leeski Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I feel like this year has been a wasted year of potential development for him. He should have either been fully on the team or fully in Albany. Either way he's gotta be on the ice to get better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) I feel like this year has been a wasted year of potential development for him. He should have either been fully on the team or fully in Albany. Either way he's gotta be on the ice to get better. He's played 62 games so far this year, he may get to 70 games, that's a lot of games. Not including if the Devils make the playoffs and he plays. But really, 62 games is already a good amount of games as is. If he was in Albany, and never sat 1 game, he'd only be at 70 games right now, and the top defenseman has played 67. Edited April 9, 2013 by Devils731 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagknife Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 So from what I've been reading, some people expected Larsson to be as smooth as Niedermayer, as intimidating as Stevens, and as impactful as Lidstrom, all in one. wow... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLL765 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 What about Gelinas? He killed it in Albany last year. Shouldn't he have gotten a sniff? The correct answer is no. Neither one of them belong in the NHL. Larsson has been so bad if he had been Gelinas he'd probably be on another team by now. Marty has saved Larsson's ass so much already he should be buying dinner nightly. Larsson has talent. I'm not saying he doesn't but the adjustment to the league has been to great for him and he would be much better playing in the league where he can make mistakes and grow. He also very soft and skiddish. These are the two things that makes me think he's not going to adjust to the league and be a good NHL player. Josefson is the same way. First off, it's skittish, not skiddish, whatever that means and secondly, Larsson isn't playing that bad, you're all just whiners who obviously have 0 patience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagknife Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 First off, it's skittish, not skiddish, whatever that means and secondly, Larsson isn't playing that bad, you're all just whiners who obviously have 0 patience. INSTANT GRATIFICATION!!! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 The game has changed a ton, so throw out anyone who was drafted before 1996. Although I might take Brad McCrimmon 4th overall, hard to say really. Two, putting up points is not in and of itself a valuable skill - a defenseman who plays on the power play will put up points. The question is, is he affecting the power play in a positive way? Much tougher question to answer. If the Devils put Larsson on the power play, even with how bad he would be at that right now, he'd have more points for sure. But would he be a better player? Duchene and Kane have wonderful offensive abilities but how much are they helping? Probably some, but not as much as you'd think. Evander Kane is on pace for a 56 point season and you're going gaga over this? He's better than Hedman who himself would be on pace for 36 points, including 9 goals, and who drives play forward in a way that Kane probably doesn't yet? I mean the argument you are making is that forwards are more valuable than defensemen. I don't believe that to be true. My point is not that forwards are not more valuable, but let me choose between a forwards who's ceiling could be 70-80pts and be a dynamic threat, good defensively and can fight and that i could use on the PP and the PK OR a 2way dman who will be playing our PP for sure, put up points, play on the PK and drive the play, hit people etc etc... then i'm gonna scratch my head. But IMO it's more important to have dynamic players who can create stuff, guys like Fayne or any dmen in the league can shut down an offence and play a sound game and just play the system and have his job done and finish the night with no shots against or wtv. Not saying it's easy but it's easier to get the job done, especially when you have a goalie behind you to help you out. Guys who can score 3 goals a game and contribute defensively too are really not growing on trees and you need extra skills and be able to do things that others cant in order to get those extra goals, those guys are usually found in the top picks. so to me unless it's a surefire lidstrom, chara, pronger, letang in the making, i'd never pick a dman over a top dynamic talent cause you need goals to win games. Good defensive dmen are useless in shootouts too and thats something you have to think about too. (forget that hedman snipped one top corner though) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I don't think Larsson was drafted with the expectation that he wouldn't contribute on offense and it's real early to write off his potential offensive contributions. I think his shot sucks and that after he's done working on his footwork and skating that should be his next goal, but he has real vision in the offensive zone that a lot of guys with way more experience than him never develop. I wouldn't draft a D first defenseman 4th overall either but I don't think that's what Larsson will turn out to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 bottom line is, i hope Larsson surprised me. i know he's gonna be a "good NHL player" and for a long time. I just want more than that, im willing to wait obviously. Im just scared that it doesnt happen. Go Adam buddayyyy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLL765 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 INSTANT GRATIFICATION!!! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!! Between the Kovy, Clarkson, Marty, Moose and Larsson hate here. It's getting to the point where it's ridiculous. Kovy, isn't lighting it up, but he's had sub par linemates all year, not to mention our #1C is lost somewhere in the woods of his mind. Clarkson has already scored more goals this year than he should have, so again, anyone saying he needs to put the puck in the net, stfu. Yes, he needs to contribute consistently, but he's gonna look bad when he's playing with Elias aka the line that plays against other teams top line. HE's getting Mike Mottau'd. Marty, is older, but playing averagely, which is acceptable. Same with Moose. And did we really have a better option for this year? Larsson, he's 20!!!! I will continue to call anyone out who mentions him being a bust before he gets in another 100-150 games in the NHL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muevelos Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I agree saying Larsson is a bust is a lil much considering people still don't completely think Tedenby is a "bust" yet. Going over the top saying Adam is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Has anybody in the thread said Larsson is a bust? Someone may have and I missed it. I wouldn't call him a bust, way too young. