Larsson

[Chimaira_Devil_#9]

Luongo is an HOF level goaltender, sorry guys.  He's 4th all time in save percentage, he'll probably be top 10 in wins when it's over.  He hasn't won a Vezina by sheer chance - he had a better season than Brodeur two of the times Brodeur took the award.  

 

 

 

Luongo will be in the HOF.  Mark my words.  Is he a lock?  No.  But he's one of the best goalies to ever play.  But this is a Larsson thread, not a Luongo thread.

 

 

I disagree but that’s just my personal opinion, i find him much like Curtis Joseph, he has some great numbers in key areas but not a lot to show for it.

 

A lot of the time its more based on perception of the player, without winning anything you get the feeling the guy was good , but he was never able to get it done, he wasn’t a winner.

 

If he does get in its going to be a long while before he does. Mike Vernon needs to go in before Luongo.

 

But as has been pointed out this is a Larsson thread so i will leave it at that.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Chimaira_Devil_#9

[NLinfante]

People don't pay attention and people are often quite stupid.

 

 

Not even 8am and my day has already been made. Thank you.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

I disagree but that’s just my personal opinion, i find him much like Curtis Joseph, he has some great numbers in key areas but not a lot to show for it.

 

 

A lot of the time its more based on perception of the player, without winning anything you get the feeling the guy was good , but he was never able to get it done, he wasn’t a winner.

 

 

If he does get in its going to be a long while before he does. Mike Vernon needs to go in before Luongo.

 

 

But as has been pointed out this is a Larsson thread so i will leave it at that.

 

Tri and some others don't believe in the concept of "clutch"...they feel that players are almost like robots, pretty much the same from the neck up, and that guys who are labeled "clutch winners" because they show an ability to perform in big spots while others don't (losers, chokers, etc) is merely an example of people making too much out of short samples (which playoff runs, compared to the whole of a career, really are). 

 

Tri and the clutch-debunkers will point to cold numbers, and the first thing they'll tell you is that Luongo's career playoff save% isn't much different than his regular season save% (.916 playoff, .919 regular season).  Problem is, Luongo has yet to actually RAISE his game when playoff time rolls around (though he did play very well in 10-11 up until his team closed to within two wins of taking the Cup).  Guys like Marty have shown that ability, and some (like Marty) multiple times.  

 

Though I do think that "clutch" and "choker" probably get thrown around too liberally at times, I've come to believe in "the knack"...some guys just seem to have it, for raising their games often when needed most, and who has it and who doesn't seems pretty random.  Look at Marty's '95, '00, and '03 Cup runs as examples.  '01 was clearly a different story, and if he had played anywhere near as well as he did his during his other three runs, the Devils have a fourth Cup banner hanging at the Rock.  But let's face it...in all sports, fans just want to see you do it ONCE, just to know that you CAN do it...once that happens, they'll let a lot of things go.  Peyton Manning did, Alex Rodriguez did (though both still hear about their postseason failures, just not as much as when they were ringless). 

 

If Luongo had won just one more playoff game in 2010-11, he's probably thought of a lot better.  But people are going to remember that he put up an .846 save% (that actually includes a 31-save shutout) in the final five games in those 10-11 SC Finals (he had been terrific up until that point)...when his team needed him most, he couldn't even stay at status quo.  Might seem harsh, in that one win or one moment can make such a difference in how a player is perceived, but that's often how it goes.  It's the reason many Mets fans think of Adam Wainwright when they think of Carlos Beltran's Met career.

 

Re:  Larsson...yeah, reasons for concern, but I'm hopeful.  I get the feeling that it's going to be the next coaching staff that gets more out of him (not saying that DeBoer is out of here tomorrow)...it could be almost like a Petr Sykora situation, who didn't exactly flourish under Lemaire (though he showed flashes), but then played well for both Ftorek and Robinson.      

Edited October 17, 2013 by Colorado Rockies 1976

[SterioDesign]

You're kidding me now, right? You use 1 example and everyone must take it as is, but Tri gives you two and it's bs? He provided the examples because you asked for them.

 

wow youre really turning this around so its against me aren't ya?

