Who will be better Brayden Schenn or Mikael Granlund?
They are both top prospect who each had a great deal of hype around them. Schenn has been banged up a little this year but has started to contribute more on a consistant bases as the season winds down. Its tougher to get a feel for Granlund because he plays over seas so the only really place to see him is in WJC or online. Who will be the better player/have the better career?
I don't think these prospects are very comparable in that they are different types of players. Schenn is more of a gritty two-way player along the lines of Mike Richards with slightly more offensive upside. i don't think he will be a point per game player though but will hit and lay out to block shots. Granlund is way more skilled offensively and will produce at a higher clip but won't impact the game with jarring hits and solid defensive play.
I don't think these prospects are very comparable in that they are different types of players. Schenn is more of a gritty two-way player along the lines of Mike Richards with slightly more offensive upside. i don't think he will be a point per game player though but will hit and lay out to block shots. Granlund is way more skilled offensively and will produce at a higher clip but won't impact the game with jarring hits and solid defensive play.
So who would you rather have? The two way player Schenn on Granlund?
Asking who will be "better" is often a loaded question. You're gonna have to define what you mean by "better" to get a proper opinion.
Are you talking points? Physicality? Two-way play? Everything rolled up in one?
You are comparing two young players with vastly different skillsets. Each NHL organization probably has a slightly different opinion of what is "better" for their franchise.
My take? Granlund has more pure skill, and will likely be more of an offensive force. Schenn has a bit more grit to his game and a bit more size, which could make him a more effective overall player in all situations.
At their peak potential? I see Granlund as a dynamic first line center and a major PP weapon. It he hits is peak potential, he will be an offensive force. Hard to get a read on his two-way upside until we see extended action on NA ice.
For Schenn, I think the offensive potential isn't quite in the same ballpark, but his overall two-way ability and physical presence will likely be in the mold of Mike Richards. That's IF he reaches his potential, and I view him as an elite future 2nd liner.
I think they'll both be major contributors for a long time, but they will do it in completely different ways. Really it will likely come down to what "better" means to each individual.
Im going to go with Brayden. This can easily change once i get to see granlund playing on North American ice in a North American style. He is very undersized and im not sure how well he will do once you take away that extra space hes getting, and up the physicality.
Brayden brings a fantastic physical element to his game. Has good intangebles and is relatively skilled. He is the better bet to succeed. People are very infatuated with Granlund because he scored a very skilled goal in the world championships i believe. All i can say is that the leafs have an equally skilled player in Nazem Kadri (my oppinion) however is struggling to adapt to less time and space with the puck and the defensive responsibility and physicality of the NHL game. Hopefully Granlund brings enough to the table to make up for his lack of size. I do not think its as clear cut as people believe.
I am in no way implying Schenn is going to turn into a star either. More or less stating who will have the more successful career. Obviously a biased oppinion considering Granlund is yet to step on NA ice.
Would an unknown team be improved more by adding Granlund or Schenn?
I think that's a fair way to define "better".
Well again, that depends on what any team happens to like in their centers, or what hole on the depth chart they are trying to fill longterm.
For instance, the Flyers have Giroux. Is it in their best interests to try and fit another offensive dynamo into the #2 hole, or is it better to try and get an elite calibre two-way player there that can make life miserable for other teams' top lines?
Now, I don't want people to get upset here. Hell, Granlund may end up being the better two-way player as well. Who really knows at this point?
Again, it comes down to organizational philosophy (and individual philosophy) when deciding between two elite calibre players.
To me, Granlund is the more skilled offensive player. If you think skill is the overriding factor in determining who is better, then Granlund is your man. I think Schenn is the more polished two-way player with more physicality to his game. He won't get you as many points, but he may be able to make up for that by helping to keep pucks out of your net.
So which is more important to you? I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. It just comes down to preference and team building philosophy.
