View Single Post
07-11-2013, 03:43 PM
Join Date: May 2010
Originally Posted by
Put Laughton in Couturier's place last year with the defensive zone starts and faceoffs he had and the linemates Couturier had, and I'd bet Laughton doesn't crack 10 points, and might have had half of Couturier's total, 7 or 8 points. He had no points in 5 games. Put Sean Couturier in Laughton's place last year, and I'd bet you that Couturier averages over 2 points per game in juniors. He averaged 1.66 two years ago, so it would be completely reasonable that after two years he could average 2 points per game. Laughton averaged 1.14 last year. Laughton averaged .828 in his draft year, Couturier averaged DOUBLE that in his draft year.
Schenn put up .55PPG last year in just his second season in the NHL, which is a 45 point season over 82 games. That's perfectly good for a guy in his second NHL season.
Laughton certainly has a toolbox, he's going to be a useful NHL player one day. The thing is, he doesn't have nearly the number of tools to put into it that Couturier and Schenn have.
To continue with the tools/toolbox analogy, Couturier and Schenn were dominant at juniors because they had had so many of those "tools". At the NHL level, offensive production is equally about the toolbox as it is about the tools.
I don't see Schenn's toolbox. He had the tools to dominate at juniors, but I don't think he's ever going to put it all together at the NHL level. And conversely, while Laughton doesn't have the tools (to dominate at any level offensively), he will compensate because of his instincts and hockey sense.
So basically, comparing junior points and projections with these players is foolish. Like I always say around here, if you could project a player's NHL effectiveness from their junior accolades, everyone would be a scout.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by hockeyfreak7