4 D (two top 4 guys at least). They're actually pretty equal in terms of what we need to get good again. We need a forward as badly as we need defense.
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
I rate those four players close to even. But in addition to development time, I think better defensemen helping the current young forwards makes for a better roster than getting better forwards to help the current young defensemen. (Aka, a Dobson or Bouchard would help guys like Mantha and Bertuzzi more in the long run than a Tkachuk or Wahlstrom would help guys like DDK in the long run.)

Honestly, I think the best reasoning for taking Wahlstrom or Tkachuk is they can unlock Larkin's potential and help elevate him to being a legitimate 1C. A defenseman would as well, but both of those kids would complement Larkin and how he plays extremely well. Tkachuk is going to do a lot of heavy lifting and do lots of give and go's, and Wahlstrom is going to finish everything that comes his way.

Here is my order of preference and why:

Dobson - Best bet to be a top pairng guy after dahlin
Wahlstrom - Prolific goal scorer
Boqvist - Huge upside, but the concussions concern me
Tkachuk - Very good all-around winger
Hughes - Probably won't log huge minutes, but will put up 50+ pts in his sleep
Bouchard - Very good offensive player, have some concerns on IQ + compete
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HisNoodliness

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,852
8,576
Honestly, I think the best reasoning for taking Wahlstrom or Tkachuk is they can unlock Larkin's potential and help elevate him to being a legitimate 1C. A defenseman would as well, but both of those kids would complement Larkin and how he plays extremely well. Tkachuk is going to do a lot of heavy lifting and do lots of give and go's, and Wahlstrom is going to finish everything that comes his way.

Here is my order of preference and why:

Dobson - Best bet to be a top pairng guy after dahlin
Wahlstrom - Prolific goal scorer
Boqvist - Huge upside, but the concussions concern me
Tkachuk - Very good all-around winger
Hughes - Probably won't log huge minutes, but will put up 50+ pts in his sleep
Bouchard - Very good offensive player, have some concerns on IQ + compete
Valid points. I guess I just see a lot more possessions die in poor transition and setup than in poor execution, so I favor the position that helps most in those areas. By that logic, Tkachuk would benefit Larkin more than Wahlstrom would, but again, none of the above would be a bad addition. Just a little further down the priority list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fire Ken Holland

lilidk

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
9,592
3,426
it is possible that Dobson , Hughes and Kotkaniemi will be gone before #6 , Svechnikov will be # 2 . Then what? would draft Bouchard or get Zadina or Tkachuk. I'd take Tkachuk or Zadina and after that get some D. Plenty good prospects at second round :
KAndre Miller
Adam Ginning Swedish defender
AA
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,852
8,576
it is possible that Dobson , Hughes and Kotkaniemi will be gone before #6 , Svechnikov will be # 2 . Then what? would draft Bouchard or get Zadina or Tkachuk. I'd take Tkachuk or Zadina and after that get some D. Plenty good prospects at second round :
KAndre Miller
Adam Ginning Swedish defender
AA
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
If both Zadina and Tkachuk are there at 6, I'd be working the phones to see if I can land a king's ransom to trade down a couple spots. If nobody offers me the sun and moon, I go BPA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fire Ken Holland

Hen Kolland

Registered User
Feb 22, 2018
9,470
8,336
I would draft Zadina or Boqvist in this scenario.

Seconded on Zadina, but I would sub Bouchard over Boqvist. My personal opinion of course, but I have Boqvist as the last option in the top 10 just because of the concussions and the unknown of what he will actually turn into. His development is the furthest behind (partially due to age) and it is crucial to whether he becomes the elite offensive defenseman he has the potential to be, or if he falls off the face of the earth entirely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lilidk

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
Seconded on Zadina, but I would sub Bouchard over Boqvist. My personal opinion of course, but I have Boqvist as the last option in the top 10 just because of the concussions and the unknown of what he will actually turn into. His development is the furthest behind (partially due to age) and it is crucial to whether he becomes the elite offensive defenseman he has the potential to be, or if he falls off the face of the earth entirely.

