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

Bo Horvat Discussion and Debate

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-16-2013, 06:48 PM
  #351
RunYouOutOfTheRink
Unregistered User
 
RunYouOutOfTheRink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: No Matter Which Rink
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,467
vCash: 50
I get the impression that Domi is a cocky little ****, call it a gut feeling if you will. Horvat seems like a wholesome, down to Earth kind of guy whose parents seem the same way (unlike our last top-10 pick). With the Canucks aiming towards bettering their reputation, picking Horvat was a no-brainer.

I think capping his potential at 40-50 points would be a mistake. 8 years ago, who thought the Sedins would both have an Art Ross? 5 years ago, who thought Kesler would score 40? Some people are calling Hansen a 2nd liner now...

RunYouOutOfTheRink is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 06:53 PM
  #352
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,111
vCash: 500
I don't like your reasoning there Vankiller. The idea that an inconsistent forward has a better chance of hitting his ceiling than the consistent one? Combine that many scouts might disagree with your assessment that Nichushkin has all the tools and Horvat does not (going by Hockey Prospectus, Horvat is touted as a complete player with few weaknesses, while Valeri's hockey sense + defense are questioned)...

Wisp is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 06:58 PM
  #353
edler von real gud
Registered User
 
edler von real gud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,698
vCash: 380
Send a message via MSN to edler von real gud
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProspectProphet View Post
I get the impression that Domi is a cocky little ****, call it a gut feeling if you will. Horvat seems like a wholesome, down to Earth kind of guy whose parents seem the same way (unlike our last top-10 pick). With the Canucks aiming towards bettering their reputation, picking Horvat was a no-brainer.

I think capping his potential at 40-50 points would be a mistake. 8 years ago, who thought the Sedins would both have an Art Ross? 5 years ago, who thought Kesler would score 40? Some people are calling Hansen a 2nd liner now...
Kesler, O'Reilly, Bergeron, etc..... all were only supposed to be 40 point 3rd liners. Far too early to cap Horvat's potential when players with similar skill sets/styles of play have gone on to have great success and none of them had as impressive playoff run like Horvat did in his draft year

edler von real gud is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 07:02 PM
  #354
Vankiller Whale
Fire Benning
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,250
vCash: 1815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
I don't like your reasoning there Vankiller. The idea that an inconsistent forward has a better chance of hitting his ceiling than the consistent one? Combine that many scouts might disagree with your assessment that Nichushkin has all the tools and Horvat does not (going by Hockey Prospectus, Horvat is touted as a complete player with few weaknesses, while Valeri's hockey sense + defense are questioned)...
In order to become a Rick Nash or an Evander Kane or etc, you don't need phenomenal hockey sense or defensive play.

I never questioned Horvat's completeness as a player, or said that he has any glaring weaknesses. That doesn't mean he has the offensive ability to put up 60+ points in the NHL, barring an enormous upwards trend in his development curve.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 07:03 PM
  #355
Vankiller Whale
Fire Benning
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,250
vCash: 1815
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProspectProphet View Post
I get the impression that Domi is a cocky little ****, call it a gut feeling if you will. Horvat seems like a wholesome, down to Earth kind of guy whose parents seem the same way (unlike our last top-10 pick). With the Canucks aiming towards bettering their reputation, picking Horvat was a no-brainer.

I think capping his potential at 40-50 points would be a mistake. 8 years ago, who thought the Sedins would both have an Art Ross? 5 years ago, who thought Kesler would score 40? Some people are calling Hansen a 2nd liner now...
I'm not capping his potential at 40-50 points. That's my expectation for him to realistically achieve.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 07:08 PM
  #356
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
In order to become a Rick Nash or an Evander Kane or etc, you don't need phenomenal hockey sense or defensive play.

I never questioned Horvat's completeness as a player, or said that he has any glaring weaknesses. That doesn't mean he has the offensive ability to put up 60+ points in the NHL, barring an enormous upwards trend in his development curve.
I think you're selling this short. Much of the scouting reports I've read are more optimistic.

In any case, I'd argue you'd need hockey sense or you're David Booth instead of Rick Nash. And inconsistency is still a negative point against reaching a ceiling, I think.

