HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2011 NHL Entry Draft Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-11-2011, 08:27 AM
  #51
Bougieman
Registered User
 
Bougieman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,451
vCash: 200
I know what you mean, Dirkph.

I barely have enough time to follow everything the Canucks do, nevermind what is going on in the rest of the teams in the league, and doubly nevermind what is going on in the various Junior hockey leagues. I dunno if you guys don't have jobs, or just don't have any other interests, but I do know that you bring this to a whole other level that I am not on.

Bougieman is offline  
Old
01-11-2011, 08:46 AM
  #52
eli J
Claw Machine broke
 
eli J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moncton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,045
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to eli J
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesomesauce View Post
Whoever Detroit plans on taking in round 6.
Especially if they are Swedish or Russian!

eli J is offline  
Old
01-11-2011, 09:29 AM
  #53
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 22,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkph View Post
May I ask everyone a non-related question?

How on earth does anyone know anything about anybody in these drafts? Do you all just read scouting reports and regurgitate what you've read? Or spend countless hours watching junior games?

The amount of knowledge some of you guys have blows me away.
Watch games (mostly WHL, some OHL, very little College hockey, KHL, SEL and Czech league) and know scouts. Also read scouting blogs... Doesn't really take up that much time, although to be fair I have my own business and have very flexible schedule.

Also haven't been watching much NHL aside from the 'Nucks this year, so I've watched more juniors instead.


Last edited by Tiranis: 01-11-2011 at 09:39 AM.
Tiranis is offline  
Old
01-12-2011, 09:03 PM
  #54
Turk February*
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouverish...
Posts: 542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
Yup. There is a way you shoot to.

If you're Canadian, and you write with your right, you tend to shoot left. If you're American, and you write with your right, you tend to shoot right. Europeans I forget, but I think they are a hybrid of both (50/50).

Which is weird, because I am Canadian, write with my right, and shoot right.


I give up.


It’s Not Political, but More Canadians Are Lefties
By JEFF Z. KLEIN
NEW YORK TIMES

Published: February 15, 2010


VANCOUVER, British Columbia — What is the difference between a Canadian and an American? The old question is coming up again here at the Olympics, with answers involving eagerness for war, ketchup, the pronunciation of toque or the ability to identify poutine and the Tragically Hip.

But none may be so simple as how one holds a hockey stick. According to sales figures from stick manufacturers, a majority of Canadian hockey players shoot left-handed, and a majority of American players shoot right-handed.

No reason is known for this disparity, which cuts across all age groups and has persisted for decades.

Most Canadians, like most Americans, are naturally right-handed, so the discrepancy has nothing to do with national brain-wiring. And how you hold a pencil, say, has little or no bearing on how you hold a stick. A left-handed shooter puts his right hand on top; a right-hander puts the left hand there.

For years, how a hockey player picked up his stick was of little importance. The blades were straight and a player could swing the sticks from either side. Two Hockey Hall of Famers from the mid-20th century — wing Gordie Howe and goalie Bill Durnan — actually played ambidextrously.

But the advent of curved blades in the ’60s not only spelled the end of the classic backhand shot, it also meant that manufacturers had to label sticks L and R, and inventory personnel had to ship more left-handed sticks (with the blade curving to the right) to Canada and more right-handed ones to the United States.

“I have no idea why this is so,” said Mike Mountain, who is in charge of hockey sticks for Easton, a sporting goods manufacturer based in Van Nuys, Calif. “But it has been true for years, and it doesn’t change; it stays consistent over time.”

Roughly 60 percent of the Easton hockey sticks sold in Canada are for left-handed shots, Mountain said. In the United States, he said, about 60 percent of sticks sold are for right-handed shots. Figures over the years from other manufacturers have put the ratio discrepancy between the two countries as high as 70 to 30.

The difference even trickles over into golf, where the swing is not unlike that of a slap shot. According to the Professional Golfers Association, 7 percent of Canadian golfers play left-handed, which is proportionally more than any other nationality. The reason is probably that Canadians pick up a hockey stick first and are therefore imprinted by the time they take up golf. Especially if they are from Quebec, where hockey players are even more left-handed than players in the rest of Canada.

