Matthew Frickin' Tkachuk!

[JohnnyT]

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

I don't understand why everyone ####s on the Juolevi pick. I hate the Canucks, but if Juolevi develops into a top pairing dman the pick was still worth it. We all know it takes a few years to develop most dmen. Tkachuk is a beast but if he ends up a 65ish point 2 way beast, and Juolevi turns out a 40+ top pairing stud... Was it really a bad pick ? The team is in a state of rebuild so they can take the development time. I hope he busts but at this time the pick isn't as bad as people make it out to be including Canucks fans.

I don't think Juolevi was a bad pick, it's just more enjoyable to watch Canuck fans squirm every time Tkachuk has a good game.

[Monahan For Mayor]

Originally Posted by JohnnyT

I don't think Juolevi was a bad pick, it's just more enjoyable to watch Canuck fans squirm every time Tkachuk has a good game.

Haha that's true. I think they are extra hurt because of the fact that Tkachuk is everything Virtanen was supposed to be.

[ernie]

As a canuck fan the problem is not just the Virtanen pick not turning out when the more obvious choices in that slot are progressing nicely but that the biggest need in the organization is top flight forward talent. This makes the Juolevi pick a bad one IMO. Not because the player is bad but because it was the wrong pick to make from, IMO, the best player available perspective and the organizational need perspective. They needed to hit on good first line forwards with the #6 and #5 picks. They whiffed on both.

And I'll be clear the organization needs depth and talent everywhere but they really need up front help. You aren't going to be successful with a bunch of 40 point guys in the top 6.

[Boxman]

Makes sense to build from the net out. First you get your goalie prospects, then you get your dmen prospects, then you get your forward prospects like Tkachuk who may be able to contribute immediately.

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by Boxman

Makes sense to build from the net out. First you get your goalie prospects, then you get your dmen prospects, then you get your forward prospects like Tkachuk who may be able to contribute immediately.

Yep. Defence take longer to Develop. Should draft them first. But, that's a simplified way of doing things and it's slot easier to whiff on a defenceman. I remember being disappointed when we drafted Monohan because I wanted Ristolainen. That's faded now though, thanks to aquiring Dougie.

Sure woulda been Nice to get Maata though...Not that I hate Jankowski or anything. It's all moot with the expansion draft anyway. Ramble ramble, hindsight, ramble ramble

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by ernie

As a canuck fan the problem is not just the Virtanen pick not turning out when the more obvious choices in that slot are progressing nicely but that the biggest need in the organization is top flight forward talent. This makes the Juolevi pick a bad one IMO. Not because the player is bad but because it was the wrong pick to make from, IMO, the best player available perspective and the organizational need perspective. They needed to hit on good first line forwards with the #6 and #5 picks. They whiffed on both.

And I'll be clear the organization needs depth and talent everywhere but they really need up front help. You aren't going to be successful with a bunch of 40 point guys in the top 6.

I've always considered the Canucks to be weak on defencemen. IMO wingers are the last pieces to add.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by ernie

As a canuck fan the problem is not just the Virtanen pick not turning out when the more obvious choices in that slot are progressing nicely but that the biggest need in the organization is top flight forward talent. This makes the Juolevi pick a bad one IMO. Not because the player is bad but because it was the wrong pick to make from, IMO, the best player available perspective and the organizational need perspective. They needed to hit on good first line forwards with the #6 and #5 picks. They whiffed on both.

And I'll be clear the organization needs depth and talent everywhere but they really need up front help. You aren't going to be successful with a bunch of 40 point guys in the top 6.

Ehlers - Horvat - Tkachuk

would look pretty good to Nuck fans, I would think.

As to those saying you should build the defense first, because they take longer... I agree. But you need all kinds of players, and with early first round guys, you have to take the best player available. (You can use all the other picks on D every year if you like)

And I am sorry, but there is no way in hell (and not a single scout suggested) that Juolevi was a better player than Tkachuk in June. And he sure as hell isn't now.

