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

Who would you have taken at the 26th overall?

View Poll Results: Who would you have taken at 26th overall?
Sebastian Collberg 8 7.92%
Pontus Aberg 3 2.97%
Dalton Thrower 3 2.97%
Matt Finn 0 0%
Ludwig Bystrom 0 0%
Martin Frk 2 1.98%
Damon Severson 1 0.99%
Tim Bozon 1 0.99%
Tanner Pearson 0 0%
Stefan Matteau 0 0%
Henrik Samuelsson 11 10.89%
Brady Skjei 1 0.99%
Ville Pokka 1 0.99%
Nicolas Kerdiles 0 0%
Oscar Dansk 2 1.98%
Mitch Moroz 1 0.99%
Lukas Sutter 0 0%
Phil di Giuseppe 0 0%
Colton Sissons 1 0.99%
Patrick Sieloff 0 0%
Dylan Blujus 0 0%
Mitchell Heard 0 0%
Jake McCabe 0 0%
Anthony Stolarz 0 0%
Raphael Bussieres 0 0%
Brock McGinn 0 0%
Theodor Blueger 0 0%
Brian Hart 0 0%
Brendan Gaunce 66 65.35%
Other(please specify) 0 0%
Voters: 101. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-04-2012, 04:55 PM
  #26
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I liked Collberg the best, even over Gaunce, because he has mad skills, and we seem to be adept at developing Swedes into star players.(Sedins, Edler, and Jensen[if he sorta counts] and Tommernes tearing up the SEL)

He also significantly outperformed Forsberg at the WJC.



Going from the Collbergs to the Gaunces is a change in draft philosophy. One that I'm warming up to as I see what happens in the playoffs year after year.


Pure skill doesn't work. In the playoffs, the smaller skilled guys get cancelled out. You have to be able to do something else. Something else that impacts the game. This is Gaunce. This is not Collberg.



I have been a vocal proponent of drafting skill first. Skill above everything. But this team has skill in abundance and it fails. So my opinion is slowly changing.



Bottom line, I think it best to build through players that are relevant all over the ice, and then supplement with skill. But you need that base first. That's Gaunce.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 05:08 PM
  #27
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lard_Lad View Post
That's the danger - with the Rockets' track record of producing great defencemen, people put a premium on their D in the draft, and that'll mean some bad picks of guys who don't have what Weber, Myers, Gorges, et. al. had. In terms of Rockets precedents, the guy Severson reminds me of is Mike Card, who was a fringe first-round prospect going into his draft year, then tanked badly and wound up going in the 8th to Buffalo; he didn't get a second contract from the Sabres and apparently played in Italy last season. The size and skill level are pretty similar. If he doesn't have more drive than Card (which, granted, isn't a high standard), he won't have much of an NHL career.

Agreed with NJ, though. He's the kind of guy they make into serviceable, but unspectacular, NHL defencemen. It's a good fit for him.


Yes I understand your point about Kelowna.


So I take it that you would not have wanted Severson drafted with the 2nd rndr?

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 05:12 PM
  #28
Hank4Hart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,084
vCash: 500
Dansk. I know theres lots of goalies in the canuck pipeline right now but dansk is going to be a stud.

Hank4Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 06:57 PM
  #29
Royal Canuck
Go Jumbo Joe!
 
Royal Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,189
vCash: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank4Hart View Post
Dansk. I know theres lots of goalies in the canuck pipeline right now but dansk is going to be a stud.
I'm also a huge Oscar Dansk fan as well. Really wished we picked him up when we could've as well.

__________________

Twitter |HFBoards Contact | Blog
PSN - TBennz
"You're never a loser until you quit trying. " - Mike Ditka
Royal Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 07:12 PM
  #30
maroon 6
Live and let live
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,909
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I liked Collberg the best, even over Gaunce, because he has mad skills, and we seem to be adept at developing Swedes into star players.(Sedins, Edler, and Jensen[if he sorta counts] and Tommernes tearing up the SEL)

He also significantly outperformed Forsberg at the WJC.
huh?

maroon 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 07:32 PM
  #31
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,354
vCash: 1000
If we needed a goalie I might have taken Dansk but we didn't and Gaunce was BPA and fitted a needed (big 2/3 C)- so Gaunce.