Wisp is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 07:12 PM
  #357
LiquidSnake*
Agent of Chaos...
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I think if we actually had taken Nichushkin, no one would have thought twice about us not taking Horvat instead.
That's completely incorrect actually. You're assuming a lot here.

LiquidSnake* is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 07:16 PM
  #358
Vankiller Whale
Fire Benning
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,250
vCash: 1815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
I think you're selling this short. Much of the scouting reports I've read are more optimistic.

In any case, I'd argue you'd need hockey sense or you're David Booth instead of Rick Nash. And inconsistency is still a negative point against reaching a ceiling, I think.
I've already I said I think his hockey sense is being underrated. He's no Johnathan Drouin, but he's certainly better than Booth, to say nothing of the difference in size or stickhandling.

Nichushkin isn't particularly inconsistent. He isn't going to score a goal exactly every other game or something, but he's no streakier than any other player of that style.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 07:20 PM
  #359
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I think if we actually had taken Nichushkin, no one would have thought twice about us not taking Horvat instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
That's completely incorrect actually. You're assuming a lot here.
Yep. I wasn't as familiar with Horvat at the time, but I was actively worried they were going to take the Russian. The KHL scares the crap out of me.

Wisp is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 07:22 PM
  #360
edler von real gud
Registered User
 
edler von real gud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,698
vCash: 380
Send a message via MSN to edler von real gud
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
That's completely incorrect actually. You're assuming a lot here.
there would be a lot of questions raised about Nichushkin consistency/compete level, and questions about the lure of the KHL if he didn't make our team right away or wanted big money coming out of his ELC.

edler von real gud is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 07:35 PM
  #361
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Firstly I think that when asking who would you rather have on a playoff run, and proceed to name a player on a very successful team who is coming off a recent cup win and a second trip to the SCF against a player who spent all but half a season of his career on a perennial bottom feeder, you immediately slant the playing field.

If you were to compare, say, Ryan O'Reilly, who has played on a similarly bad team and compared him to Rick Nash, I think the slant changes dramatically in the opposite direction(perhaps even too much so)

Secondly, I think Nichushkin is more likely to become Rick Nash than Horvat is to become Bergeron, or O'Reilly, or Backes, or whoever you want to use as a comparable for a 60ish point forward with a strong two-way game.

The reason for this is because Nichushkin has all the tools, he just needs to build on his consistency and attention to detail.

In contrast I think Horvat needs a lot more work to raise his offensive game to the level of Bergeron/O'Reilly/Backes. If he does not, he may certainly still end up a solid player we'd love to have, maybe someone like Legwand or Bolland.

In short, I think that while Nichushkin is more likely to hit his max potential than Horvat is, even though Horvat is more likely to make the NHL period.





My question is, if before the draft you asked anyone, even Canucks fans, if they would be okay taking Horvat 9th overall ahead of any one of Nichushkin, Shinkaruk, Domi, Zadorov, Morrissey, Mantha, Wennberg, Lazar(potentially either of Nurse/Ristolainen, as I think the Canucks would have traded Schneider for the 7th if they thought Horvat would be taken before 9), etc, I don't think anyone would have said yes.(For reference sake those are all the players I'd have wanted before Horvat, and while I realize that many people might not have had that many people ahead of Horvat, I certianly don't think he was on the radar until he was actually picked)

It's only now, after trading Schneider for controversial value and passing over several players considered better by the consensus pre-draft that people feel the need to justify the pick.



The team had Kesler, Burrows, Hansen, Higgins, and potentially Gaunce who play the gritty, two way role.

We have no one who plays a similar role to Nichushkin as a drive-to the net power forward, except maybe Booth when healthy(and he's a very poor man's version, and likely gone if he fails to produce this year)

Also, it's really not so much that I loved Nichushkin - as I said, I'd have been satisfied if we had taken Shinkaruk or Domi or Ristolainen at 7. It's that I had Horvat fairly far down my list, and I'm not expecting him to become more than a 40-50 point guy with "intangibles". If we get a guy like that in Gaunce who we had taken at 26th overall, I'd be very happy. But when we're drafting in the top-10 you will have to excuse me if I want to be able to expect more from a pick that high.
I'm confused by your second point. Do you not think Horvat has Bergeron/Backes/O'Rielly upside? Last post your issue seemed to be that we picked a low upside player, and now it seems your issue is that he's not as likely to reach his upside. In just not following you here.

