The idea that 'all sophomores struggle' is so unbelievably wrong. Some do. Most don't. It's just that some have fluky rookie seasons that make their sophomore performance seem disappointing. Severson is ahead of Larsson now, and he's 2 years younger. He just didn't get Larsson's insane shooting luck this season.
There's the standard definitive and biased triumph statement that I've missed as of late.
I don't think Severson is already ahead of Larsson, and I'd be interested to read what's convinced you of that. Care to explain the "insane shooting luck" statement? Larsson had a S% of 3.3%, while Severson had a 5.4% (3 goals on 91 shots, and 5 goals on 93 shots, respectively). Severson certainly generated more shots per game, without a doubt. But going off basic statistics, that's literally the only advantage Severson had over Larsson. Larsson had a better overall season, a better PPG, was a positive +/- (Severson came in at -13), and regularly logged significantly more minutes than Severson did once the coaching change occurred and he was given a fair shot.
I'm obviously not rooting against the kid, but I just don't get this infatuation several of you have with him.
And I'm not going to argue semantics with you - the second-season dip in production and/or effectiveness has happened countless times. Whether that's because the kid overachieved his first season is irrelevant - a dip in production is a dip in production. That's what I'm saying. Are you saying that Severson's first season was fluky?