Watched several of USA’s games at the U18’s and I can’t think of a worse style comparison for Wahlstrom than Parise. Parise is a balls-to-the-wall hustle box player who never stops skating. Wahlstrom’s balls are well clear of the wall and he rarely starts skating except to get to the bench. He’s stylistically a lot closer to Brett Hull than Parise. Basically floats into soft ice and waits for others to get him the puck. Guys got a helluva shot but he can’t continue play that game and expect to go far as an NHLer. Wanted badly to like him but left disappointed.
Post-Game Talk: With 58% odds to pick 7th or 8th, Vancouver will select... 7th in the 2018 NHL Draft
- Thread starter Zombotron
- Start date
- Status
VasilyHoglander
Registered User
Horse McHindu
They call me Horse.....
I agree that we need offense badly, but a lot of offense is created from solid puck moving defensemen.
There’s a few things that annoy me about Boqvist’s and Bouchard’s game which is why despite our needs for a defensemen, I’m not busting at the chops to draft either of those guys.
While I don’t LOVE Dobson since I don’t think he’ll be a superstar, he’s a solid pick imo. Very good all around game and plays the right side.
The fanboy in me is also saying that we pick Wahlstrom or Kotkaniemi if those guys are available. The realist in me however, is saying that our needs on defense are so severe, that we should probably draft Dobson over those guys if we have the choice.
Dobson > Wahlstrom > Kotkaniemi > Boqvist (will likely be long gone anyways) > Bouchard
Is my order of who I would select at the #7 spot.
Horse McHindu
They call me Horse.....
Oh really? Dang. I had him pegged as being A fast skating highly physical forward that enjoyed getting in on the forecheck.
If your observations are true, then yeah.......hard pass.
Go with Dobson if he’s available.
PuckMunchkin
Very Nice, Very Evil!
If you bump out Kotkaniemi out from the top 10 Im right there with ya.
I'm not sure if I've been just scared in to not liking Bouchard, and am now undervaluing him.
His lack of skating has been made in to a huge deal, but the production he put out this season is just insane all things considered.
Zadina / Svechnikov / Dahlen would have been game changers for this rebuild.
Now we just have to hope they swing this one out of the park like the did with Boeser at 23rd.
He’s a good skater and can move when he wants to. But he doesn’t have blazing speed (he looks like he’s 10-15 lbs too heavy) and doesn’t really play a style where he would use it anyway. Granted maybe he plays that way because Hughes is a superb puck carrier and distributer but Wahlstrom’s effort level was troublingly low in the games I watched. Definitely was hoping to see more speed and dynamism in his game.
And a big thumbs up on Dobson for me. Granted I’ve only seen highlights of his game but I love what I’ve seen. Seems like a mix of Tanev’s efficicient defensive game and 2010-2012 Edler’s offensive game. Very nice blend of size, skill, and smarts.
Horse McHindu
They call me Horse.....
Good list and good post.
Keep in mind that often times, someone’s game in juniors doesn’t always translate to the NHL (I know you know this but I’m just mentioning it).
I could be wrong obviously, but I’m just not very high on either of Zadina or Bouchard. I am in the camp that feels Bouchards skating will be too much of an issue. Zadina also doesn’t strike me as being particularly special. I had the same feeling about him as I did with Pulji.
I have absolutely no idea what to make of Boqvist. Complete hit or miss for me.
Dobson and Kotkaniemi are likely my top two choices. I was high on Wahlstrom but apparently, he’s not all that?
Askel
By the way Benning should be fired.
BROCK HUGHES
Registered User
I say we take Hughes if he is there,we need offence from the back end.And pray we get the brother next draft.
Dr Black
Registered User
- Oct 31, 2015
- 482
- 368
In regards to this draft lottery, the Canucks drafted arguably the best player in the 2017 draft, Elias Pettersson, in spite of losing the draft lottery. Were as the Canucks drafted a dud in Olli Juolevi directly because they lost that draft lottery.
That said, I sure hope the Canucks draft pick this year resembles what they picked in 2017 (Pettersson) as opposed to what they picked in 2016 (Juolevi)
That said, I sure hope the Canucks draft pick this year resembles what they picked in 2017 (Pettersson) as opposed to what they picked in 2016 (Juolevi)
Well, we also picked Virtanen and Juolevi after losing the lottery, so I wouldn’t call it the best of signs. Hopefully we stray away from CHL.
If Canucks had Jets drafting and luck(laine) they would be closer to being a cup contender right now.
Jets 1st round pick 2016 to 2011 Connor Laine Ehlers Morrisey Trouba Scheifele. Three 1st line wingers/one number 1 center/one top pairing D/one top 4 D. Now a cup contender. They did this with only one pick higher than 7th. Rebuild you need get your 1st round pick right. Canucks didn't do that in 2014 and 2015.
David Bruce Banner
Nude Cabdriver Ban
Dr Black
Registered User
- Oct 31, 2015
- 482
- 368
In 2014 when they picked Virtanen, the draft lottery had a much different format where only the first overall pick was decided by the lotto. So the odds of moving up or down where much lower in 2014 than in 2016 when Bettman put in the new draft lottery format. So in that way, you are kinda comparing apples to oranges.