As for your last couple points, for someone who's been so adamant about taking the BPA no matter what I don't see why you think we should have taken Nichushkin over Horvat because of how or current roster/prospect pool looks. If that's your philosophy it really shouldn't matter.

Also, of course I would have been okay with Horvat over Nichushkin predraft. Horvat was one of my three favorite prospects going into the draft along with Morrissey and Domi. I've only seen Nichushkin play two games and thought he was good, but not the type of player you get up in arms about if you don't get him. The only North American players I had ahead of Horvat were MacKinnon, Drouin, Jones and Monahan. I'm not going to overreact to Gillis taking my 9th ranked player over my 7th ranked player when I've only seen the latter play twice.

StringerBell is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 07:43 PM
  #362
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,111
vCash: 500
StringerBell, who were the three other players you had a head of Horvat?

Wisp is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 07:44 PM
  #363
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProspectProphet View Post
I get the impression that Domi is a cocky little ****, call it a gut feeling if you will. Horvat seems like a wholesome, down to Earth kind of guy whose parents seem the same way (unlike our last top-10 pick). With the Canucks aiming towards bettering their reputation, picking Horvat was a no-brainer.

I think capping his potential at 40-50 points would be a mistake. 8 years ago, who thought the Sedins would both have an Art Ross? 5 years ago, who thought Kesler would score 40? Some people are calling Hansen a 2nd liner now...
This is a player who blew his opponent a kiss after scoring a goal to put his team up 9-1 last year. I think it's safe to say he's a bit cocky

StringerBell is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 07:47 PM
  #364
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
StringerBell, who were the three other players you had a head of Horvat?
Lindholm, Nichushkin and Risto, but I had only seen them play WJC. Like I would say before the draft, any list I made was done so with a high level of ignorance. I mean, how are you supposed to accurately rate a player you've only seen once or twice?

StringerBell is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 08:00 PM
  #365
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,063
vCash: 178
Horvat strikes me as a future Plekanec, possibly Bergeron. With that in mind, I am quite content with him.

Bourne Endeavor is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 08:12 PM
  #366
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
Let me guess - you also would've picked Jordan Subban ahead of Seth Jones, right?
What? This makes no sense...

Sergei Shirokov is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 08:17 PM
  #367
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
My question is, if before the draft you asked anyone, even Canucks fans, if they would be okay taking Horvat 9th overall ahead of any one of Nichushkin, Shinkaruk, Domi, Zadorov, Morrissey, Mantha, Wennberg, Lazar(potentially either of Nurse/Ristolainen, as I think the Canucks would have traded Schneider for the 7th if they thought Horvat would be taken before 9), etc, I don't think anyone would have said yes.(For reference sake those are all the players I'd have wanted before Horvat, and while I realize that many people might not have had that many people ahead of Horvat, I certianly don't think he was on the radar until he was actually picked)

It's only now, after trading Schneider for controversial value and passing over several players considered better by the consensus pre-draft that people feel the need to justify the pick.

First, this assertion excludes the point of view of the fan that never agreed with the consensus. Remember, some posters don't look at consensus lists as gospel anyways. Those types cannot be lumped into the crowd that justifies the pick because they feel they need to.

Next, Horvat was on the radar pre-draft, and in the upper range. Shinkaruk, Mantha and Lazar were all ranked behind Horvat on TSN's scout influenced list. So how can you say he wasn't on the radar? Or he did not have the recognition of those listed behind him to yourself, or others. Your argument doesn't hold here.


Quote:
The team had Kesler, Burrows, Hansen, Higgins, and potentially Gaunce who play the gritty, two way role.

We have no one who plays a similar role to Nichushkin as a drive-to the net power forward, except maybe Booth when healthy(and he's a very poor man's version, and likely gone if he fails to produce this year)

Also, it's really not so much that I loved Nichushkin - as I said, I'd have been satisfied if we had taken Shinkaruk or Domi or Ristolainen at 7. It's that I had Horvat fairly far down my list, and I'm not expecting him to become more than a 40-50 point guy with "intangibles". If we get a guy like that in Gaunce who we had taken at 26th overall, I'd be very happy. But when we're drafting in the top-10 you will have to excuse me if I want to be able to expect more from a pick that high.