 

i used ONE example stating that its just a vague example one out of the bunch just to really put a name on it and say to look at the "general meaning" of what im trying to say NOT to take that one particular example cause then we would have got too specific on Subban's case which is what i didint want i wanted my point to stay GENERAL, thats why i said not too jump on wtv name i'd pick cause all situations are different so i was asking to get the GENERAL MEANING behind what i was saying. Which everyone clearly missed since they went straight at Subban with replies. Then i later had to go with "Player A" doing this this and that. I should i went with that from the start

 

Then i'm pointing out that 2 of his examples we're ALSO loopholed situations with very special players and not the usual case (pointing out the irony that it's been pointed out to me earlier with my examples... that i asked not to get specific)

 

I never said to take my example its the other way around, i said "ok im gonna throw this name in just so we have a real situation to refer to BUT don't look into THAT specific case for comparison cause every case is different, instead look generally at what i want to say here) which was that in most cases you already have most of your assets when you get in the league they don't just appear.

Edited October 17, 2013 by SterioDesign

[Marshall]

I'm also gonna start using players to refer to, but when people do I'm gonna get angry and tell them to not refer to or compare those players. I think it will go great and I will win many arguments, since every case is different and half of what I wrote then has nothing to do with anything. It will go smashingly well.

[SterioDesign]

I'm also gonna start using players to refer to, but when people do I'm gonna get angry and tell them to not refer to or compare those players. I think it will go great and I will win many arguments, since every case is different and half of what I wrote then has nothing to do with anything. It will go smashingly well.

 

dude come on seriously. Nobody is even trying to understand what i'm trying to say you all just go gorilla on me pinning me with what you thought i meant.

 

Based on what you just wrote starting with "using players to refer to"... you already have it wrong. 

 

Whats so hard to understand that i just "threw" a name in my example just to have a one current example (knowing ONE example is bad cause every situations is different and it tends to get people focusing on that one example instead of seeing the big picture) and then i added NOT to look specifically in that one example (because of what i just stated)

 

then everyone go and do the complete opposite of what i specifically asked to get a discussion going and it all turns on me. And ultimately it turns out exactly like i didnt want it to be. Even after i carefully made a point of NOT taking my one example or it would turn like this.

 

I know some of you guys are frustrated with me often but come on, you guys are not even trying to see what im really saying, you just go straight defensive or calling me out on what you ASSUME i'm meaning.

[Daniel]

Tri and some others don't believe in the concept of "clutch"...they feel that players are almost like robots, pretty much the same from the neck up, and that guys who are labeled "clutch winners" because they show an ability to perform in big spots while others don't (losers, chokers, etc) is merely an example of people making too much out of short samples (which playoff runs, compared to the whole of a career, really are).

Tri and the clutch-debunkers will point to cold numbers, and the first thing they'll tell you is that Luongo's career playoff save% isn't much different than his regular season save% (.916 playoff, .919 regular season). Problem is, Luongo has yet to actually RAISE his game when playoff time rolls around (though he did play very well in 10-11 up until his team closed to within two wins of taking the Cup). Guys like Marty have shown that ability, and some (like Marty) multiple times.

Though I do think that "clutch" and "choker" probably get thrown around too liberally at times, I've come to believe in "the knack"...some guys just seem to have it, for raising their games often when needed most, and who has it and who doesn't seems pretty random. Look at Marty's '95, '00, and '03 Cup runs as examples. '01 was clearly a different story, and if he had played anywhere near as well as he did his during his other three runs, the Devils have a fourth Cup banner hanging at the Rock. But let's face it...in all sports, fans just want to see you do it ONCE, just to know that you CAN do it...once that happens, they'll let a lot of things go. Peyton Manning did, Alex Rodriguez did (though both still hear about their postseason failures, just not as much as when they were ringless).

If Luongo had won just one more playoff game in 2010-11, he's probably thought of a lot better. But people are going to remember that he put up an .846 save% (that actually includes a 31-save shutout) in the final five games in those 10-11 SC Finals (he had been terrific up until that points)...when his team needed him most, he couldn't even stay at status quo. Might seem harsh, in that one win or one moment can make such a difference in how a player is perceived, but that's often how it goes. It's the reason many Mets fans think of Adam Wainwright when they think of Carlos Beltran's Met career.

