Our 6th Overall Pick: Elias Lindholm or Sean Monahan?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I hear you harp on this, but am I getting that you're blaming the team for not tanking? Because again, what would you have them do? Actual losses don't change things moving forward, but asking players to lose most certainly does

Kept Blake Comeau and played him as No 1 C... remember Hartley actually did this at the beginning of the season because he thought it would help!

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Just a question, if Monohan ended up carving a Langkow career, without knowing what Lindholm's career turns out to be (nor Nurse), would you be happy?

Langkow quietly had a very good career: 672 points in 1090 gp.

I'd take that every time.

[Vulcan]

I picked Monohan because he's 2" taller but honestly I don't have much of an idea who will be better. In the off chance we get to pick Barkov, I'll be more than happy. One thing about Barkov is that he's almost a year younger than either of these players.

If the draft follows what most suppose it will, only one of these will be available when we pick so our preference won't mean much.

[Fischy13]

I really want to say Monahan, but I always go back to the fact A) he's one of the oldest B) a bigger guy in the CHL. Both of these can make him "appear" that he's better than he is. If he was the youngest in the draft and is doing what he's done, all in. Based on this, I think Barkov is the guy I'd target, doing everything I can to get him. One of the youngest, biggest and playing against men.

[Yoho]

I can't wait to watch the WJC this X-mas season. I have a feeling that Lindholm on Sweden's top line playing against players his own age is going to absolutely go off in this tourney.

I'll also have no problem cheering for Monahan wearing the Maple leaf as well ,especially if he is the one the Flames end up with

[playmaker]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Just my opinion...

We lack skill in our pipeline, outside of Sven, Brodie, and Gaudreau. We should handle the tangible aspects before we start to individually rank a player higher even though he's a lesser prospect because of leadership.

Granlund, Jankowski, Backlund and Reinhart are all very skilled players. Our pipeline needs a gritty, two-way centre, a guy willing and able to occupy the front of the net.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by playmaker

Granlund, Jankowski, Backlund and Reinhart are all very skilled players. Our pipeline needs a gritty, two-way centre, a guy willing and able to occupy the front of the net.

I think you and Ashasx have different opinions on what "very skilled" is.

[trackercowe]

I can't wait for CP's reaction when only one of these guys fall to us, and Feaster passes over Lindholm (who I think will be available) for Nurse.

For some reason I see that happening, since Feaster and Weisbrod seem to have their own ideas on who they want to take, and not always the obvious BPA selection.

[sun]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Then blame the lack of a tank.

You don't get franchise players picking 6th, unless you get lucky.

Yep, no way the face of this franchise could ever be picked say... 11th. By another team too.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I hear you harp on this, but am I getting that you're blaming the team for not tanking? Because again, what would you have them do? Actual losses don't change things moving forward, but asking players to lose most certainly does

Yeah you can't really *blame* anyone for the lack of tank. I mean if there was any one move you could question it would be those final two Kiprusoff wins where he posted a .971 and .947 sv%. There was no need to play Kipper lose those four points and we're picking 3rd?

But yeah, that's just the way the cookie crumbled I guess. Still doesn't make it great and certainly doesn't make it anything to hang your hat on for pride's sake.

Sure we could get lucky and draft the diamond in the rough, or we could just be drafting the sure things in the top 3. I know, from a risk management perspective, what I'd rather be doing.

[dammage79]

Lindholm pulling out a lead now. I want Lindholm as well.

The Flames? Their list likely sits with Barkov at the top, Monahan at number two, and Lindholm at three. For the exact reason that the Monahan voters think he will be the pick. Size.

But the grit factor should go to Lindholm over the other two. Such a nice quandry to have in this draft.

As for Nurse, I don't see the Flames using their top pick on a defenseman. Too far of a reach in a heavy top seven filled with top notch forwards.

[Sylvanfan]

I have reservations about 3rd year junior guys who don't put up really big numbers in their third year. A guy like Benoit Poulliot comes to mind, big guy who was a really good skater and went really high despite his junior numbers not being outstanding. In the case of Monahan the numbers this year mirror last year, which could mean stagnant development.