I think the disconnect here is due to how we value 2way play. Relegating it to "intangibles" tells me how you value it. There's a chunk of the COL fanbase that values O'Reilly/Landeskog more than Duchene. Why do you think that is?

Horvat also only compares to Kesler from those names you have mentioned. We have to remember that he's already pushing 210 lbs. Burrows, Hansen and Higgins are all lighter (and look less stocky) already. So what we are talking about here is a potential PWF level, 2way C with top6 upside. That's not a run of the mill support player.

In the general sense, what is on the team right now doesn't mean much. The Canucks have Henrik and Kesler on the roster, two top line Cs, and they still went after more centres. Why? Because this is about the long-term, not so much the here and now.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 08:37 PM
  #368
JanBulisPiggyBack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 619
vCash: 500
so who here would have been upset if we had selected anybody else

like would anybody honestly say we should have taken Bo Horvat over anybody else

I know I couldnt say that

JanBulisPiggyBack is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 08:42 PM
  #369
arsmaster
semantic romantic
 
arsmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 25,061
vCash: 500
For me this discussion isn't about Domi as much as it is drafting Horvat over a one-way forward.

The main counter-argument comes from Vankiller Whale, who has been on record for months, long before the draft that he would prefer to draft boom/bust high end skilled players.

The question I have and it's been brought up a few times.

What are the expectations for Nichushkin? What will he be in his prime? How long will it take to get to his prime? Will he work through his issues in the bottom 6 of an NHL club to gain experience?

Let's assume Nichushkin's ultimate upside is Rick Nash, and to give a basis for comparison let's call him a 40-30-70 guy.

The guys and style I see consistently compared with Bo Horvat's game are: Bergeron, O'Reilly, Landeskog, and one that's popped into my head lately is a Center version of Andrew Ladd.

I honestly could see a pretty similar career path from Horvat when compared to a guy like Ladd.

-drafted as a two way gritty forward in the top 10 of the draft
-world junior's post draft year
-Capable of a depth NHL role on a playoff team in his 20 year old season
-elite 3rd line player on winning teams
-NHL letter
-Top 6 contributor
-first line forward (Ladd had 46 points in 48 games this year)

Now the question is would you take the 45-60 point, heart and soul, two way force, and leader over the 70 point, one way guy?

Another thing that is bothering me, is why it's less likely for Horvat to reach that potential, than it is for Nichushkin (who I've stated ad nauseum since long before the draft doesn't have the elite skills he's projected to have) to reach his?

1. There is risk VN will never be patient enough in his career to bide his time through the development process (Russian factor).

2. Horvat doesn't seem to be nearly the risk factor, so development time is on the teams side.

3. Work ethic and compete level is already a question mark for VN, Bo is reputed to be nothing but the consumate pro in that regard.

For me those things suggest that with Bo's relatively high floor and high compete level/work ethic makes it easy enough to get to his floor and beyond.

Nichushkin doesn't have this mentality.

Obviously scouting hockey players first and foremost is about finding the best hockey players, but after basic skills, it's hockey IQ and compete level that make or break most prospects.

Wouldn't be surprised if VN is back in Russia quicker than Filatov left.

***edit*** For me this isn't about comparing Horvat to any old run of the mill 50-60 point center (think Stephen Weiss), it's about putting the entire package together, and for me that is a letter wearing winner on a good to great team.


Last edited by arsmaster: 08-16-2013 at 08:48 PM.
arsmaster is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 10:10 PM
  #370
keslerburrows
Registered User
 
keslerburrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vernon, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,923
vCash: 500
I always knew we weren't going to take Nich. Has anyone else ever just crossed all the Russians off the draft or FA list? Gillis cleared out our only Russian in Shirokov and we haven't had one on the roster since Gillis has been boss. We were never going to take a Russian, and as long as Gillis is around we won't take one. Nich was never even in my mind as a possibility.

