The 2018 NHL Entry Draft

[Tiger]

Pronman's top 10:

1. Dahlin
2. Svechnikov
3. Zadina
4. Kotakaniemi
5. Hughes
6. Wahlstrom
7. Boqvist
8. Bokk
9. Tkachuk
10. Merkley

Bouchard and Dobson outside the top 10, pronman gives zero fucks for intangibles , he goes purely based on talent.

Nice to see a curveball in the mock draft/rankings.

Could very well see one of those bolded be a "reach" in the top 10.

Depends on how you evaluate " talent ". Two things the Nucks are short on are size and toughness. Hitting and blocking shots are important parts of the physical game which our team is lacking in all positions. On that basis I would go with Dobson or Walstrom . No Swedes !

[Strangelove]

On that basis I would go with Dobson or Walstrom . No Swedes !

Wahlstrom is half Swedish, a dual-citizen of America and Sweden.

Is that too much?

[Cherry Picker]

On that basis I would go with Dobson or Walstrom . No Swedes !

Wahlstrom is half Swedish, a dual-citizen of America and Sweden.

Is that too much?

And if you examine the name Dobson it derives from "the son of Dobby." And he was a fricken house elf.
You'd rather have a fricken house elf than a swede, ridiculous!

[2Fingers]

On that basis I would go with Dobson or Walstrom . No Swedes !

Wahlstrom is half Swedish, a dual-citizen of America and Sweden.

Is that too much?

And if you examine the name Dobson it derives from "the son of Dobby." And he was a fricken house elf.
You'd rather have a fricken house elf than a swede, ridiculous!

Man I laughed so freaking loud in my office, I think people thought I was nuts. (yeah dont go there Doc).

How did your brain put that together, thanks man that was fun to read.

[Strangelove]

Man I laughed so freaking loud in my office, I think people thought I was nuts.

You should tell them what you were laughing about, then they would know.

[Chef Boi RD]

Who was that guy in the movie Office space with the coke bottle glasses who ended up having his desk moved to the janitors room

[Aaronp18]

Who was that guy in the movie Office space with the coke bottle glasses who ended up having his desk moved to the janitors room

Milton burned the damn place down because that was his stapler!

[Chef Boi RD]

LOL Pronmans lists are worst than Buttons. And he’s the biggest know-it-all going.

[SKYO]

Future Considerations top 10 bruddas

1 Dahlin, Rasmus Frolunda SHL D 6’2 180 SWE
2 Svechnikov, Andrei Barrie OHL RW 6’2 185 RUS
3 Zadina, Filip Halifax QMJHL LW 6’0 200 CZE
4 Tkachuk, Brady Boston University NCAA LW 6'3 200 USA
5 Wahlstrom, Oliver NTDP U18 USHL C 6'1 170 USA
6 Hughes, Quinn U Michigan NCAA D 5'10 175 USA
7 Boqvist, Adam Brynas J20 Superelit D 5’11 170 SWE
8 Bouchard, Evan London OHL D 6’2 180 CAN
9 Smith, Ty Spokane WHL D 5’11 175 CAN
10 Dobson, Noah Acadie-Bathurst QMJHL D 6’3 180 CAN

[Chef Boi RD]

Future Considerations top 10 bruddas

1 Dahlin, Rasmus Frolunda SHL D 6’2 180 SWE
2 Svechnikov, Andrei Barrie OHL RW 6’2 185 RUS
3 Zadina, Filip Halifax QMJHL LW 6’0 200 CZE
4 Tkachuk, Brady Boston University NCAA LW 6'3 200 USA
5 Wahlstrom, Oliver NTDP U18 USHL C 6'1 170 USA
6 Hughes, Quinn U Michigan NCAA D 5'10 175 USA
7 Boqvist, Adam Brynas J20 Superelit D 5’11 170 SWE
8 Bouchard, Evan London OHL D 6’2 180 CAN
9 Smith, Ty Spokane WHL D 5’11 175 CAN
10 Dobson, Noah Acadie-Bathurst QMJHL D 6’3 180 CAN

Hughes is not 5’-10”. All you have to do is arm him in the ice against others to realize he’s no taller than Jordan Subban

From watching these playoffs Im again reminded why some size is required on defence at the NHL level

Anyhow I’m worried that the potential for making the wrong choice at 7 is great. That spot is a crap shoot for BPA

[UWSaint]