Oddly, British Columbia — sometimes said to be the most American-like of the Canadian provinces — skews the other way. “The rest of the country goes 2 to 1 in favor of left sticks, but it’s reversed in B.C.,” said Marc Poirier, a customer service representative who handles Canadian orders for Warrior Sticks.

Europeans also tend to be left-handed shooters. The International Ice Hockey Federation does not keep figures by European nationality, the communications director Szymon Szemberg said. But, he said, lefty shooters have predominated. “For long spells, the great Soviet teams of the ’80s never had a player who shot right,” Szemberg said.

The Canadian journalist and author Bruce Dowbiggin noted the Canadian-American handedness split in his 2001 book, “The Stick: A History, a Celebration, an Elegy.” On Dowbiggin’s Web site, a reader named Kent Mayhew suggested the difference may have to do with how old a player is when he first picks up a hockey stick.
“The top hand on a hockey stick has to be able to handle the torques of a stick while the bottom hand just has to handle the weight with no torques,” he wrote. He theorized that American children, who tend to take up hockey when they are older and bigger, can afford to put the stronger hand, generally the right, on the lower part of the shaft for more precision.

A lot of experts would argue, however, that having the dominant hand on top makes for better control and stick-handling.

The United States Olympic women’s hockey coach, Mark Johnson, is in that camp, but he said: “Whether you’re living in a hotbed hockey community or you live in a naďve place where you don’t really know hockey, and you’re a mother or a father taking your daughter to a hockey shop, you’ll ask, ‘Which way do you write?’ If she says right-handed, well, she’s going to be right-handed.

“That’s generally not the way you want to do it. You want your dominant hand on top of your stick. But you look around and there’s a lot of right-handed female players, more so than with men.”

On the women’s 2010 Olympic teams, which feature 21-player rosters, 15 members of Team Canada shoot left-handed compared with 10 on Team U.S.A. On the men’s rosters, the difference is less pronounced, with 15 left-handers on Team Canada and 13 on Team U.S.A. out of 23 players on the roster.

A 2006 study found that 60 percent of all National Hockey League forwards were left-handed, as were 70 percent of all N.H.L. defensemen, but those statistics were not sorted by nationality.

Three players with Team U.S.A. said they had not noticed the discrepancy until it was brought to their attention Monday.

“I noticed a lot of righties when I was growing up, but now I see a lot of lefties,” said Ryan Suter, who plays for the Nashville Predators and shoots left-handed.
There are oddities, too. For example, all the regulars on the New Jersey Devils’ defense corps — three Americans, four Canadians and a Finn — shoot left-handed. For every left-handed-shooting Wayne Gretzky, there is a right-handed-shooting Mario Lemieux. The career top-scoring American, Mike Modano, shoots left. His predecessor as the Americans’ top career scorer, Joe Mullen, shot right.
“It’s probably a cultural quirk,” offered Brian Tran, a hockey-playing sales clerk at Cyclone Taylor Sports, a Vancouver hockey store. “Everybody’s doing it one way, so you follow along.”

He sought out Toby Higo, the only righty working at the store Monday morning, to find out how he had gone so terribly wrong.

“It’s something that comes the first time you pick up a stick when you’re a kid,” Higo said.

Parents regularly arrive at the shop uncertain about what kind of stick to buy their children. Higo said Cyclone Taylor employees apply a simple test: “We give the kid a stick and see what they do.”

