Krug is a 3 in Boston.
- manvanfan

That's fine. They all fill a valuable role and can contribute big time to a contending team


Do you see stud dman potential in Bouchard? I personally can't imagine him developing into a dman I trust against top lines or on my top PK pair.

Getting a potential 50+ point dman is fine by me and something this team desperately needs now and in the future.

5'11" is the cut off for first pairing defenders.
- manvanfan

He can step on his tip toes

Yeah, I don't think picking up a Krug/Ellis/Barrie caliber of player at #7 in this kind of draft is bad at all.


I'm sorry, but I just don't see #1 workhorse dman upside in Bouchard and Boqvist at all either.
- Nucker101

Did anybody see that in Carlson when drafted 27oa? Erik Karlsson at 15oa? If you don't take a chance. I guess someone else gets the chance.

You're take on defensemen is the opposite of just about every single person in here.

Matt Dumba 6'

Enstrom was A HEALTHY SCRATCH. Ellis plays as a number 3. Spurgeon gets to play as a 2 because of Suter. Really he's not as good as the 6' tall Dumba.
- manvanfan

Enstrom has had a long career as a quality top 4, don't flip on me for guessing. Also, don't speak for others there super-stud, I happened to think quite a few people on here are fond of Ellis, Krug, Spurgeon and to a lesser extent (maybe a young) toby Enstrom. So don't act like your opinion is the same as "every single person in here" jackass.

Did anybody see that in Carlson when drafted 27oa? Erik Karlsson at 15oa? If you don't take a chance. I guess someone else gets the chance.
- manvanfan

Yeah, I'll take my chances with Hughes and let someone else get Evan "Carlson 2.0" bouchard

That's fine. They all fill a valuable role and can contribute big time to a contending team


Do you see stud dman potential in Bouchard? I personally can't imagine him developing into a dman I trust against top lines or on my top PK pair.

Getting a potential 50+ point dman is fine by me and something this team desperately needs now and in the future.
- Nucker101

I think Boqvist and Hughes are the only hope to be 2-3 guys. Maybe Dobson is a 3. Dahlin is the only clear 1D potential. We need 3 top4 dmen, time to stop dreaming like everyone we pick is top pairing guy.

That's fine. They all fill a valuable role and can contribute big time to a contending team


Do you see stud dman potential in Bouchard? I personally can't imagine him developing into a dman I trust against top lines or on my top PK pair.

Getting a potential 50+ point dman is fine by me and something this team desperately needs now and in the future.
- Nucker101

I don't need a "stud" Dman. I need someone "capable" of playing top pairing. Hughes because of his size literally can't.

John Carlson according to some not capable of playing against other teams top lines. A team he plays on, just won the cup and he played 25 minutes a night.

I don't need a "stud" Dman. I need someone "capable" of playing top pairing. Hughes because of his size literally can't.

John Carlson according to some not capable of playing against other teams top lines. A team he plays on, just won the cup and he played 25 minutes a night.
- manvanfan

Like I said, I think Hughes is a flat out better prospect than these taller guys. I'm fine with his limitations, I think the role he plays can be an extremely value asset. I don't think potential 45-50 point dmen grow on trees either. I'm comfortable with who he is as a prospect.

I refuse to rank him below players who I question just as much defensively, if not more just because they're taller.


Again, just my personal opinion.

I don't need a "stud" Dman. I need someone "capable" of playing top pairing. Hughes because of his size literally can't.

John Carlson according to some not capable of playing against other teams top lines. A team he plays on, just won the cup and he played 25 minutes a night.
- manvanfan

I bet if we draft Hughes he will be on the Canucks this year.He had no problem keeping up at the Worlds

Like I said, I think Hughes is a flat out better prospect than these taller guys. I'm fine with his limitations, I think the role he plays can be an extremely value asset. I don't think potential 45-50 point dmen grow on trees either. I'm comfortable with who he is as a prospect.

I refuse to rank him below players who I question just as much defensively, if not more just because they're taller.


Again, just my personal opinion.
- Nucker101

He is limited. That limits the team he plays on. Van would still need two more better D to go anywhere in the playoffs.

I bet if we draft Hughes he will be on the Canucks this year.He had no problem keeping up at the Worlds
- VANTEL

I don't doubt that. Might even take Van to a first round playoff exit.

Like I said, I think Hughes is a flat out better prospect than these taller guys. I'm fine with his limitations, I think the role he plays can be an extremely value asset.
- Nucker101

Exactly. An ice tilting asset... PPQB & puck carrying/flow dictating dman for even strength secondary offense. How is that not better than a mediocre 1st pairing guy who happens to be a couple inches taller?

Exactly. An ice tilting asset... PPQB & puck carrying/flow dictating dman for even strength secondary offense. How is that not better than a mediocre 1st pairing guy who happens to be a couple inches taller?
- DrChristianTroy

Where are they getting 1st pairing capable D if they don't draft one?

I look forward to our defense lineup next season
Edler Stecher
Hughes Tanev
Pouliot Biega

He is limited. That limits the team he plays on. Van would still need two more better D to go anywhere in the playoffs.
- manvanfan

You don't need to "better" dmen, you just need another pairing that can play a different role. Canucks got to game 7 of the SCF with Hamhuis, Edler, Ehrhoff, Bieksa, etc.

If Hughes can potentially be a better version of Ehrhoff, and hopefully Juolevi can potentially be a Hamhuis type then you're on your way.

Where are they getting 1st pairing capable D if they don't draft one?
- manvanfan

Problem is they won’t be drafting one at 7 in this draft.

Problem is they won’t be drafting one at 7 in this draft.
- DrChristianTroy

Exactly.

I guess I do?! I thought I heard his name, and noticed a winger looking dangerous and so just assumed I guess. I did just pop it on and have not watched the other games.
- neem55

Yeah it hard to say. It could be one of the many prospects they've got down there.

Prolly Johnsson though.

I look forward to our defense lineup next season
Edler Stecher
Hughes Tanev
Pouliot Biega
- Reubenkincade

Problem is they won’t be drafting one at 7 in this draft.
- DrChristianTroy

The problem is if you don't ever try, it really isn't ever going to happen.

Like I said, I think Hughes is a flat out better prospect than these taller guys. I'm fine with his limitations, I think the role he plays can be an extremely value asset. I don't think potential 45-50 point dmen grow on trees either. I'm comfortable with who he is as a prospect.

I refuse to rank him below players who I question just as much defensively, if not more just because they're taller.


Again, just my personal opinion.
- Nucker101

As one of the youngest guys, he could grow too.

The problem is if you don't ever try, it really isn't ever going to happen.
- manvanfan

Still not making much sense. You can't just assume these taller dmen have top pairing potential based on height alone.

- VANTEL

I'm glad you laughed at that. That may actually be the line up a couple times a year. Tears came to my eyes just about.

Still not making much sense. You can't just assume these taller dmen have top pairing potential based on height alone.
- Nucker101

Why can't I assume they have top pairing potential? You are all assuming that Hughes is going to be a 50 points 2nd pairing D.

I think the fact that their stats and everything show they certainly have the potential.

Still not making much sense. You can't just assume these taller dmen have top pairing potential based on height alone.
- Nucker101

I'd say the guy outside Dahlen with clear top pair potential is Boqvist. Problem is, he's a big boom/bust risk. He's my #1 guy I'd like out of this draft for that reason, but I like to gamble