Hughes is not 5’-10”. All you have to do is arm him in the ice against others to realize he’s no taller than Jordan Subban

From watching these playoffs Im again reminded why some size is required on defence at the NHL level

When the league was more tilted against small guys, Brian Rafalski listed (very optimistically, like Hughes) as 5' 10" won 3 cups and lost two finals in an 11 year career. While he never played an AHL game, his NHL career didn't start until 26 because he was too small. So he wasn't drafted. And despite being very successful for four years in the NCAA -- the kind of undrafted player (like Justin Schultz) who there is a bidding war for after they leave the NCAA and are not draft eligible -- he didn't get a contract. Because he was "too small." So he tore it up in Finland, putting up big numbers in the regular season and playoffs (36 points in 30 playoff games) and playing big minutes. Finally, after 4 years of that -- 8 (or maybe 7) post-draft years of objectively effective play, finally an NHL team took a shot on him, trusting results and not archetypes.

An immediately he was a top 4 defenseman on the cup winning Devils. And then immediately after became a top pairing guy (quality wise) for the rest of his career. In 11 seasons, he never had a minus season, was a freakishly consistent point producer, performed very well in the playoffs, and was mostly healthy.

Rafalski skated well, very smooth and agile, but not explosively quick. Despite his size, he rarely got manhandled. His key attributes were his intelligence and vision, both offensive zone and defensive zone. It was off the charts, if we had charts that could accurately measure such things. He didn't have a huge shot, but it had eyes. I've rarely seen a player get so any shots past shot blockers to be tipped or to create a rebound.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that size doesn't matter. Like you, I would take a big guy who does all the same things as a little guy over the little guy any time. Primarily because being too small makes it harder to earn and keep proper positioning. But for those little guys that have attributes that the other big guys don't have, size shouldn't disqualify if that attribute is something that helps your team score more goals than the small stature means you are giving up. And that's the question -- not will this guy get occasionally manhandled. But will those instances turn into more opportunities against than opportunities created by the special skill the player possesses.

I'm no expert on 18 year old kids; most draft prospects I know about come from the NCAA, because I watch those live from time to time and on tv more than any other non-NHL hockey. (I probably saw Rafalaski play live about 35 times at UW, so I knew something about him.....). I've seen Hughes play a few games and he struck me as very good, but I was *watching* for it because of the hype machine and honestly don't know what I would have thought. But if these scouts are correct, if the vision and speed and skating agility are peerless, if his passing skills means he can capitalize on the vision, if he still does well man up well, then he shouldn't be disqualified because of size. Vision and playmaking with speed when required is not a common attribute and it leads to a tremendous amount of offensive opportunities.

And it is a defenseman type that the Canucks have lacked since......

[Topper]

Hughes is not 5’-10”. All you have to do is arm him in the ice against others to realize he’s no taller than Jordan Subban

From watching these playoffs Im again reminded why some size is required on defence at the NHL level

When the league was more tilted against small guys, Brian Rafalski listed .........

And it is a defenseman type that the Canucks have lacked since......

The elusive outlier

[SKYO]

Hughes is not 5’-10”. All you have to do is arm him in the ice against others to realize he’s no taller than Jordan Subban

From watching these playoffs Im again reminded why some size is required on defence at the NHL level

When the league was more tilted against small guys, Brian Rafalski listed (very optimistically, like Hughes) as 5' 10" won 3 cups and lost two finals in an 11 year career. While he never played an AHL game, his NHL career didn't start until 26 because he was too small.

It seems the small fellas who make it in the NHL are best served waiting till they are 24-25 ish years of age when they have played pro hockey for many years and they reach peak physical form at that age before entering the league, unless they have extraordinary talent.

Anyways if Hughes doesn't go in the top 5, I think the Redwings take Hughes, their head coach and Larkin have worked with him now at the world championship (only college player on roster) so they got a first good hand look at him, and Hughes played admirably for a youngster.

[SKYO]

Benning: "I think you can run into problems when you make a pick based on positional needs. I think we should take the best player available.

But center-icemen & defensemen retain their value so if it comes between a winger or a centermen or a defensemen, we'll look positionally"

[Hockey Widow]

Benning: "I think you can run into problems when you make a pick based on positional needs. I think we should take the best player available.

But center-icemen & defensemen retain their value so if it comes between a winger or a centermen or a defensemen, we'll look positionally"

Yes, all things being equal, you chose a centre or dman over a winger. Doesn’t sound like other son of Keith are in his plans.