Re: Larsson...yeah, reasons for concern, but I'm hopeful. I get the feeling that it's going to be the next coaching staff that gets more out of him (not saying that DeBoer is out of here tomorrow)...it could be almost like a Petr Sykora situation, who didn't exactly flourish under Lemaire (though he showed flashes), but then played well for both Ftorek and Robinson.

"Clutch" and "rings" are fine if we're talking about who gets an award or into the Hall of Fame. I think it's clear though if you're a GM, those traits should have virtually no role in deciding how much to pay for a particular player.

[Triumph]

wow youre really turning this around so its against me aren't ya?

 

i used ONE example stating that its just a vague example one out of the bunch just to really put a name on it and say to look at the "general meaning" of what im trying to say NOT to take that one particular example cause then we would have got too specific on Subban's case which is what i didint want i wanted my point to stay GENERAL, thats why i said not too jump on wtv name i'd pick cause all situations are different so i was asking to get the GENERAL MEANING behind what i was saying. Which everyone clearly missed since they went straight at Subban with replies. Then i later had to go with "Player A" doing this this and that. I should i went with that from the start

 

Then i'm pointing out that 2 of his examples we're ALSO loopholed situations with very special players and not the usual case (pointing out the irony that it's been pointed out to me earlier with my examples... that i asked not to get specific)

 

I never said to take my example its the other way around, i said "ok im gonna throw this name in just so we have a real situation to refer to BUT don't look into THAT specific case for comparison cause every case is different, instead look generally at what i want to say here) which was that in most cases you already have most of your assets when you get in the league they don't just appear.

 

Most players don't come into the league at 18.  That's where your analysis is wrong.  Subban was Larsson's age when he debuted in the NHL.  Larsson has already been here for 100 games and would've been here longer if not for the lockout.

 

Sterio:  You asked for examples of players who developed skills in the NHL.  I gave them to you.  Now you are jumping up and down yelling about it.  You ASKED FOR THEM.  I wouldn't've given them to you if you didn't ASK FOR THEM.

[SterioDesign]

Most players don't come into the league at 18.  That's where your analysis is wrong.  Subban was Larsson's age when he debuted in the NHL.  Larsson has already been here for 100 games and would've been here longer if not for the lockout.

 

Sterio:  You asked for examples of players who developed skills in the NHL.  I gave them to you.  Now you are jumping up and down yelling about it.  You ASKED FOR THEM.  I wouldn't've given them to you if you didn't ASK FOR THEM.

 

yeah yeah and they we're somewhat good examples, never said anything against that other than Chara's production is not all to him. Take out his production and he's still fvcking hard to play against because of his size, reach etc etc.

 

All i said is that (based on what some people here said) since my example was not good (agreed it was not and thats why i asked to look past it) well it was ironic that suddenly your examples would be. It was not even directed to you, you did your job and answered what i asked. It was to whoever else called me out on using that one "loopholed" example.

Edited October 17, 2013 by SterioDesign

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Name me one current Dman that one of his strength/skill was not there at all when he got in the league. Other than experience and stuff like that.

 

 

Sure thing.  Sheldon Souray scored 23 goals in 152 WHL games.  He followed that up with 9 goals in his first 4 pro seasons.  He's scored 102 NHL goals since then.  I don't think anyone associated with the Devils ever suspected that he would become a PP1 option with his shot.

 

Zdeno Chara scored 3 goals in his first WHL season.  He scored 4 goals in his first pro season.  It took him until his Y23 season to score a significant number of points, and he, like Souray, has been a PP1 option for a decade.

 

Seems pretty cut-and-dried. 

 

I get into it with Tri from time-to-time (as does almost everyone here), but even when I don't agree with what his opinions are, I can at least understand what his point actually is. 