Turk February* is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 11:32 AM
  #55
hefsbeaver
Registered User
 
hefsbeaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alesmarv View Post
I wont even try to talk about Musil, and as has been said there is zero chance he goes that low. BUT as far as Chara goes you should know that he wasnt even drafted in his draft year as he was passed over while he was still playing U18 in Slovakia, and that is with 9 rounds in the draft. He wasnt good and it wasnt until the year after that he was noticed and drafted in the 3rd round mostly because he was a giant on skates. It took him years and years to get to the point of a elite dman, until then he was considered by most as a borderline bottom pairing dman with nothing no real potential beyond that. So to say someone is a poor mans Chara isnt saying much.
when Chara first came to canada, in PG the coach at the time (stan Butler) got him into boxing lessons to help him with foot work and balance, once the lessons started kicking in he became a great hockey player, before he was just a giant.

hefsbeaver is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 12:43 PM
  #56
Eddy Punch Clock
Go Herbvat
 
Eddy Punch Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chillbillyville
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hefsbeaver View Post
when Chara first came to canada, in PG the coach at the time (stan Butler) got him into boxing lessons to help him with foot work and balance, once the lessons started kicking in he became a great hockey player, before he was just a giant.
Burke referred to him as a "novelty" when asked if he had any interest in acquiring him.

Good quote, but not as funny as his "I have one too many Fedorovs as it is."

Eddy Punch Clock is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 12:49 PM
  #57
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy Punch Clock View Post
Burke referred to him as a "novelty" when asked if he had any interest in acquiring him.

Good quote, but not as funny as his "I have one too many Fedorovs as it is."
It's just his keen eye for a developing talent.

ddawg1950 is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 01:32 PM
  #58
NuxFan09
Registered User
 
NuxFan09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,166
vCash: 500
I think the Canucks are at the point where they don't necessarily NEED to draft a D-man in the first round. It's obviously still nice to have depth at D in your prospect pool but with Ballard and Hamhuis now here long term, it isn't necessary to use our 1st on a sure fire D.

What the Canucks need is another winger in the system. They're set with Hank and Kesler anchoring the top 2 lines for the next 4-5 years and they've got hodgson in the fold so the Center situation is fine now. In fact, they're currently elite at that position. As far as wingers go, Schroeder and Shirokov are the only semi-promising prospects (and Schroeder is actually a natural C) and on the big club, the only developing young-ish winger the Canucks have is Mason Raymond.

Jaskin would be at the top of my list. Here's a video highlighting his hat trick against Russia in an U20 tournament.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT8-ursmAKU


Last edited by NuxFan09: 01-13-2011 at 01:39 PM.
NuxFan09 is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 01:37 PM
  #59
Just A Bit Outside
Playoffs??!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,319
vCash: 500
With a bit more seasoning either in the SEL or AHL (preferably), I could see Rodin being our top wing prospect. I think he's at a good base right now.

1-2 more years and he could fit on Kesler's wing.

Just A Bit Outside is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 01:40 PM
  #60
DeveinedPgBc
Registered User
 
DeveinedPgBc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: left of hell pg bc
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
when Chara first came to canada, in PG the coach at the time (stan Butler) got him into boxing lessons to help him with foot work and balance, once the lessons started kicking in he became a great hockey player, before he was just a giant.
actually chara's dad enrolled him in boxing lessons before he even came over to canada.because "if you want to play in north america, you have to play like a north american."

close though

DeveinedPgBc is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 01:42 PM
  #61
NuxFan09
Registered User
 
NuxFan09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bougieman View Post
I know what you mean, Dirkph.

I barely have enough time to follow everything the Canucks do, nevermind what is going on in the rest of the teams in the league, and doubly nevermind what is going on in the various Junior hockey leagues. I dunno if you guys don't have jobs, or just don't have any other interests, but I do know that you bring this to a whole other level that I am not on.
I don't know about you but I don't find it that hard to gain lot's of hockey knowledge without taking up my whole day.

NuxFan09 is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 02:13 PM
  #62
0123456789*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuxFan09 View Post
I think the Canucks are at the point where they don't necessarily NEED to draft a D-man in the first round. It's obviously still nice to have depth at D in your prospect pool but with Ballard and Hamhuis now here long term, it isn't necessary to use our 1st on a sure fire D.

What the Canucks need is another winger in the system. They're set with Hank and Kesler anchoring the top 2 lines for the next 4-5 years and they've got hodgson in the fold so the Center situation is fine now. In fact, they're currently elite at that position. As far as wingers go, Schroeder and Shirokov are the only semi-promising prospects (and Schroeder is actually a natural C) and on the big club, the only developing young-ish winger the Canucks have is Mason Raymond.

