Canucks Picks in the 2010 June's draft

[rockalt]

I'm leaning toward the side of size still being a major factor in this league. I get that the NHL post-lockout has been more receptive to undersized players, but push come to shove, bigger players still face fewer obstacles.

I think you can get away with some undersized forwards particularly if they can skate (see 2005 Sabres) but the hurdle is much bigger for defensemen. How many defensemen under 6 feet tall excel in this league? While I certainly wouldn't advocate drafting lugs, size remains a very important consideration when drafting defensemen. In other words, unless an undersized defensemen is far ahead of a bigger player in all other attributes, I think you go with the bigger player. I prefer players who can skate and move the puck up the ice but there's still no room in the NHL for the Greg Hawgood's of the world.

[westvandal]

I would love a nasty D-Man this year, an that seems to be in abundance for the first 2 rounds this year.
McIlrath and Tinordi are a head scratcher, I don't know exactly what the deal is for their skating. I read conflicting stuff all the time so I really don't know.
I agree with everyone here in that the dude needs to be able to skate, but we need some SIZE back there too.

RIP Bourdon.

[Island Nucklehead]

Tyler Myers was well scouted and had he not gotten injured the year of his draft, I believe, he would have been ranked/picked quite higher. So it's not like Regier chortled and said "I'll take the big one" or anything.

That's exactly what I mean. You're RARELY going to find a guy heading into the draft that is that big, can skate that well, and play the whole spectrum. So saying "I'm only going to draft a 6'5 guy if he doesn't skate like a 6'5" guy means you'll never draft a bigger player if you're not drafting near the top of the draft.

What you're more likely to get are guys that are big, move decently, and you have to hope they can adapt to the speed of the pro game. Regardless, it's far less of a risk to go with size than to go with an undersized player who can put up points against teenagers, and hope his game translates.

I'd like to believe we'll draft the best player available, regardless of size or position. But the biggest thing for the Canucks will be the depth in their draft, and because we don't have those second/third round picks we're in a bit of trouble. Keep in mind, guys like Shea Weber (49th), and Duncan Keith (54th) weren't first round picks.

[Lancer]

Size vs. Skating.... hmmm.... I'll take size because you can teach skating. Besides, you don't have to have Keith/Campbell/Boyle-calibre skating to be effective. Neither Hal Gill nor Doug Murray are fleet-footed, but they know their angles well enough and have enough smarts and experience to compensate and become good shut-down guys. Alberts either never had that or his mind bailed on him upon arrival in Vancouver.

The key here is what's between the ears and in the heart. No point in having a giant if he's a gentle giant. In fact I would take a cruel, miserable SOB who plays to hurt at 5'11" over a mild-mannered Clark Kent at 6'6". That said it's one thing to be a Kyle Beach-like idiot with no discipline, and another to be a nasty type of grit who whacks when the ref's not looking but is still willing to stand up for himself when push comes to shove. Bieksa's gritty, but he's a little too gentleman-Johnny when it comes to the violent stuff. To (badly) quote Grapes, he has to learn to initiate the sucker-punching rather than react to the sucker-punching. We don't need someone with all of Pronger's size nor all of his speed if he has most (if not all) of Pronger's nasty streak and smarts. What's better, wrestling with Byfuglien in the crease or him losing his mind, forgetting the play and taking a penalty because you snuck a two-hander on the high part of his ankle?

Anybody in this summer's draft who fits that bill?

[the toucan kid]

So saying "I'm only going to draft a 6'5 guy if he doesn't skate like a 6'5" guy means you'll never draft a bigger player if you're not drafting near the top of the draft.

I don't think that's quite fair. I think at the top of the draft they seem to be able to better extrapolate skill development, or just realize that they already have the skills in place, but that doesn't mean that in deeper rounds they can't measure puck skills, skating etc. to an extent. Or at least gauge potential.

