It certainly seems to imply an interesting aspect of the Canucks philosophy, insofar as it seems to suggest that they believe that the disparity in raw upside - or at least, their ability to suss that out from a group of hundreds of potential selections - amongst the prospects outside the top 100-120 in a given year is less important than the development path a given player takes.coco_canuck wrote:I don't have a problem with selecting 19-20 year olds, and I don't have an issue with players committed to the NCAA.
One concern I do have is necessarily drafting for need outside the first two rounds, and specifically drafting college players without giving other leagues much consideration.
Every team makes some selections based on a specific need, but there needs to be a fine line between need and best player available. Same goes for preferring college players, if there is say an OHL kid who projects much better than the best available college player, then I'd rather go with the OHL kid than reaching for someone else.
Since we don't sit at the draft table, it's difficult to say why they may have passed on someone else over the kid they picked in a given round, but Gillis has been mostly open with his draft strategy, and at the moment I'm not completely sold.
I don't know if it's true or not frankly, but I do see the reasoning in taking players whose commitment to college hockey give you an extra couple of years of development before you have to commit to them (or allow them to walk).
Between that and taking some bigger and more mature players in the early rounds hopefully the Canucks are able to strike a nice balance between players who can contribute soon and players who with enough growth will fill the cupboard in a few seasons.
Like all drafts we won't know for several years.