keslerburrows is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:05 PM
  #371
Vankiller Whale
Fire Benning
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,250
vCash: 1815
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
That's completely incorrect actually. You're assuming a lot here.
Am I? Is there anyone here who had Horvat as their highest ranked player on the board at the time. I'm not just talking about whether or not we should have drafted Nichushkin, but whether or not everyone would be complaining that we didn't specifically draft Horvat instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edler Von Gud View Post
there would be a lot of questions raised about Nichushkin consistency/compete level, and questions about the lure of the KHL if he didn't make our team right away or wanted big money coming out of his ELC.
I haven't heard anything bad about his compete level, or about him wanting big bucks coming out of his ELC. And I believe he said he would not come over to North America to play in the AHL, which makes perfect sense to me as the KHL is a superior league as well as being in his home country, it makes perfect sense for him to want to play in as high a calibre league as possible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by StringerBell View Post
I'm confused by your second point. Do you not think Horvat has Bergeron/Backes/O'Rielly upside? Last post your issue seemed to be that we picked a low upside player, and now it seems your issue is that he's not as likely to reach his upside. In just not following you here.
I don't think I said we picked a low upside player, I think we drafted someone who was a safe bet to become at least a solid 3rd line centre. He may become more than that, but he lacks the high end offensive talent to become a top line player, and I see him as a longshot to ever attaining it.

Quote:
As for your last couple points, for someone who's been so adamant about taking the BPA no matter what I don't see why you think we should have taken Nichushkin over Horvat because of how or current roster/prospect pool looks. If that's your philosophy it really shouldn't matter.
It doesn't, but it puzzled me why Bleach Clean would say that when I think the exact opposite is true. We lack truly dynamic goal scorers, even Daniel Sedin has been playing poorly this past season.

Quote:
Also, of course I would have been okay with Horvat over Nichushkin predraft. Horvat was one of my three favorite prospects going into the draft along with Morrissey and Domi. I've only seen Nichushkin play two games and thought he was good, but not the type of player you get up in arms about if you don't get him. The only North American players I had ahead of Horvat were MacKinnon, Drouin, Jones and Monahan. I'm not going to overreact to Gillis taking my 9th ranked player over my 7th ranked player when I've only seen the latter play twice.
Not Horvat over Nichushkin, just Horvat period. My gripe is really less about passing over Nichushkin as it is taking Horvat. I don't think anyone had Horvat as the person they most wanted Gillis to draft. It's only now that we've drafted him that we're trying to justify him as the best pick at the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
First, this assertion excludes the point of view of the fan that never agreed with the consensus. Remember, some posters don't look at consensus lists as gospel anyways. Those types cannot be lumped into the crowd that justifies the pick because they feel they need to.

Next, Horvat was on the radar pre-draft, and in the upper range. Shinkaruk, Mantha and Lazar were all ranked behind Horvat on TSN's scout influenced list. So how can you say he wasn't on the radar? Or he did not have the recognition of those listed behind him to yourself, or others. Your argument doesn't hold here.
That was only my personal list of who I wanted over Horvat. I didn't think Mantha or Lazar were on the radar either. Even if you didn't want to draft Nichushkin, because of the Russian factor or otherwise, I don't think anyone had Horvat at the top of their list.


Quote:
I think the disconnect here is due to how we value 2way play. Relegating it to "intangibles" tells me how you value it. There's a chunk of the COL fanbase that values O'Reilly/Landeskog more than Duchene. Why do you think that is?
I don't think any Colorado fans value O'Reilly more than Duchene, and I think that Landeskog has better skating, has better hands, and playmaking ability than Horvat.

Quote:
Horvat also only compares to Kesler from those names you have mentioned. We have to remember that he's already pushing 210 lbs. Burrows, Hansen and Higgins are all lighter (and look less stocky) already. So what we are talking about here is a potential PWF level, 2way C with top6 upside. That's not a run of the mill support player.
I don't see how you can call Horvat's game a power forward one. Nichushkin is far more physical and drives harder to the net, if anything he's the power forward. Regardless, we have Kesler, we potentially have Gaunce, both at centre(and Henrik Sedin is our top line centre for the forseeable future) who play a similar style to Horvat. We have no one close to bringing what Nichushkin brings to the table. Even if you try to play the team needs card, it still doesn't make much sense.