What you're more likely to get are guys that are big, move decently, and you have to hope they can adapt to the speed of the pro game. Regardless, it's far less of a risk to go with size than to go with an undersized player who can put up points against teenagers, and hope his game translates.

Don't agree, an immobile big guy is useless. You're not worth anything just for being big. It's what you bring in terms of talent first. Again: see Alberts, and he might not be the most egregious example around.

I'd like to believe we'll draft the best player available, regardless of size or position. But the biggest thing for the Canucks will be the depth in their draft, and because we don't have those second/third round picks we're in a bit of trouble. Keep in mind, guys like Shea Weber (49th), and Duncan Keith (54th) weren't first round picks.

Again though, those guys weren't picked by a guy slobbering over "the big guy."

Size vs. Skating.... hmmm.... I'll take size because you can teach skating

You can develop strength to greater effect, in my opinion than you can make a snail sprint. Look at what Gionta was doing in front with Pronger (with nothing but gumption), or how Marty St. Louis has managed to be able to hold his own with above par leg strength, not to mention Crosby etc. You can be big, but you can't do anything much with it any longer. Pronger doesn't win games because he's a bully (although once upon a time - in another game, he did), nor does Gill, whose only attribute is a good stick. Big guys do have inherently bigger reaches, but don't necessarily have the coordination to use their sticks, like a not-to-big guy like Mitchell can (official site says: 6'3'' 208 ). It's about ability, not size. Size is a byword in lazy hockey speak for a lot of things, but physical dimensions barely have anything to do with it.

[Island Nucklehead]

I don't think that's quite fair. I think at the top of the draft they seem to be able to better extrapolate skill development, or just realize that they already have the skills in place, but that doesn't mean that in deeper rounds they can't measure puck skills, skating etc. to an extent. Or at least gauge potential.

Well a lot of the guaging of potential will come with how big a player is, how big they can be, style of play tanslation etc. I don't think anyone is saying size is the only factor to look at when drafting. A guy like McIlrath, who's skating is fine, but is also 6'4 and mean, should be heavily considered over a guy who's skating is fine, but is shorter and more of a 2-way guy at the junior level, at least for our purposes. Going after the kid McIlrath fought, Alexander Petrovic (6'4, 193...8/19/27pts in 56 games with Red Deer), in the Top Prospects game, wouldn't be a bad thing either.

Don't agree, an immobile big guy is useless. You're not worth anything just for being big. It's what you bring in terms of talent first. Again: see Alberts, and he might not be the most egregious example around.

Well I agree, but Alberts was a 6th round pick (179th Overall). So using him as a reason why you shouldn't draft a player ranked in the top 30 because they're similarly sized, is a bit silly. Nobody is saying these guys that are ranked high in the draft are immobile. Their skating might not be as fluid, or their strides as quick as players smaller than them, but as long as they can cover the ice well, and play well positionally the size will be an advantage.

Again though, those guys weren't picked by a guy slobbering over "the big guy."

Well Weber isn't exactly small (6'3 190 when drafted), and his stat-line was un-impressive (2G, 16 Pts in 70 games), and was drafted for his defensive and physical abilities (167 PIMS in the WHL). Drafted after both Suter and Klein, Weber's skating style was described as only "strong", not to the same level as Klein or Suter.

And you're right about Keith, but he really was considered too small for an NHL d-man (168 pounds when drafted). It's a real testament to Keith's conditioning that he's managed to hit 195 pounds with a frame like his. Very few would predict he would become a Norris candidate (15 points in 41 college games is worse than what Connauton did) when he was drafted.

It's about ability, not size. Size is a byword in lazy hockey speak for a lot of things, but physical dimensions barely have anything to do with it.

Well no shit. Just because I'm 6'3 and 225 doesn't mean I'm a better hockey player than Martin St Louis. But when you're talking about prospects, and especially defenseman, it's never a bad idea to look at how big they are. Obviously they still have to play hockey... but saying size shouldn't factor makes zero sense. M.A. Bergeron would have been a very high draft pick, not a free agent signing, if that were the case.