Jaskin would be at the top of my list. Here's a video highlighting his hat trick against Russia in an U20 tournament.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT8-ursmAKU
Someone will get a steal with Jaskin but I can pretty much guarantee that he wont go low enough for the Canucks. I haven't seen him play personally as I never made it out to Czech republic but based on what I hear and see he looks like a real talent and a real riser in this draft. If he didnt get hurt before the WJHC he probably would have been talked about in the top 10. It will be interesting though where he goes, the injury really hurt his draft stock as he missed out on opportunities to further show that he is the real deal. If he does infact fall because not enough teams have enough information and scouting about him to feel certain with thie pick then I would hope the Canucks would snap him up, but I really dont see how that happens. Like I said based on what he does for the rest of the season and before the draft he is one of the players that can slip in to the top 10, and if he didnt miss the WJHC it sounds like he had the potential to rise even more before the draft.

He plays a Oveckin type game, obviously im not saying he is as good but thats the type of player he is, a skilled power forward with size and a hard work ethic.(keep in mind this is all second hand information).

0123456789* is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 02:23 PM
  #63
Velociraptor
Registered User
 
Velociraptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Maritimes
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,772
vCash: 500
I WANT JAMIESON OLEKSIAK. 6'7", 244 and growing? Yes please, he might be around at 30th overall and he looks like a very solid prospect. Mark Scheifele is also a pretty intriguing prospect having a great season with the Barrie Colts.

Velociraptor is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 02:37 PM
  #64
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,381
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuxFan09 View Post
I think the Canucks are at the point where they don't necessarily NEED to draft a D-man in the first round. It's obviously still nice to have depth at D in your prospect pool but with Ballard and Hamhuis now here long term, it isn't necessary to use our 1st on a sure fire D.

What the Canucks need is another winger in the system. They're set with Hank and Kesler anchoring the top 2 lines for the next 4-5 years and they've got hodgson in the fold so the Center situation is fine now. In fact, they're currently elite at that position. As far as wingers go, Schroeder and Shirokov are the only semi-promising prospects (and Schroeder is actually a natural C) and on the big club, the only developing young-ish winger the Canucks have is Mason Raymond.

Jaskin would be at the top of my list. Here's a video highlighting his hat trick against Russia in an U20 tournament.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT8-ursmAKU
Really like the looks of Jaskin too... interested to see how far he could fall as I don't see him listed in any mock drafts anywhere in the first round but he seems to have the talent.

LickTheEnvelope is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 02:44 PM
  #65
CalgaryCanuck03
@calgarycanuck03
 
CalgaryCanuck03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velociraptor View Post
I WANT JAMIESON OLEKSIAK. 6'7", 244 and growing? Yes please, he might be around at 30th overall and he looks like a very solid prospect. Mark Scheifele is also a pretty intriguing prospect having a great season with the Barrie Colts.
6'7 244?? That dude is a beast. I have no idea what kind of player he is though. Although if Oleksiak has any sort of average to above average sakting potential, he'll rise.

Puempel could be a nice pickup he looks to be a strong offensive prospect.

On the european side of things, there seems to be a strong Swedish contingent this year. Wasn't Victor Rask a potential top 10 pick at the begining of the year?

CalgaryCanuck03 is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 02:47 PM
  #66
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,202
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Honestly, I want nothing to do with Oleksiak. I can see him being a complete bust.

Really, it seems like the only reason people are drooling over him is because of his size, and how many times do we see a defensemen highly rated due to his size end up playing fewer than 80 pro games because he doesn't have the talent? I fear Oleksiak could fall into that category.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 02:49 PM
  #67
CalgaryCanuck03
@calgarycanuck03
 
CalgaryCanuck03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauser View Post
Honestly, I want nothing to do with Oleksiak. I can see him being a complete bust.