If I felt I needed a longterm #1 center, than I'm targeting Granlund. If I felt I needed more of a physical all-around guy in the #2 hole longterm, then I'm targeting Schenn. Both of these guys have such different skillsets that it's difficult to define just what "better" really means, ya know?
4 on 4
Who would you rather have on the ice?
Granlund without a doubt. I'd use Granlund in every situation over Schenn actually.
I agree with you on 4 on 4. The more open ice for Granlund, the more dangerous he would be. That's why I stated before that I think he will be a beast on the poweplay. The kid has enormous offensive skill.
As far as every other situation? That's a tough call at this point. I've seen Schenn more, so it would be unfair to say Granlund can't match up with him in all situations, but I already have a sense of what Brayden can do in all situations, and he projects to be an elite two-way player.
That's not to say Schenn will hit that potential, and it's not to say that Granlund won't be better in all phases down the road. There aren't many on these boards that can say they've seen enough of both players to make that call at this time, nor do most on these boards have the qualifications to do so.
I'd take either one and wouldn't shed a tear over it. I think they will both contribute to alot of wins in the NHL over their respective careers.
Asking who will be "better" is often a loaded question. You're gonna have to define what you mean by "better" to get a proper opinion.
Are you talking points? Physicality? Two-way play? Everything rolled up in one?
You are comparing two young players with vastly different skillsets. Each NHL organization probably has a slightly different opinion of what is "better" for their franchise.
My take? Granlund has more pure skill, and will likely be more of an offensive force. Schenn has a bit more grit to his game and a bit more size, which could make him a more effective overall player in all situations.
At their peak potential? I see Granlund as a dynamic first line center and a major PP weapon. It he hits is peak potential, he will be an offensive force. Hard to get a read on his two-way upside until we see extended action on NA ice.
For Schenn, I think the offensive potential isn't quite in the same ballpark, but his overall two-way ability and physical presence will likely be in the mold of Mike Richards. That's IF he reaches his potential, and I view him as an elite future 2nd liner.
I think they'll both be major contributors for a long time, but they will do it in completely different ways. Really it will likely come down to what "better" means to each individual.
*shrugs*
To gauge something like that, I'd say it comes down to which one would be worth more in free agency. Because GM's know how to account for all the variables that you mention.
With that said, scoring is always one of the highest criteria for rating a forward. So Granlund.
I agree with you on 4 on 4. The more open ice for Granlund, the more dangerous he would be. That's why I stated before that I think he will be a beast on the poweplay. The kid has enormous offensive skill.
As far as every other situation? That's a tough call at this point. I've seen Schenn more, so it would be unfair to say Granlund can't match up with him in all situations, but I already have a sense of what Brayden can do in all situations, and he projects to be an elite two-way player.
That's not to say Schenn will hit that potential, and it's not to say that Granlund won't be better in all phases down the road. There aren't many on these boards that can say they've seen enough of both players to make that call at this time, nor do most on these boards have the qualifications to do so.
I'd take either one and wouldn't shed a tear over it. I think they will both contribute to alot of wins in the NHL over their respective careers.
Heheh. Came in other conclusions after thinking a bit and seems like edited my post too late. Yes I agree that Schenn will be the better shutdown forward with scoring touch so yes, elite two-way forward.
Both will have good careers. Also it depends on need which I would choose. On a team like Sabres I'd take Schenn over Granlund any day due to lack of size in top6 but in a team like Wild you have already that shutdown center with Koivu and you are missing skill.
Also I'm afraid that Granlund could become the second Bouchard. Smaller guys tend to get more concussions. This is like comparing Jordan Staal with Henrik Sedin.
I haven't seen Schenn nearly enough to actually say which will be better, but with all the talk of how Schenn is the two-way guy and Granlund the offensive guy, I have to say that everyone in Finland (media, sportspeople,players) are raving over how complete a player he is, offensively and defensively. At least in SM-liiga he's become more of a two-way center than a pure offensive forward, he's playing PP and PK and he's very good at both.