[Lancer]

It's about ability, not size. Size is a byword in lazy hockey speak for a lot of things, but physical dimensions barely have anything to do with it.

I would agree with you there, and size is more than height. Bertuzzi is listed at 6'3", but he had a frame like a freight train. There are some guys, though, that even if they're 6'3" look like a bean pole even if they weigh 215. Sometimes it's just the body type that informs the style of play.

Agree that size without ability is useless. No point in getting a big guy if he is neither willing nor able to use it effectively to punish the opposition and keep them at bay - though I believe ability can be taught to a certain extent. Mitchell credits the New Jersey coaching staff for his ability to use his stick defensively. He wasn't born with it, but he learned it. It's the willingness to not just learn how to use your size, but the willingness to use that size to eliminate people from the play.

Look at what Gionta was doing in front with Pronger (with nothing but gumption), or how Marty St. Louis has managed to be able to hold his own with above par leg strength, not to mention Crosby etc. You can be big, but you can't do anything much with it any longer. Pronger doesn't win games because he's a bully (although once upon a time - in another game, he did),

I agree that having a sizeable defenceman is no guarantee that he will own smaller players in the slot or crease, but it doesn't hurt. That said, I would put better odds on a bigger D being able to nullify a smaller forward in front of the goalie than a smaller defenceman trying to do the same thing against a bigger forward like Byfuglien. WRT Pronger not being a bully anymore, I agree that it's not the main attribute that makes him successful but I would say his ability to often be a smart bully will do more against the Hawks than what previous defence corps have done against them in the playoffs. Like I said, you can be an undisciplined idiot or you can be smart about it and leave them limping to the penalty box.

[the toucan kid]

Well a lot of the guaging of potential will come with how big a player is, how big they can be, style of play tanslation etc. I don't think anyone is saying size is the only factor to look at when drafting. A guy like McIlrath, who's skating is fine, but is also 6'4 and mean, should be heavily considered over a guy who's skating is fine, but is shorter and more of a 2-way guy at the junior level, at least for our purposes. Going after the kid McIlrath fought, Alexander Petrovic (6'4, 193...8/19/27pts in 56 games with Red Deer), in the Top Prospects game, wouldn't be a bad thing either.

I don't think that's true though, there's so much that is more important. I don't have a problem with McIlrath if he has other talents, but when someone posts (not in this case specifically) 6'5'' 230 and says, he's the one for us... I get a little wary. It's a plus, but secondary to actually being able to play the game. As you know, I don't give a rats ass for fighting, especially in junior where it's pure self-interested opportunism.

Well I agree, but Alberts was a 6th round pick (179th Overall). So using him as a reason why you shouldn't draft a player ranked in the top 30 because they're similarly sized, is a bit silly.

One of us must have lost my point. I'm not saying I wouldn't draft a big player, just that he would have to be as good a skater,passer and be positionally as able as the guy we're hypothetically passing over. IF they're equal (or equal out) then, by all means get the big guy.

Well Weber isn't exactly small (6'3 190 when drafted), and his stat-line was un-impressive (2G, 16 Pts in 70 games), and was drafted for his defensive and physical abilities (167 PIMS in the WHL). Drafted after both Suter and Klein, Weber's skating style was described as only "strong", not to the same level as Klein or Suter.

But of course, we know that stats aren't the big tell when plucking diamonds out of the rough, it's about being able to see areas of potential growth and development. If we could do it, we would be paid too.

but saying size shouldn't factor makes zero sense.

It's a factor in that, I suppose it can be a tiebreaker between two guys you might want to pick, but sorry, barring a prohibitively small build, I would actually look at how they play the game first.

WRT Pronger not being a bully anymore, I agree that it's not the main attribute that makes him successful but I would say his ability to often be a smart bully will do more against the Hawks than what previous defence corps have done against them in the playoffs.