Quote:
In the general sense, what is on the team right now doesn't mean much. The Canucks have Henrik and Kesler on the roster, two top line Cs, and they still went after more centres. Why? Because this is about the long-term, not so much the here and now.
Just how long-term are we looking, exactly? Gaunce was drafted just last year. I don't think that we should be drafting based on team needs at all, but even if you look at team needs, it still doesn't make much sense. A potential top-6 power forward who adds size, youth, and cap flexibility as early as next season makes far more sense than a centre behind Henrik, Kesler, Schroeder, and Gaunce on the depth chart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JanBulisPiggyBack View Post
so who here would have been upset if we had selected anybody else

like would anybody honestly say we should have taken Bo Horvat over anybody else

I know I couldnt say that
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
For me this discussion isn't about Domi as much as it is drafting Horvat over a one-way forward.

The main counter-argument comes from Vankiller Whale, who has been on record for months, long before the draft that he would prefer to draft boom/bust high end skilled players.

The question I have and it's been brought up a few times.

What are the expectations for Nichushkin? What will he be in his prime? How long will it take to get to his prime? Will he work through his issues in the bottom 6 of an NHL club to gain experience?

Let's assume Nichushkin's ultimate upside is Rick Nash, and to give a basis for comparison let's call him a 40-30-70 guy.
I think that goal scoring-forwards tend to hit their prime early. Also, Nash has spent most of his career playing with crap linemates, his first season with NYR he was 2 points shy of PPG, I think if we're talking about ultimate upside then we are talking about a PPG+ power forward with the right linemates. I think that next season he will contribute around 20+ goals, and that either one or two seasons after he'll start hitting 30, 35 goals.

Quote:
The guys and style I see consistently compared with Bo Horvat's game are: Bergeron, O'Reilly, Landeskog, and one that's popped into my head lately is a Center version of Andrew Ladd.

I honestly could see a pretty similar career path from Horvat when compared to a guy like Ladd.

-drafted as a two way gritty forward in the top 10 of the draft
-world junior's post draft year
-Capable of a depth NHL role on a playoff team in his 20 year old season
-elite 3rd line player on winning teams
-NHL letter
-Top 6 contributor
-first line forward (Ladd had 46 points in 48 games this year)

Now the question is would you take the 45-60 point, heart and soul, two way force, and leader over the 70 point, one way guy?
If you're asking whether or not I'd prefer Ladd to Nash, the answer is no.

Quote:
Another thing that is bothering me, is why it's less likely for Horvat to reach that potential, than it is for Nichushkin (who I've stated ad nauseum since long before the draft doesn't have the elite skills he's projected to have) to reach his?

1. There is risk VN will never be patient enough in his career to bide his time through the development process (Russian factor).

2. Horvat doesn't seem to be nearly the risk factor, so development time is on the teams side.

3. Work ethic and compete level is already a question mark for VN, Bo is reputed to be nothing but the consumate pro in that regard.

For me those things suggest that with Bo's relatively high floor and high compete level/work ethic makes it easy enough to get to his floor and beyond.

Nichushkin doesn't have this mentality.

Obviously scouting hockey players first and foremost is about finding the best hockey players, but after basic skills, it's hockey IQ and compete level that make or break most prospects.

Wouldn't be surprised if VN is back in Russia quicker than Filatov left.

***edit*** For me this isn't about comparing Horvat to any old run of the mill 50-60 point center (think Stephen Weiss), it's about putting the entire package together, and for me that is a letter wearing winner on a good to great team.
What I'm saying is that just because Nichushkin has a higher chance to "bust" altogether doesn't mean he isn't more likely to reach his top potential. Very crudely, for argument's sake let's say Nichushkin's odds are 40/30/30 that he becomes a star player/solid player/bust, and Horvat's odds are 20/70/10. So although Horvat is a safer bet and will have more time to develop, that doesn't make him more likely to become Patrice Bergeron than Nichushkin Rick Nash.

I have not heard of any questions about his compete level on the ice, and the only time I've heard his work ethic called into question was at the draft combine, which I don't put much stock into anyways as a determining factor of a player's career.

I think people like to stereotype Russians as lazy and with little compete or work ethic, but I doubt that anyone here has any idea of his personality.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:06 PM
  #372
Free Kassian
Registered User
 
Free Kassian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
Yep. I wasn't as familiar with Horvat at the time, but I was actively worried they were going to take the Russian. The KHL scares the crap out of me.
Yup. Me too. The Russian Factor is actually a real thing, no matter how much people here may try to deny it because they preferred Nich. It just wasn't going to happen. It runs completely contrary to everything Gillis has done during his time here.