 

The problem SD is that you are SO bad at debating and presenting your points that your debating/arguing "style" (if I can even call it that) and how poor it is winds up becoming a debate in itself.  And take a look...it's not like it's ONE guy who's telling you this.  You've had the same issue with multiple posters on multiple threads.  That should be a clear sign to you that it's not everyone else that's the problem here (which you seem to think it is). 

[mouse]

dude come on seriously. Nobody is even trying to understand what i'm trying to say you all just go gorilla on me pinning me with what you thought i meant.

 

Based on what you just wrote starting with "using players to refer to"... you already have it wrong. 

 

Whats so hard to understand that i just "threw" a name in my example just to have a one current example (knowing ONE example is bad cause every situations is different and it tends to get people focusing on that one example instead of seeing the big picture) and then i added NOT to look specifically in that one example (because of what i just stated)

 

then everyone go and do the complete opposite of what i specifically asked to get a discussion going and it all turns on me. And ultimately it turns out exactly like i didnt want it to be. Even after i carefully made a point of NOT taking my one example or it would turn like this.

 

I know some of you guys are frustrated with me often but come on, you guys are not even trying to see what im really saying, you just go straight defensive or calling me out on what you ASSUME i'm meaning.

Well, you made a point that many of us disagreed with, and attempted to back it up with an anecdote, which even you admit is flawed, and don't have any other evidence. Since you're not responding to real facts, people responded to your anecdote. Now, you're so defensive that you're missing the points people are trying to make. I'm not saying you have to agree, but don't blame everyone else on the board for missing your point. Your point did not sway us. Your method of proving it did not help. It's on you to do a better job convincing us.

[Triumph]

Okay, everyone's piled on Sterio sufficiently.  Rather than have him fight it out with everyone about what he did or did not mean in previous posts, let's just forget about all of those - just state your point, once and for all.  Try not to use examples, or if you do, use a lot of them.  

Edited October 17, 2013 by Triumph

[SterioDesign]

Okay, everyone's piled on Sterio sufficiently.  Rather than have him fight it out with everyone about what he did or did not mean in previous posts, let's just forget about all of those - just state your point, once and for all.  Try not to use examples, or if you do, use a lot of them.  

 

yeah for the love of god let's calm things down.

 

What I mean in my view, short term and long-term of Larsson's development is that IMO he's lacking some "stock" abilities / skills that are in most cases "in you". 

 

By "stock" abilities / skills let me break down them by how I see it:

 

Speed / Skating: I honestly think speed is something you have or you don't. That's not saying you can become a faster skater but I don't think that a slow / average skater can become a really fast / strong skater with time. I do think skating can improve drastically though but again, some guy have it in them, they are just gifted fast skaters.

 

Grit / Heart / Leadership: Thats something you can't teach, it's something you have in you. It can rub on others and give them small boost but it's still another "stock" skill IMO that you have or you don't.

 

Hockey IQ / Vision: Thats something that obviously you develop with experience and that CAN improve. But again some players have it stock it's simply in them, again they are gifted. 

 

Stickwork: I'll just throw this all in one basket as i think its similar and to save some typing... Stick handling, Shot accuracy, passing, heavy shot, getting shot through traffic etc etc. Thats a skill that you definitely need to put lots of work and time in but that you can improv. Again some are simply gifted with it.

 

So bottom line i guess what i'm trying to say, MOST great players we're"gifted" with a certain skill who made them a step above others. Either it was one of a few elite level skill that was compensate from lack of other average aspects of their game. Or it was a mix of many above average skills making a player that great. Those skills we're mostly already visible on draft day.

 

So what i'm getting at with Larsson is that so far I don't see an already established elite skill who could compensate his lack of skills who may or probably never come or don't improve greatly. That's what my concern is. I KNOW he's young, his positioning, hockey IQ, vision will get better with time. But it's still really up in the air if he'll improve in other area (area that most guys his age already have like speed, grit, heart etc etc again IMO you have it or not), so we're all waiting for him to take the next step, but we're waiting to see what exactly? is it seeing him making less mistakes or him getting better at other areas of his game?