[Beninho]

There are numerous problems with the Juolevi pick if you are a Nucks fan. Your team is yearning for something to get excited about but then you bypass the best player available, a player who just scored 40pts in 18 playoff games. Who scored the game winning memorial cup goal while being extremely clutch the entire playoffs. Your team picks a vanilla D man whose stock rose greatly in large thanks to him playing on insanely good teams. This isn't me trying to knock Juolevi but if you take a Dman in the top 5 you are looking to draft a dynamic looking Dman. Juolevi is boring, he's safe, but his potential now seems to be below other Dmen in the draft. That was another problem, there was no evidence to really suggest Juolevi was superior to Serg or to Chycrun. Now you can put McAvoy as a player I would rather have. Dman are hard to project and when you have a player like Tkachuk on the board that risk is not worth taking. I think it's absurd that the Canucks never even considered drafting Tkachuk and shows really poor scouting on their part. Burke and the Flames knew the Nucks weren't taking Tkachuk and that does not look good. Tkachuk has even said the Canucks didn't seem at all interested in their interview, if I was a Canuck fan this would worry me.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I've always considered the Canucks to be weak on defencemen. IMO wingers are the last pieces to add.

Let's be honest they are weak everywhere. And while one can say build from net out etc and it's true you need good goaltending and defense plenty of team every year show you can get by without the goaltending aspect to a good degree. At least in a rebuild/retool/whatever you want to call it scenario.

Competent and good defenders are found throughout the draft at a greater rate than true impact forwards. Heck look at what the canucks have right now on the blueline...Tanev (College UFA), Edler (2nd round), Stecher (College UFA), Hutton (5th round), Tryamkin (3rd round). The two worst defenders by my eye are the first round picks Sbisa and Gudbranson.

Now it's not a great blueline at all and I certainly have questions about it moving forward as it depends highly on ALL three rookies/sophmores hitting ceilings which is unlikely. While you can find good forwards elsewhere most of the true impact guys are coming from the first round and early in the first round. The canucks had nothing in the system when they made the Virtanen pick and it is turning out to be a big miss. They barely had anyone when they stepped up and took Juolevi. They very much needed and still very much need young forwards that can have early career impacts. Age has caught the Sedins. The likes of Baertschi and especially Granlund are very unlikely to lift a team out of mediocrity with increased roles. They very much needed Nylander/Ehlers and Tkachuk far more than Virtanen (thought was correct in this case...the pick wrong) and Juolevi.

IMO it's easy to say wingers are the last piece to add when you actually have something in the system. When there is nothing and you have a severe shortage of scoring talent in every aspect of the system you add scoring talent whether from the wing or center. Add in that Tkachuk was very much the best player available and Juolevi was a bad pick. Again not because Juolevi is a bad player (he isn't though his ceiling appears to be dropping) but I'm not even convinced he was the bet D-man available let alone player.

[Gaudfather]

Interesting comparison of Matthew to his Dad after the first 3/4 of their first seasons. And to think how much better this kid is going to get. Also of note is that his PIM's are way down since Feb 1st - he is getting smarter with managing that edge.

Matthew & Keith Tkachuk Through 62 Career Games:

Matthew - 12 G, 30 A, 42 PTS, +12 & 94 PIM
Keith - 18 G, 16 A, 34 PTS, -7 & 152 PIM
1:01 PM - 9 Mar 2017

Matthew Tkachuk continues to one up his dad
One of the unsung rookies this year has been Matthew Tkachuk with the Calgary Flames. The son of former NHLer Keith Tkachuk has emerged as a great power forward in his first season after being drafted sixth overall last June. He's been so good, in fact, he's actually outscoring his dad at the same point in their respective careers.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/f...ther-like-son/

[Calgary4LIfe]

In my opinion, you take BPA regardless of position.

When you have two players that are equal, always take the defencemen.

Tkachuk was a clear cut above Juolevi IMO. I also had Juolevi as my "I hope the Flames don't draft him" thinking that Tkachuk was going to go to Vancouver. I am not high on him at all - and it isn't coming from a hater from a rival fanbase, as I really like Horvat and Boeser, and think Goldobin and Dahlen were excellent returns on the deadline trades. Kid doesn't have that 'compete' in him from my viewings, and it has been a knock on some of his scouting reports. Sergachev is just as good at being a puck moving offensive defencemen, but he has a higher compete level and provides his team with some physicality. Ditto for Chychrun as well. It would be one thing if Juolevi was simply a stronger puck mover than the other two, or was a much better defender, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I am not at all impressed with his draft+1 year too. He didn't take a step forward. I would argue that Mete on the London Knights has taken a noticeable step forward. Definitely not the quality of defencemen as Juolevi, but the point is that he has taken a noticeable step forward and is out-producing Juolevi.

Though Tkachuk and Juolevi are playing different positions, Juolevi is in his draft+1 year playing in the OHL as an offensive defencemen. Tkachuk is outproducing Juolevi in his rookie year in the NHL - more goals and just as many assists.