In the history of the Vancouver Canucks, they have had one Russian player who stuck around more than a couple years and was productive. The changes of another Pavel Bure coming here - or even someone remotely similar - are so remote it's not even worth bothering.

Free Kassian is offline  
Old
08-17-2013, 12:41 AM
  #373
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post

Not Horvat over Nichushkin, just Horvat period. My gripe is really less about passing over Nichushkin as it is taking Horvat. I don't think anyone had Horvat as the person they most wanted Gillis to draft. It's only now that we've drafted him that we're trying to justify him as the best pick at the time.



Even if you didn't want to draft Nichushkin, because of the Russian factor or otherwise, I don't think anyone had Horvat at the top of their list.
Well most fans - at the time -expected a trade w Edmonton for the 7th pick so their sights were set squarely on guys like Monahan, Lindholm, and (optimistically) a possible faller like Barkov. A couple mentions of Nichushkin but not much. With players like that expected to be possibly there at 7, it's not surprising at all that no one was thinking/talking about Horvat.

Then when we got the #9, people were mostly just stunned at the loss of Schneider and - in the 2-3 minutes before the pick was made - most people were tossing out names of high offensive-upside guys like Nichushkin (mostly) as well as Domi and Shinkaruk. This was mostly, IMO, a reaction to the shock of the CS trade and an attempt by fans to believe the trade could be "salvaged". And those posts were 99% frustration and anger, there was (almost) no rational analysis anywhere in that thread. Even theFeebster, who loves Horvat, was mixed on the pick due to the cost of the pick.

As I've maintained for awhile, guys like Nichushkin and Domi are always going to be the guys that fans talk about BEFORE a draft because of the sexiness of their seemingly "limitless" offensive upside. When prospects are just highlight videos and scouting reports and not actual players on your team, fans are drawn to these types of players like moths to a flame. Guys like Horvat will always be overlooked until AFTER the draft when fans are forced - due to drafting him - to learn more about the "low upside" guy and discover that, actually his upside isn't so low after all. He merely suffers from a less-than-impressive highlight video on YouTube and scouting reports compare him to not-so-sexy NHLers like Bergeron, Backes, and Doan instead of flashy one-dimensional scorers like Nash or Kane.

Absolutely not surprised that Horvat wasn't on our radar for all of these reasons above.

CanaFan is online now  
Old
08-17-2013, 03:08 AM
  #374
Linden
[hello] :)
 
Linden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Granduland
Country: United States
Posts: 51,164
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanBulisPiggyBack View Post
so who here would have been upset if we had selected anybody else

like would anybody honestly say we should have taken Bo Horvat over anybody else

I know I couldnt say that
I would have been ok with Nichuskin or Wennberg, but I can honestly say I wanted Horvat, although there will be a lack of proof since I didn't post anything prior to the draft about having the ninth because I didn't think CS was getting traded and was mostly in shock when it happened

Linden is offline  
Old
08-17-2013, 03:31 AM
  #375
LiquidSnake*
Agent of Chaos...
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Am I? Is there anyone here who had Horvat as their highest ranked player on the board at the time. I'm not just talking about whether or not we should have drafted Nichushkin, but whether or not everyone would be complaining that we didn't specifically draft Horvat instead.
I had a couple ranked there personally. Zadorov, Horvat, Morin and Shinkaruk. Nichushkin would have crossed my mind @24 because it's a gamble and worth it that late in the draft.

I believe we'd be having these same discussions in regards to Nichushkin. And I think the Kopitar factor could fit more properly with passing on a guy like Horvat than a guy like Nichushkin, who screams bust.

These types of players are flavors of the month and go back almost every season the Canucks have drafted....

Tambellini instead of Kesler
Beach instead of Hodgson

And I'm more than glad that we didnt draft a Rick Nash. The guy has 2 goals in 16 playoff games and is considered a sniper. A guy who's career high in goals is the same as Kesler (41 in a season).

Vs drafting a guy who has been compared to Bergeron. And we all know first hand what he can do.


Last edited by LiquidSnake*: 08-17-2013 at 03:38 AM.
LiquidSnake* 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 10:54 PM.

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.