Last edited by me2: 10-04-2012 at 07:40 PM.
me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 07:51 PM
  #32
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 Bleach Clean View Post
Yes I understand your point about Kelowna.

So I take it that you would not have wanted Severson drafted with the 2nd rndr?
He was the best defenceman available at that point, but it wouldn't have made much sense for us to take a D there unless a really obvious steal was available, like Thrower.

Lard_Lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 09:56 PM
  #33
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,231
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotNamed View Post
huh?
There sort of seperate, but their on pace to be much better than their draft positions suggested, right now I wouldn't say it's a stretch to say both will be impact players; Jensen is arguably the best player on his team his first season in a men's legue and for Tommernes being the 2nd last pick in the draft being amongst the top scoring defensemen, that's pretty amazing.

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 09:57 PM
  #34
Velociraptor
Registered User
 
Velociraptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Maritimes
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,674
vCash: 500
Gaunce. Was ecstatic with the pick, this is something virtually impossible to judge until a few years time, but I was happy we were able to get him.

Velociraptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 10:02 PM
  #35
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,231
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Going from the Collbergs to the Gaunces is a change in draft philosophy. One that I'm warming up to as I see what happens in the playoffs year after year.


Pure skill doesn't work. In the playoffs, the smaller skilled guys get cancelled out. You have to be able to do something else. Something else that impacts the game. This is Gaunce. This is not Collberg.



I have been a vocal proponent of drafting skill first. Skill above everything. But this team has skill in abundance and it fails. So my opinion is slowly changing.



Bottom line, I think it best to build through players that are relevant all over the ice, and then supplement with skill. But you need that base first. That's Gaunce.
Once we traded a player named Stojanov for a player called Naslund.

I agree it's important to have toughness in our lineup, but after trading Hodgson for Kassian, and having another future power forward in Jensen, as well as drafting based on size in all the later rounds as well, we could afford to add some skill to our prospect pool. We'll still need skilled players to score goals, I think we should find a nice balance, and not settle for a tough 2-3 C when we could get a potential 1st line winger.

I'm still very happy with Gaunce, I didn't expect either to be available, but I have the feeling a few years down the road we'll be kicking ourselves.

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 10:42 PM
  #36
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,354
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Pure skill doesn't work. In the playoffs, the smaller skilled guys get cancelled out. You have to be able to do something else. Something else that impacts the game. This is Gaunce. This is not Collberg.
this bit has a great deal of truth

Quote:
I have been a vocal proponent of drafting skill first. Skill above everything. But this team has skill in abundance and it fails. So my opinion is slowly changing.
This bit I don't. Who are our skill players - Daniel and Henrik. I don't think we have one more player that could be called a true skill player. If anything we don't have enough top 6 skill. We need skill upgrades at 3C and top 6 winger.

Prospects wise we have some that might make a case as skill players, but they are offset by similar numbers of 2-way players with size.

Quote:
Bottom line, I think it best to build through players that are relevant all over the ice, and then supplement with skill. But you need that base first. That's Gaunce.
Gaunce certainly fills a hole - big 2-way 3C with more upside.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 11:01 PM
  #37
Reverend Mayhem
Registered User
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,848
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Pure skill doesn't work. In the playoffs, the smaller skilled guys get cancelled out. You have to be able to do something else. Something else that impacts the game. This is Gaunce. This is not Collberg.

Reverend Mayhem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 11:05 PM
  #38
VinnyC
vancity, c-bus, 'peg
 
VinnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 新香
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Pure skill doesn't work. In the playoffs, the smaller skilled guys get cancelled out. You have to be able to do something else. Something else that impacts the game. This is Gaunce. This is not Collberg.

VinnyC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 11:07 PM
  #39
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Once we traded a player named Stojanov for a player called Naslund.