 

So if i can just now explain my Subban example, i was not comparing him to Larsson, all i was saying is that since his junior days, we could SEE his speed, grit, shot, determination etc etc it was already there when he stepped in the league, it's not something that we had to wait years of development to see. He had to work on other areas where you can indeed improve which is mostly between your ears, which was HIS problem.

 

We know already what Gelinas, Severson and Merril can bring in term of speed, offensive production, grit etc etc in the long run. what made them the kind of player they are is already established. It's more a matter of will it translate to the NHL. It's not as much "up in the air" as Larsson. Obviously seeing the kid step in the league at 18 is a damn good indicator and seeing he can play lots of minutes already. Thats putting him above Gelinas, Severson, Merril of course. 

 

I really hope this is more clear cause i'm really tired of even trying to explain myself. 

Edited October 17, 2013 by SterioDesign

[ATLL765]

yeah for the love of god let's calm things down.

 

What I mean in my view, short term and long-term of Larsson's development is that IMO he's lacking some "stock" abilities / skills that are in most cases "in you". 

 

By "stock" abilities / skills let me break down them by how I see it:

 

Speed / Skating: I honestly think speed is something you have or you don't. That's not saying you can become a faster skater but I don't think that a slow / average skater can become a really fast / strong skater with time. I do think skating can improve drastically though but again, some guy have it in them, they are just gifted fast skaters.

 

Grit / Heart / Leadership: Thats something you can't teach, it's something you have in you. It can rub on others and give them small boost but it's still another "stock" skill IMO that you have or you don't.

 

Hockey IQ / Vision: Thats something that obviously you develop with experience and that CAN improve. But again some players have it stock it's simply in them, again they are gifted. 

 

Stickwork: I'll just throw this all in one basket as i think its similar and to save some typing... Stick handling, Shot accuracy, passing, heavy shot, getting shot through traffic etc etc. Thats a skill that you definitely need to put lots of work and time in but that you can improv. Again some are simply gifted with it.

 

So bottom line i guess what i'm trying to say, MOST great players we're"gifted" with a certain skill who made them a step above others. Either it was one of a few elite level skill that was compensate from lack of other average aspects of their game. Or it was a mix of many above average skills making a player that great. Those skills we're mostly already visible on draft day.

 

So what i'm getting at with Larsson is that so far I don't see an already established elite skill who could compensate his lack of skills who may or probably never come or don't improve greatly. That's what my concern is. I KNOW he's young, his positioning, hockey IQ, vision will get better with time. But it's still really up in the air if he'll improve in other area (area that most guys his age already have like speed, grit, heart etc etc again IMO you have it or not), so we're all waiting for him to take the next step, but we're waiting to see what exactly? is it seeing him making less mistakes or him getting better at other areas of his game?

 

So if i can just now explain my Subban example, i was not comparing him to Larsson, all i was saying is that since his junior days, we could SEE his speed, grit, shot, determination etc etc it was already there when he stepped in the league, it's not something that we had to wait years of development to see. He had to work on other areas where you can indeed improve which is mostly between your ears, which was HIS problem.

 

We know already what Gelinas, Severson and Merril can bring in term of speed, offensive production, grit etc etc in the long run. what made them the kind of player they are is already established. It's more a matter of will it translate to the NHL. It's not as much "up in the air" as Larsson. Obviously seeing the kid step in the league at 18 is a damn good indicator and seeing he can play lots of minutes already. Thats putting him above Gelinas, Severson, Merril of course. 

 

I really hope this is more clear cause i'm really tired of even trying to explain myself. 

You mean besides the fact that he can pass better than pretty much everybody on the back end, except for maybe Zid.

[SterioDesign]

You mean besides the fact that he can pass better than pretty much everybody on the back end, except for maybe Zid.

 

Being the best at passing out of Volchenkov, Salvador, Greene, Fayne, Harrold... quite impressive indeed

[ATLL765]

Being the best at passing out of Volchenkov, Salvador, Greene, Fayne, Harrold... quite impressive indeed

But if you're argument is that he doesn't have an above average skill is clearly wrong if he's better than the several NHL defensemen we have on the roster. You really think every one of our D is so bad that every other D on another team is a better passer? No, it's more like they're alright at it and Larsson is probably better at it than many NHL defensemen.