It probably comes down to preference, but the skating is enough to sway me towards Boqvist. He is a markedly better skater, IMO. I also have the concussion concerns, but outside of that I don't think he is all that risky. He came in a shade under 6 foot at the combine, he is just going to take some time to develop and fill out. Time is something we have right now, I'm fine with taking someone who is raw but also has big upside.
 

lilidk

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
9,592
3,426
It probably comes down to preference, but the skating is enough to sway me towards Boqvist. He is a markedly better skater, IMO. I also have the concussion concerns, but outside of that I don't think he is all that risky. He came in a shade under 6 foot at the combine, he is just going to take some time to develop and fill out. Time is something we have right now, I'm fine with taking someone who is raw but also has big upside.
Boost is 1" taller than Hughes and people call him undesize.
 

Hen Kolland

Registered User
Feb 22, 2018
9,470
8,336
It probably comes down to preference, but the skating is enough to sway me towards Boqvist. He is a markedly better skater, IMO. I also have the concussion concerns, but outside of that I don't think he is all that risky. He came in a shade under 6 foot at the combine, he is just going to take some time to develop and fill out. Time is something we have right now, I'm fine with taking someone who is raw but also has big upside.

Oh there's no doubt that he has physical tools that easily surpass Bouchard, and I have no reservations about his size as a 17 year old. Being essentially 6', it would be near impossible to not add weight to a 165 pound frame as an athlete. The issue that I have, outside the concussions, is not that he's just raw, but he's developmentally behind the curve. He's by far and away he has the furthest journey to be even considered remotely competent in his own zone, and he plays a very risky style of game in general which needs to be toned down. He doesn't have the fallback to say he successfully played with grown men like Dahlin; sure he played in the SHL a little, but he did absolutely nothing in that time.

I feel there are a few more guarantees with Bouchard; that he has a body that plays at the NHL right now, he has an offensive sense and poise that plays at the NHL right now, his shot plays at the NHL right now (although Boqvist's probably does even moreso). The big question marks on Bouchard at this point are going to be defensive awareness/positioning/compete level and his stop-start skating. I think his skating flaws are likely overstated because he looks like a poor skater only when compared to his peers projected to go top 10, otherwise he is no worse than average. Defensively he has the build to be a gifted defender, I believe he has the character to put in the work, so it will really just be a situation where he needs to be coached up and have the desire to be great.

If everything plays out perfectly, you're looking at a superstar in Boqvist, but there are some serious hurdles he will have to clear. The fact that people say he's 3 years out from NHL-ready tells you just how much growth and development he still needs to endure. That's a high risk for a potentially very, very high reward. I hope he can achieve it though, it would be fun to watch him play at his ceiling regardless of where he ends up.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
Oh there's no doubt that he has physical tools that easily surpass Bouchard, and I have no reservations about his size as a 17 year old. Being essentially 6', it would be near impossible to not add weight to a 165 pound frame as an athlete. The issue that I have, outside the concussions, is not that he's just raw, but he's developmentally behind the curve. He's by far and away he has the furthest journey to be even considered remotely competent in his own zone, and he plays a very risky style of game in general which needs to be toned down. He doesn't have the fallback to say he successfully played with grown men like Dahlin; sure he played in the SHL a little, but he did absolutely nothing in that time.

I feel there are a few more guarantees with Bouchard; that he has a body that plays at the NHL right now, he has an offensive sense and poise that plays at the NHL right now, his shot plays at the NHL right now (although Boqvist's probably does even moreso). The big question marks on Bouchard at this point are going to be defensive awareness/positioning/compete level and his stop-start skating. I think his skating flaws are likely overstated because he looks like a poor skater only when compared to his peers projected to go top 10, otherwise he is no worse than average. Defensively he has the build to be a gifted defender, I believe he has the character to put in the work, so it will really just be a situation where he needs to be coached up and have the desire to be great.

If everything plays out perfectly, you're looking at a superstar in Boqvist, but there are some serious hurdles he will have to clear. The fact that people say he's 3 years out from NHL-ready tells you just how much growth and development he still needs to endure. That's a high risk for a potentially very, very high reward. I hope he can achieve it though, it would be fun to watch him play at his ceiling regardless of where he ends up.

Boqvist is the youngest guy in the draft, though. He's four months younger than Dahlin, and 8 months younger than Dobson. The rest of the D that's expected to go in the top10 are '99 birthdays. Being a bit behind developmentally from the rest of his draft class -especially those on the upper end - has to be somewhat expected.

Tack 4-8 months onto Boqvist, and I could see him being 10-15 lbs heavier with the right training. Or just a lot of Hot and Ready's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fire Ken Holland

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->