Really, it seems like the only reason people are drooling over him is because of his size, and how many times do we see a defensemen highly rated due to his size end up playing fewer than 80 pro games because he doesn't have the talent? I fear Oleksiak could fall into that category.
To me it comes down to his skating ability. If he can't keep up, theres no advantage to him being so big. He's definately intriguing though.

CalgaryCanuck03 is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 03:26 PM
  #68
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 22,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alesmarv View Post
Someone will get a steal with Jaskin but I can pretty much guarantee that he wont go low enough for the Canucks. I haven't seen him play personally as I never made it out to Czech republic but based on what I hear and see he looks like a real talent and a real riser in this draft. If he didnt get hurt before the WJHC he probably would have been talked about in the top 10. It will be interesting though where he goes, the injury really hurt his draft stock as he missed out on opportunities to further show that he is the real deal. If he does infact fall because not enough teams have enough information and scouting about him to feel certain with thie pick then I would hope the Canucks would snap him up, but I really dont see how that happens. Like I said based on what he does for the rest of the season and before the draft he is one of the players that can slip in to the top 10, and if he didnt miss the WJHC it sounds like he had the potential to rise even more before the draft.

He plays a Oveckin type game, obviously im not saying he is as good but thats the type of player he is, a skilled power forward with size and a hard work ethic.(keep in mind this is all second hand information).
He's more of a physical Marian Hossa and I say this having seem him play... not as polished offensively although it's hard to evaluate because he plays against men.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauser View Post
Honestly, I want nothing to do with Oleksiak. I can see him being a complete bust.

Really, it seems like the only reason people are drooling over him is because of his size, and how many times do we see a defensemen highly rated due to his size end up playing fewer than 80 pro games because he doesn't have the talent? I fear Oleksiak could fall into that category.
I've spoken out against drafting Oleksiak in the first round, but to suggest that he's going to be a complete bust or that he's highly rated simply because of his size... *sigh* You could always choose to inform yourself about a prospect instead of saying stuff that's completely contradictory to everything out there.


Last edited by Tiranis: 01-13-2011 at 03:32 PM.
Tiranis is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 03:28 PM
  #69
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuxFan09 View Post
I think the Canucks are at the point where they don't necessarily NEED to draft a D-man in the first round. It's obviously still nice to have depth at D in your prospect pool but with Ballard and Hamhuis now here long term, it isn't necessary to use our 1st on a sure fire D.

What the Canucks need is another winger in the system. They're set with Hank and Kesler anchoring the top 2 lines for the next 4-5 years and they've got hodgson in the fold so the Center situation is fine now. In fact, they're currently elite at that position. As far as wingers go, Schroeder and Shirokov are the only semi-promising prospects (and Schroeder is actually a natural C) and on the big club, the only developing young-ish winger the Canucks have is Mason Raymond.

Jaskin would be at the top of my list. Here's a video highlighting his hat trick against Russia in an U20 tournament.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT8-ursmAKU
In an ideal world, the prospect pool needs an infusion of forwards who have a combination of physical presence and scoring. Basically if the team could add a guy in the mold of a Kesler in terms of his physical play and point production from the past 2 seasons. A 60-70 point guy. Last season, I was hoping that a guy like Austin Watson would drop to the Nucks pick, but he went to Nashville in the late teens.

Canucks should likely target 1 D and 1 F in the 1st 2 rounds assuming they keep their picks, which I hope they do, since they traded their top 3 picks last season and the 1st rounders from 2006 and 2007 already. Need to keep the cupboard stocked. Would like to see the team develop a couple of gritty 3rd and 4th liners through their mid to late picks.

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 03:30 PM
  #70
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 22,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
In an ideal world, the prospect pool needs an infusion of forwards who have a combination of physical presence and scoring. Basically if the team could add a guy in the mold of a Kesler in terms of his physical play and point production from the past 2 seasons. A 60-70 point guy. Last season, I was hoping that a guy like Austin Watson would drop to the Nucks pick, but he went to Nashville in the late teens.
Jaskin is your guy but he likely won't last that long... same for McNeill who's even less likely to last that long. Dan Catenacci is a good two-way forward with a scoring touch, a little smaller but an extremely hard worker, etc.