I haven't seen him play with my own eyes. But for me...if I want to take a guy with size at that spot...I'll gamble on Nurse the defenceman before Monahan.

[the-rasta-masta]

Not sure if many of you have watched Lindholm play. He is quite physical actually and would be even more so on the smaller ice.

[trackercowe]

I think the Oilers gave tanking a bad name/reputation. Feaster and ownership seem legitimately scared of following in the Oilers footsteps in which they will bottom-out for an extended period of time. Tanking for one or two years if fine, but when you have a culture of losing like they do in Edmonton, it takes a lot to turn that type of situation around.

I too wish we were picking in the #3 spot, but all those prospects that were here during the final stretch can't feel that losing is acceptable, and perhaps preferable like you might hear elsewhere.

[sun]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Yeah you can't really *blame* anyone for the lack of tank. I mean if there was any one move you could question it would be those final two Kiprusoff wins where he posted a .971 and .947 sv%. There was no need to play Kipper lose those four points and we're picking 3rd?

But yeah, that's just the way the cookie crumbled I guess. Still doesn't make it great and certainly doesn't make it anything to hang your hat on for pride's sake.

Sure we could get lucky and draft the diamond in the rough, or we could just be drafting the sure things in the top 3. I know, from a risk management perspective, what I'd rather be doing.

Hey, well good thing the top 7 from this year all could have gone top 3 last year then, hey? This is the deepest draft since '03. We will be getting an outstanding player at SIXTH overall. The top seven in this draft are as "sure things" as the top three in most other years. Ever seen a top three player bust before? Happens all the time.

Draft the right player. Develop him properly. Don't cry about what could have been if this team threw games. Such a ridiculous opinion considering the players on the board at sixth.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

I can't wait for CP's reaction when only one of these guys fall to us, and Feaster passes over Lindholm (who I think will be available) for Nurse.

For some reason I see that happening, since Feaster and Weisbrod seem to have their own ideas on who they want to take, and not always the obvious BPA selection.

There's no one who would consider Lindholm an obvious BPA selection over Nurse if that's what you're getting at. Some will consider Lindholm a BPA, some wont but these guys will likely be within 2 picks of each other, obvious would be a very strong word here.

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

There's no one who would consider Lindholm an obvious BPA selection over Nurse if that's what you're getting at. Some will consider Lindholm a BPA, some wont but these guys will likely be within 2 picks of each other, obvious would be a very strong word here.

True enough, I should of said BPA on what our needs/fans expectations are. Not that we don't need defensemen as well, but I think everyone and their mother is hoping we draft a center, or at worst a dynamic forward like Drouin if that's at all possible.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I haven't seen him play with my own eyes. But for me...if I want to take a guy with size at that spot...I'll gamble on Nurse the defenceman before Monahan.

Nurse is all over the map in top prospect lists. I have seen him as high as 4th and outside the top 10 in others. IMO he's more of a gamble than Monahan especially when you consider how much longer it takes for defenseman to develope.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by sun

Hey, well good thing the top 7 from this year all could have gone top 3 last year then, hey? This is the deepest draft since '03. We will be getting an outstanding player at SIXTH overall. The top seven in this draft are as "sure things" as the top three in most other years. Ever seen a top three player bust before? Happens all the time.

Draft the right player. Develop him properly. Don't cry about what could have been if this team threw games. Such a ridiculous opinion considering the players on the board at sixth.

Yeah I'm letting it go, just can't help but feel that if you're going to have a crap season at least get a great prospect out of it. At sixth, we might get a great player and we might not.

But would the logical extension of your argument be that picking higher is even more important if the draft is so deep, so that you get the best of the best? I think you're arguing against yourself.

[SuperMatt18]

I keep watching those Lindholm videos and love his reckless physical style. Reminds me of the times when Theo, even though not the biggest guy on the ice, would just run around recklessly hitting everything.