Doing apples to apple comparison of Virtanen verses Juolevi, Virtanen looks like the better choice or the least objectionable of the two. Obviously, Virtanen showed tremendous improvement this season. A less obvious reason is the comparisons to the other guys of their respective draft classes. Sure, there are other guys drafted after Virtanen that are better players. However, there are also other guys from that top 1o in 2014 that are about the same if not worse than Virtanen. For instance, the guy drafted one ahead of Virtanen at 5th overall, Micheal Del Colle looks like a catastrophic bust! So compared to Del Colle, Virtanen looks like a steal.
On the other hand, the ONE and ONLY player from the 2016 draft top 10 who has not played a single game in the NHL is Olli Juolevi. That doesn't look good on Canucks or Juolevi.
Dal Colle was picked before, you can’t compare you. We could’ve however picked Nylander or Ehlers.
Canucks LB
My Favourite, Gone too soon, RIP Luc, We miss you
- Oct 12, 2008
- 76,521
- 28,907
I'll always preface by saying I have a very limited grasp of prospects, so this is as much a question as a statement. But Hughes seems more dynamic to me than a Krug or even Gostisbehere potentially. Saying that fully aware Ghost put up 65 points this year.
The closest comparison IMO would be Makar, who everyone agrees was/is worthy of being taken where he was, but even then I think Hughes is a smoother player. There isn't really a clear stylistic comparison that seems to fit. Maybe Pouliot...but with better numbers against harder competition?? People often talk about how foolish it was to discount Kopitar just because he was from a country that doesn't produce NHL talent. That same logic is now being applied to Dobson to an extent because of the lack of defenseman from the Q. But Dobson is getting comparisons to Pietrangelo because that's a logical stylistic comparison.
Yet, Hughes is being compared to Troy Stecher on the low end and Torey Krug as his upside? Krug is a 60 point defenseman (hint: that's nearly double the production of any defenseman we currently have), and not a defensive liability, so that's not a shot at Hughes... but the main underlying factor for a comparison is height/size. So is the Stecher talk just because small-ish defensemen that put up points but don't have the strength/size to win net front battles don't traditionally make it as #1 defensemen? Or is it because there just aren't any small defenseman that fit the mold of defensemen that are traditionally considered stud #1s?
Two more thoughts; watching Vegas play, Hughes seems like a player that would be a dream match up against a team like that to fight fire with fire. OTOH, I worry that chasing small skill players now might be going after a lagging indicator; everyone wants those players. In 2-3 years when the Canucks will actually be good, maybe the key will be to have defensemen like Dobson that have the size and strength to neutralize the waterbug players scattered throughout the league.
The closest comparison IMO would be Makar, who everyone agrees was/is worthy of being taken where he was, but even then I think Hughes is a smoother player. There isn't really a clear stylistic comparison that seems to fit. Maybe Pouliot...but with better numbers against harder competition?? People often talk about how foolish it was to discount Kopitar just because he was from a country that doesn't produce NHL talent. That same logic is now being applied to Dobson to an extent because of the lack of defenseman from the Q. But Dobson is getting comparisons to Pietrangelo because that's a logical stylistic comparison.
Yet, Hughes is being compared to Troy Stecher on the low end and Torey Krug as his upside? Krug is a 60 point defenseman (hint: that's nearly double the production of any defenseman we currently have), and not a defensive liability, so that's not a shot at Hughes... but the main underlying factor for a comparison is height/size. So is the Stecher talk just because small-ish defensemen that put up points but don't have the strength/size to win net front battles don't traditionally make it as #1 defensemen? Or is it because there just aren't any small defenseman that fit the mold of defensemen that are traditionally considered stud #1s?
Two more thoughts; watching Vegas play, Hughes seems like a player that would be a dream match up against a team like that to fight fire with fire. OTOH, I worry that chasing small skill players now might be going after a lagging indicator; everyone wants those players. In 2-3 years when the Canucks will actually be good, maybe the key will be to have defensemen like Dobson that have the size and strength to neutralize the waterbug players scattered throughout the league.
I think your exaggerating Luc its not that bad and is something that can be improved
nowhereman
Registered User
Could you be any more dramatic? They haven't been great but they're nowhere near "the worst management group in the modern history of NA pro sports".
This post is an example of what's wrong with Canucks fans. Typically, they think in terms of extremes and balk at anyone who doesn't share their opinion. CDC is full of blind homers, while HFBoards is packed with toxic "the sky is falling" negativity. Not sure which one is worse...
I am probably in prospects much like you not a super knowledgeable. Having said that I think every prospect in our range has some questions surrounding them. I am less worried about Hughes size and more so his shot. He needs a better shot to be effective. I have him higher than most here.
I think MY problem with Dobson is just he doesn't seem to excel at anything. I personally find that hard to define and project. He has moved up my board though. What people I think are worried about him when it comes to the Q is questioning if that league can develop him, not if it can create him. Maybe you draft him and try to get him traded out of the Q... I don't know.
Out of the D that could be in our range I am highest on Boqvist. I am now scared a bit by his Concussions. Without them, I think he would be a top 3 talent in this draft. The question is how do you feel about ricking injuries? While anyone could get a serious injury he would be much more of a worry there.
Just my quick thoughts from someone far from an expert.
Just curious what you would call a management team that while trying to win has had a team that has the worst record in their league over a 3 year period.
Would love to see a bunch of examples of worse groups.
Just remember....they were trying to compete and make the playoffs every single year, and are the worst NHL club over a 3 year period....while trying to win.
- Status