I would put money on Juolevi making the NHL - I think he is smart enough and definitely has enough tools - but I don't see him any higher than as a 2nd pairing defender. I wouldn't have spent a 5th overall pick on him. I used to like him a lot until about the halfway point of his draft season where I read a scouting report, and noticed after watching him for a bit that it was true that he lost too many puck battles in the corners. I used to think that Juolevi was the most like TJ Brodie, but Brodie had a healthy dose of compete in him, even if he doesn't play physical.

[tvp2003]

Pinder re-tweeted this last night:

Tomas Oppolzer‏ @TomOppolzer12h12 hours ago

Matthew Tkachuk has only taken 1 penalty in his last 19 games. He's drawn like 15. God he's fun.

It's actually one penalty in his last 17 games (a minor late in the Nashville game) but the point stands.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

That setup on Gio's opening goal last night was a thing of beauty.

The kid is an incredibly smart player. His decision making is that of a 5 year pro. Uses his body to shield the puck incredibly well, and might be one of the best passers on the team. Can tip pucks, as well as finish a shot in tight.

The only thing that needs a bit of work is his skating power to get his speed up on the first step, but he anticipates the play so well that it's not a big detriment to his game. If he improves on that he's going to be an all-star.

[CliffFletcher]

I'm not sure I'd characterise Matthew Tkachuk as a power forward. His game isn't about bowling guys over or fighting. And it distracts from the fact his main qualities are vision and hockey IQ, which are already NHL elite.

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by ernie

As a canuck fan the problem is not just the Virtanen pick not turning out when the more obvious choices in that slot are progressing nicely but that the biggest need in the organization is top flight forward talent. This makes the Juolevi pick a bad one IMO. Not because the player is bad but because it was the wrong pick to make from, IMO, the best player available perspective and the organizational need perspective. They needed to hit on good first line forwards with the #6 and #5 picks. They whiffed on both.

And I'll be clear the organization needs depth and talent everywhere but they really need up front help. You aren't going to be successful with a bunch of 40 point guys in the top 6.

I beg to differ, look at our beloved Calgary Flames:

                                GP       P       A      P
13	Johnny Gaudreau	L	57	14	34	48		
11	Mikael Backlund	C	67	20	27	47		
23	Sean Monahan	C	67	22	23	45		
19	Matthew Tkachuk	L	63	12	31	43	
27	Dougie Hamilton	D	66	10	31	41		
67	Michael Frolik	R	67	14	25	39

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'm not sure I'd characterise Matthew Tkachuk as a power forward. His game isn't about bowling guys over or fighting. And it distracts from the fact his main qualities are vision and hockey IQ, which are already NHL elite.

I don't know if these are the primary criteria of the definition. To my mind a power forward is most succinctly defined as a high skilled forward with size and strength. Fighting is certainly not something that I have ever considered integral to the position, and while Tkachuk may not "bowl guys over" he is extremely difficult already to separate from the puck and to contain.

He is big, strong, highly skilled, and also with a very high hockey IQ: he is the best kind of power forward to have.

[Moneyhands23]

Originally Posted by Since1984

I beg to differ, look at our beloved Calgary Flames:

                                GP       P       A      P
13	Johnny Gaudreau	L	57	14	34	48		
11	Mikael Backlund	C	67	20	27	47		
23	Sean Monahan	C	67	22	23	45		
19	Matthew Tkachuk	L	63	12	31	43	
27	Dougie Hamilton	D	66	10	31	41		
67	Michael Frolik	R	67	14	25	39

2 be fair one of those guys is in our top-4!

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Ehlers - Horvat - Tkachuk

This makes my eyes bleed, makes me throw up in my mouth and I'm pretty sure it's also making me smell burnt toast.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

2 be fair one of those guys is in our top-4!

True. But to also be fair, Ferland is on a 46 goal pace over the last 16 games.

9-1-10 +12

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Since1984

I beg to differ, look at our beloved Calgary Flames:

                                GP       P       A      P
13	Johnny Gaudreau	L	57	14	34	48		
11	Mikael Backlund	C	67	20	27	47		
23	Sean Monahan	C	67	22	23	45		
19	Matthew Tkachuk	L	63	12	31	43	
27	Dougie Hamilton	D	66	10	31	41		
67	Michael Frolik	R	67	14	25	39

I think Ernie was talking 40-pt players over a full season. Everyone above is projecting 48 - 69 points over 82 games.