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muevelos Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) Has anybody in the thread said Larsson is a bust? Someone may have and I missed it. I wouldn't call him a bust, way too young.To lazy to look but I do indeed recall seeing the two words being referenced to one another. May correct if wrong. Edited April 9, 2013 by CarterforPresident Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeski Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 He's played 62 games so far this year, he may get to 70 games, that's a lot of games. Not including if the Devils make the playoffs and he plays. But really, 62 games is already a good amount of games as is. If he was in Albany, and never sat 1 game, he'd only be at 70 games right now, and the top defenseman has played 67. I haven't paid attention much; how many minutes per game is he having? It just seems like I rarely hear his name being called by the announcers relative to everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagknife Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Has anybody in the thread said Larsson is a bust? Someone may have and I missed it. I wouldn't call him a bust, way too young. The opening line of the thread alone: "Can someone explain to me how he can't be considered anything other than a bust. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 To lazy to look but I do indeed recall seeing the two words being referenced to one another. May correct if wrong. Turns out it was in the OP, but he was the only one saying bust. I haven't paid attention much; how many minutes per game is he having? It just seems like I rarely hear his name being called by the announcers relative to everyone else. Averaging 18 minutes a game. Larsson, unfortunately, hasn't been near the puck often enough to get mentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted April 9, 2013 Author Share Posted April 9, 2013 I don't think Larsson was drafted with the expectation that he wouldn't contribute on offense and it's real early to write off his potential offensive contributions. I think his shot sucks and that after he's done working on his footwork and skating that should be his next goal, but he has real vision in the offensive zone that a lot of guys with way more experience than him never develop. I wouldn't draft a D first defenseman 4th overall either but I don't think that's what Larsson will turn out to be. It all depends on exactly what defenseman you're talking about, what the alternatives are, and to a certain extent what needs your team has. (I actually remember you had some post around the 2011 draft that had an off-the-cuff analysis of the success of highly drafted defenseman versus highly drafted forwards). Even if the basic premise is correct that highly drafted defenseman fare worse on average than highly drafted forwards, it really should not have any bearing on how you conduct your draft. I would still take Hedman over Duschene, although perhaps not Kane. With hindsight, I'd probably take Zibinjad and Courturier, and perhaps Hamilton, over Larsson. Although I'd rather have all of those guys, along with Landeskog and Huberdeau over Nugent Hopkins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DH26 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) It all depends on exactly what defenseman you're talking about, what the alternatives are, and to a certain extent what needs your team has. (I actually remember you had some post around the 2011 draft that had an off-the-cuff analysis of the success of highly drafted defenseman versus highly drafted forwards). Even if the basic premise is correct that highly drafted defenseman fare worse on average than highly drafted forwards, it really should not have any bearing on how you conduct your draft. I would still take Hedman over Duschene, although perhaps not Kane. With hindsight, I'd probably take Zibinjad and Courturier, and perhaps Hamilton, over Larsson. Although I'd rather have all of those guys, along with Landeskog and Huberdeau over Nugent Hopkins. Couturier can't score and Zibanejad hasn't exactly set the world on fire. And taking either of them over RNH is just as ridiculous. He may be hurt a lot but even when he's hurt he puts up as many points (not that that's all there is). RNH probably had a better offensive year last year than Couturier and possibly Mika will ever have Edited April 9, 2013 by DH26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caron14 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I still love what larsson bring and will bring to this team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) Couturier can't score and Zibanejad hasn't exactly set the world on fire. And taking either of them over RNH is just as ridiculous. He may be hurt a lot but even when he's hurt he puts up as many points (not that that's all there is). RNH probably had a better offensive year last year than Couturier and possibly Mika will ever have I would definitely take Couturier over RNH. Couturier is going to be an offensive force - he's already a defensive one. That said he's doing no scoring this year and if Daniel were a Flyers fan he'd be making the same post about Couturier. And given what the Devils have down the center now, they don't exactly need Couturier. Edited April 9, 2013 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted April 9, 2013 Author Share Posted April 9, 2013 Couturier can't score and Zibanejad hasn't exactly set the world on fire. And taking either of them over RNH is just as ridiculous. He may be hurt a lot but even when he's hurt he puts up as many points (not that that's all there is). RNH probably had a better offensive year last year than Couturier and possibly Mika will ever have RNH is struggling this year. He also gets soft minutes. He's also a shrimp, which tends to lead to injuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derlique Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Zibanejad over Larsson? Lol Larsson was the #2 rated player in the draft and some even had #1. He was absolutely the right pick at the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLL765 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Has anybody in the thread said Larsson is a bust? Someone may have and I missed it. I wouldn't call him a bust, way too young. There are posts about how he might end up as a 2nd or 3rd pairing d-man. While this is not literally saying the word, "bust", for him to end up as anything less than a #1-2, would mean he's a bust. This is what I was commenting on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted April 9, 2013 Author Share Posted April 9, 2013 Zibanejad over Larsson? Lol Larsson was the #2 rated player in the draft and some even had #1. He was absolutely the right pick at the time The operative words being "in hindsight". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hystyk28 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 If he works on his skating he will be fine. However, that is way easier said than done. Playing the Devils system isn't helping him either. The beauty about this argument is time will tell. Hope I am wrong about him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DH26 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) RNH is struggling this year. He also gets soft minutes. He's also a shrimp, which tends to lead to injuries. RNH is also only 19. He'll fill out. If he doesn't, I can see credence in your argument, but just on the massive potential, I'd take him. If you'd honestly take Zibanejad or Couturier over him, you're insane I think. If you're scared of the shoulder injuries, that's your prerogative, but I'd take the chance. They probably should've sent him back down to Red Deer last year to fill out and not get beat up, but that's hindsight now. Edited April 9, 2013 by DH26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.