I agree it's important to have toughness in our lineup, but after trading Hodgson for Kassian, and having another future power forward in Jensen, as well as drafting based on size in all the later rounds as well, we could afford to add some skill to our prospect pool. We'll still need skilled players to score goals, I think we should find a nice balance, and not settle for a tough 2-3 C when we could get a potential 1st line winger.

I'm still very happy with Gaunce, I didn't expect either to be available, but I have the feeling a few years down the road we'll be kicking ourselves.


I agree with the part about balance. Teams need both. But if you are missing both, build the base first. That includes size, 2way play, and board work. If you don't have that first, your skill is going to have nothing to stand on. Nothing to work off of.



Probability of reaching a ceiling is also very important. You said the decision is between a 2-3 C vs a 1st line W. That's too simplified. You have to factor in the probability of each pick reaching that ceiling as well. Collberg has far more developing to do before he reaches the pros. Gaunce could play right now. So it's not a straight across comparison.



Gillis also isn't forgoing skill for size either. Gaunce is underrated skill-wise. But I definitely see a shift to get better combinations of size+skill, instead of just pure skill. It's why they picked Jensen over Rattie. That's another reason I think they devalued Collberg and Aberg in their ranking.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 05:09 AM
  #40
PierreMcGuire*
How dissapointing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Delta, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,750
vCash: 500
Honestly can't say anything bad about the Gaunce pick. I really like it. Dansk would have been cool, but right now just isn't a fit, and the only time I really look at and care about the position of player being drafted, is if they are a goalie

PierreMcGuire* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 05:39 AM
  #41
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
This bit I don't. Who are our skill players - Daniel and Henrik. I don't think we have one more player that could be called a true skill player. If anything we don't have enough top 6 skill. We need skill upgrades at 3C and top 6 winger.


Well it's not as apparent because they aren't purely skilled like the twins. Kesler is still skilled. He also has the rounded game to fall back on. Burrows, Raymond, Hansen and Booth have skill, to varying degrees. But they also do other things. With the Sedins, they are so reliant on their skill that they stand out amongst the pack, but I wouldn't say they're the only skilled players on the team.



All that said, my comment was more a reference to the recent iterations of the Canucks, not just last year. Players like Demitra, Sundin, Wellwood and Samuelsson have been here, and the Canucks' skill advantage was even more apparent then. Yet the playoff results never matched the hype.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 12:00 PM
  #42
Frank Garrett
Registered User
 
Frank Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Duncan Construction
Posts: 1,378
vCash: 500
Patrick...

White.

Frank Garrett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 01:36 PM
  #43
doobie604
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
should always add more skill. i would say our team was better than boston if everybody stayed healthy. by adding more skill through out the lineup would counter act the grinding teams that are out there now. unless we change the whole team and have a Getzlaf and Perry instead of Dank and Hank. this change MG is making is the incorrect one imo. now we're playing catch up with all the other teams that have been stocking big gritty players for years, and to play the same game as boston, la of the world, we need big tough skilled 1st line players, and that's not our game. what's the point of having tough 3rd and 4th line when we can't be better or match those teams. it's like a game of rock paper scissor. if other team is rock, we go paper, we can try to be a bigger rock, but it's a lot tougher when they already have the biggest rock out there.

doobie604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:01 PM
  #44
Edler Von Gud
Registered User
 
Edler Von Gud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,349
vCash: 753
Send a message via MSN to Edler Von Gud
Quote:
Originally Posted by doobie604 View Post
should always add more skill. i would say our team was better than boston if everybody stayed healthy. by adding more skill through out the lineup would counter act the grinding teams that are out there now. unless we change the whole team and have a Getzlaf and Perry instead of Dank and Hank. this change MG is making is the incorrect one imo. now we're playing catch up with all the other teams that have been stocking big gritty players for years, and to play the same game as boston, la of the world, we need big tough skilled 1st line players, and that's not our game. what's the point of having tough 3rd and 4th line when we can't be better or match those teams. it's like a game of rock paper scissor. if other team is rock, we go paper, we can try to be a bigger rock, but it's a lot tougher when they already have the biggest rock out there.
The team isn't going rock, it's going sandpaper. I'd say more big bodies in our lineup makes it harder for other teams and opens up room for the Sedins.