---

I think it would be a mistake to draft a defenseman in the first round (unless some top end guy falls unexpectedly) because there's such a low chance of them contributing while on ELC especially on a Cup-contending team with our depth on defense.


Last edited by Tiranis: 01-13-2011 at 03:39 PM.
Tiranis is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 03:46 PM
  #71
Velociraptor
Registered User
 
Velociraptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Maritimes
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauser View Post
Honestly, I want nothing to do with Oleksiak. I can see him being a complete bust.

Really, it seems like the only reason people are drooling over him is because of his size, and how many times do we see a defensemen highly rated due to his size end up playing fewer than 80 pro games because he doesn't have the talent? I fear Oleksiak could fall into that category.
It comes down to beastliness and great hockey names in the end

= Jamieson Oleksiak, the guy is compared to Chara already, and his skating ability is great for a kid of his size.

Velociraptor is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 04:08 PM
  #72
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
In an ideal world, the prospect pool needs an infusion of forwards who have a combination of physical presence and scoring. Basically if the team could add a guy in the mold of a Kesler in terms of his physical play and point production from the past 2 seasons. A 60-70 point guy. Last season, I was hoping that a guy like Austin Watson would drop to the Nucks pick, but he went to Nashville in the late teens.
60-70 points is asking a lot out of our draft position. But Colin Jacobs in Seattle fits that mold otherwise...skates well, good size and toughness, defensively responsible. Won't be more than a 40ish point guy in the NHL, but that's a pretty good result for a late first rounder when you consider what else he brings to the table. He was projected to go high a while ago, but didn't have a great season last year and is borderline first/likely second-rounder now.

Of course, he's in the WHL, so who knows what kind of scouting we're getting on him.

Lard_Lad is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 05:06 PM
  #73
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,202
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
I've spoken out against drafting Oleksiak in the first round, but to suggest that he's going to be a complete bust or that he's highly rated simply because of his size... *sigh* You could always choose to inform yourself about a prospect instead of saying stuff that's completely contradictory to everything out there.
I've seen this movie before. See: Vladimir Mihalik and Boris Valabik. Both monsters in frame, both former first round picks (Valabik drafted 10th overall), neither are NHL calibre players.

What's funny is you can't use the "oh but if he were Canadian you'd love him" crap that I've seen you and others pull on me many other times, because Oleksiak IS Canadian. I still don't want him.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 05:11 PM
  #74
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 17,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauser View Post
I've seen this movie before. See: Vladimir Mihalik and Boris Valabik. Both monsters in frame, both former first round picks (Valabik drafted 10th overall), neither are NHL calibre players.

What's funny is you can't use the "oh but if he were Canadian you'd love him" crap that I've seen you and others pull on me many other times, because Oleksiak IS Canadian. I still don't want him.
What about the Tyler Myers movie? Did you want the Canucks to draft Myers?

Drop the Sopel is offline  
Old
01-13-2011, 05:15 PM
  #75
Velociraptor
Registered User
 
Velociraptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Maritimes
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauser View Post
I've seen this movie before. See: Vladimir Mihalik and Boris Valabik. Both monsters in frame, both former first round picks (Valabik drafted 10th overall), neither are NHL calibre players.

What's funny is you can't use the "oh but if he were Canadian you'd love him" crap that I've seen you and others pull on me many other times, because Oleksiak IS Canadian. I still don't want him.
Canadian-born, American citizen, was a final cut for the U.S. World Junior Team. Mihalik and Valabik are both very slow European defenseman, both just couldn't adjust to the North American game, however Oleksiak is proving himself very well in college hockey, and I think has similar potential to Tyler Myers. He can move the puck and he has a laser of a shot. I think he's the type of guy to take a risk on, if we end up drafting 25 > or even at 30, we can take the risk on Oleksiak, and I don't think it's even much of a risk, because right now, he is a solid young hockey player, with loads of potential.

Velociraptor is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.