I think it will be his 30+ minutes of flawless positioning, great passes out of the zone, and a big (controlled) shot might be the bulk of it. I'm not sure what a smart bully is (the sickly youth in me wants to say "I never met one"), but I think moving Buffy with force will just land you in the box, you have to "box" him out, something Pronger can do by holding his ground, but once Buffy sets up, you're probably not going to get away with anything.

[Fred]

I don't think size is the deciding factor and one ie small versus tall is not mutually exclusive to the other when deciding who to draft. Ohland was big and a load, Cullimore was big but was certainly not a load. But I think it's fair to say that a big skilled player is better than a small skilled player, every thing else being equal. Linden was a big skilled player who could skate as well as any small skilled player. The fact is water bugs always look like they're going faster than big players with big strides. I believe that if you can find a big player that skates well & has the same hockey sense is a better bet prospect. The problem is big players who can skate well are like hens back teeth, few and far between. The advantage if you can find such a player is generally weight is in proporition to height and height will always gives a player an advantage not being pushed off the puck or a longer reach, both are big advanatges. Big does tend to intimadate as does meaness and as Tom Watt once stated at a work shop I attended intimidation should not be part of the amateur game but is a big factor in the Pros.

What the Canucks want is a player the size of Pronger with the skills of Keith or Orr. So scouts just go and find one..... easy !

[levelheaded]

I'm still a fan of going with the BPA again in the draft, although I'd be shocked if we didn't take a defenceman.

As for size, I think the idea that big men can't skate is a touch overrated. While I wouldn't draft a player solely because they're 6'5" 220lbs, sometimes rolling the dice on a player like that can pay off in a big way. Tyler Myers was a huge risk at #12 with safer picks like Erik Karlsson still on the board, but the Sabres took a gamble and it paid off in a big way. Myers could always skate and was never exclusively a defensive defenceman, but unlike Luke Schenn who was a very comparable player who was rushed into the NHL, he played another year of junior and it turned him into a great puck mover. A big player can be dominating if they can pass or are good at using their size to take out passing lanes and making smart plays out of the zone. Pronger isn't much of a skater but he has one of the best break out passes out there, Hal Gill can be exploited by faster forwards, but he's excellent at dominating the defensive zone if the other team sets up there.

With that said I'd still take a 6'1" 180lb defenceman who can shoot and score over a 6'5" 200lb monster, but I wouldn't hesitate to take someone like McIlrath or Tinordi if they're still on the board. This is the first batch of juniors that have honed their game exclusively in the post-lockout world, so they'll have had a strong emphasis on skating and positioning, so I would be very surprised if any of the top ranked players in this draft were exposed as lumbering dinosaurs.

[Linden Is God]

The Hockey News did a mock draft and they have the Canucks picking McIlrath. I've been reading up a lot on this guy and this is who I want picked. Tinordi is my second choice. Either way I think it's imperative that the best Dman available is taken.

Runner up picks that I would be ok with are:

Alex Petrovic, D (6'4", 193lbs , shoots right)
Jon Merril, D (6'3", 193lbs)

[trouble]

The Canucks really have no choice but to take a D-men at this years draft cause they don't have another pick till the late 4th round...

[levelheaded]

The Canucks really have no choice but to take a D-men at this years draft cause they don't have another pick till the late 4th round...

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see us trade down to the mid-second round in an attempt to pick up another top 90 pick this year.

[ClamRussel]

Gotta wonder, is the hype around Tinordi because of his father? Would he still be as highly thought of if Mark wasn't his dad?

[Tciso]

Without any movement By MG.. These are our pick in this Junes Draft

25th
115th
145th
172nd
175th
205th

Canucks do not have a 2nd (traded for Bernier) or a 3rd round pick (traded for Andrew Alberts) In this years draft. I'm sure that puts huge Smiles on your faces LOL

I have already completed my own scouting, and don"t worry. There is no one of value ranked between 26th and 114th.