[devilsrule33]

 

Grit / Heart / Leadership: Thats something you can't teach, it's something you have in you. It can rub on others and give them small boost but it's still another "stock" skill IMO that you have or you don't.

 

 

What are these qualities and how can you measure them exactly? Did Lidstrom have them? Does Doughty? Karlsson? 

[Mike Brown]

Being the best at passing out of Volchenkov, Salvador, Greene, Fayne, Harrold... quite impressive indeed

 

Green, Harrold, and Fayne are good passers in their own right.

[maxpower]

What are these qualities and how can you measure them exactly? Did Lidstrom have them? Does Doughty? Karlsson? 

 

Obviously by the number of Mark Messier Leadership Awards they win

[SterioDesign]

But if you're argument is that he doesn't have an above average skill is clearly wrong if he's better than the several NHL defensemen we have on the roster. You really think every one of our D is so bad that every other D on another team is a better passer? No, it's more like they're alright at it and Larsson is probably better at it than many NHL defensemen.

Never said larsson was a bad passer or anything. But come on, everyone is really overhyping his passing cause really thats all he has right now but lets be serious, being a good passer is not enough. Certainly a good attribute but you need a lot more than that to make an impact.

[Mike Brown]

Never said larsson was a bad passer or anything. But come on, everyone is really overhyping his passing cause really thats all he has right now but lets be serious, being a good passer is not enough. Certainly a good attribute but you need a lot more than that to make an impact.

 

He's got a good shot, good poise, and is good positionally.

[mouse]

IMO Devils are victims of their own success to some degree. Larsson might be slightly better than Greene some day, but Greene was undrafted. So was Rafa. Fayne we picked up in the 5th round. Even Martin was a second rounder. Since we've had such success with late picks, and since Nieds was so good when we used a top 5 pick on a dman, we have this idea that when we commit to a d-man with the number 4 pick, he's gonna be a superstar, when really, there aren't many superstars in any draft. We got a player who will probably be a reliable, boring (in a good way, mostly) pro for a long time, assuming we don't butcher his development. That's not bad.

[Pepperkorn]

Exactly mouse -- and that's also the same logic that made it smart to trade our pick for Schneider.

[caron14]

IMO Devils are victims of their own success to some degree. Larsson might be slightly better than Greene some day, but Greene was undrafted. So was Rafa. Fayne we picked up in the 5th round. Even Martin was a second rounder. Since we've had such success with late picks, and since Nieds was so good when we used a top 5 pick on a dman, we have this idea that when we commit to a d-man with the number 4 pick, he's gonna be a superstar, when really, there aren't many superstars in any draft. We got a player who will probably be a reliable, boring (in a good way, mostly) pro for a long time, assuming we don't butcher his development. That's not bad.

 

100% reality.... not that much superstar D in the Top5 pick...

[Chimaira_Devil_#9]

IMO Devils are victims of their own success to some degree. Larsson might be slightly better than Greene some day, but Greene was undrafted. So was Rafa. Fayne we picked up in the 5th round. Even Martin was a second rounder. Since we've had such success with late picks, and since Nieds was so good when we used a top 5 pick on a dman, we have this idea that when we commit to a d-man with the number 4 pick, he's gonna be a superstar, when really, there aren't many superstars in any draft. We got a player who will probably be a reliable, boring (in a good way, mostly) pro for a long time, assuming we don't butcher his development. That's not bad.

 

This , plus when you have the likes of Merril, Gelinas and Severson already pushing hard for a place on the team, and they were all taken outside the 1st round peoples expectation is the guy taken a whole round earlier( in some cases nearly two rounds earlier) should automatically be better.

 

The entire problem with Larsson is expectation.

 

Personally i think we have ourselves another Victor Hedman. Their SEL numbers are very similar (Hedman 25 points in 82 games, Larsson 26 in 86) and so are their numbers for the first year in the NHL ( Hedman 74 Gp G4 A16 20PTS, Larsson 65GP 2G 16A 18PTS). Of course we are all hoping Adam can kick on and become elite, but i would be happy with a Victor Hedman.