You have to realize that refs are calling games differently then even a few years ago and as a result it's taken a lot of the skill advantage out of the playoffs. Ever since that Chicago/Philly final the NHL has let more and more go in the playoffs to the point where the most skilled teams are lucky to make the conference semi's. It's sad because after 06-07 the league looked like it was actually making steps in the right direction. There was some really good hockey played between 2007-2010 but it has slowly creeped back towards trap/clutch and grab hockey. Since the NHL has lots of free time on it's hands maybe they should find real solutions that will allow skill to thrive.

Edler Von Gud is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 05:00 PM
  #45
doobie604
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edler Von Gud View Post
The team isn't going rock, it's going sandpaper. I'd say more big bodies in our lineup makes it harder for other teams and opens up room for the Sedins.

You have to realize that refs are calling games differently then even a few years ago and as a result it's taken a lot of the skill advantage out of the playoffs. Ever since that Chicago/Philly final the NHL has let more and more go in the playoffs to the point where the most skilled teams are lucky to make the conference semi's. It's sad because after 06-07 the league looked like it was actually making steps in the right direction. There was some really good hockey played between 2007-2010 but it has slowly creeped back towards trap/clutch and grab hockey. Since the NHL has lots of free time on it's hands maybe they should find real solutions that will allow skill to thrive.
i doubt sandpaper will make more room for the sedines than a skilled dangler or sniper. just saying we shouldn't copy the trend, we should set it. when the team have skills through the forward lines and able to roll the lines and outmatch other team's forwards we do pretty well. i think it's the only way to go with our core group. changing formula when we already have a successful team could be costly.

yes they were calling it differently last season, and it was tough to watch. but who knows, they might switch it back after the lockout. then go in another direction? like i said, need to set trends rather than chase it. oh and i really do hope they find a solution to this clutch trap type of hockey.

doobie604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 08:15 PM
  #46
Henrik To Daniel
Registered User
 
Henrik To Daniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 1,942
vCash: 500
back then i wasn't too familiar with gaunce, but after doing some research he seems like a safe pick which is always good for the late first round. however at the time i really wanted us to draft henrik samuelsson. dalton thrower too since he's a vancouver kid

Henrik To Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 01:58 AM
  #47
mstad101
Registered User
 
mstad101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,252
vCash: 500
Only other player I wanted was Samuelsson. The kid oozed what was missing from our top 2 lines.
But I was also amazed how Gaunce sat there still when we went to pick, and was jumping up and down at the pick. I like the kids size and skill set. I believe him to be our new Ryan Kesler once Kesler moves up the line up permantly when Hank and Dan move back to Sweden.

I also like the fact he was a huge bright spot on a weak team, while showing leadership and scoring ability while also being heavily relied upon by the coaching staff. If the Bulldogs are still a weak team come playoff time, I hope one of the upper echelon teams pick him up for some playoff time.

mstad101 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 04:20 AM
  #48
Hansen 36
BASED JIM BENNING
 
Hansen 36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,343
vCash: 500
I wanted Ludvig Bystrom really bad pre-draft, kid's a great prospect with lots of potential. Although after watching the draft go in the unpredictable order that it did I was stoked to have the options of players like Gaunce and Collberg available that I'm more than happy with our selection. Too bad we didn't get Bystrom in the 2nd though.

Hansen 36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 05:22 AM
  #49
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,662
vCash: 500
Some good posts in this thread. I too think that we still could use more skill throughout the lineup, and that the team outside of the Sedins aren't quite as skilled as it seems. Especially guys like Raymond, Hansen, Higgins, Booth - they do have another aspect to their game that they can fall back on if they're not scoring, which is always good, but they're not guys with great shots, puck-handling ability or playmaking vision. Plus that group is lacking size too.

Which is why I see the merits of drafting big guys who have a measure of skill as well as a two-way game. I just think we'll need to complement them in future with some really talented players so we can strike that coveted balance of skill, size and toughness that works well in the playoffs.

vanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2012, 10:51 AM
  #50
ahmon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,253
vCash: 500
Samuelsson would have been my pick.

ahmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 02:43 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.