I can't believe the Terasenko hype machine hasn't come out in full force on this subject. I've seen projections as high as 70pts (easy) in his rookie year.
Don't change the question to make your arguement. The question is about the NHL. MAny players have proven to be great European players but terrible NHLers. This isn't to say I don't think Terasenko won't be a good NHL player.
Don't change the question to make your arguement. The question is about the NHL. MAny players have proven to be great European players but terrible NHLers. This isn't to say I don't think Terasenko won't be a good NHL player.
I never changed the question. Playing as an 18 year old in a league of men is impressive. I don't see why that credit can only be given to Landeskog when Tarasenko did it, too
Landeskog easily for me. I'd bet that every single GM in the league would take him as well.
This question will be much more clear when the NHL resumes but for now it is an easy answer. Funny, there is a thread on David Rundblad and whether he has a chance to be a good NHLer still. Hard to imagine that he was once dominating against men in the SEL and really putting up record breaking numbers against these men. But those men weren't NHLers...which is the whole point if you're comparing them as future NHLers. You just don't know and Landeskog is an incredible talent who has shown he can be an impact NHLer.
I never changed the question. Playing as an 18 year old in a league of men is impressive. I don't see why that credit can only be given to Landeskog when Tarasenko did it, too
I like it when people argue just to argue.
The list of players who played in men's league at 18 is very long and has such proven players like Johan Motin and Denis Yezhov in it. What does it has to do with being "proven"?
Landeskog is obviously more NHL proven. And not "a bit" more. Since NHL is the highest level in todays hockey, he's probably also more proven player in world of hockey. That's simple really.
The list of players who played in men's league at 18 is very long and has such proven players like Johan Motin and Denis Yezhov in it. What does it has to do with being "proven"?
Landeskog is obviously more NHL proven. And not "a bit" more. Since NHL is the highest level in todays hockey, he's probably also more proven player in world of hockey. That's simple really.
Tarasenko didn't have the opportunity to play in the NHL until now. Pesky contracts! Of course Tarasenko was the runner up in ROTY voting in the 2nd best league in the world as a 17 year old.
You're right. Landeskog is more proven in the world of hockey, by a bit. In the NHL, he's much more proven. But the world of hockey, which is what was the topic of conversation when you responded, isn't limited to the NHL. So when we said a bit, referring to the world of hockey, you disagreed with something you just admitted to agreeing to. I like it when people argue just to argue.
Or we can look at it right now. There is no NHL. So Tarasenko is one of the premier players in the best league in the world. Landeskog is one of the best in the 2nd best league in Sweden. So right now, isn't it easy to say Tarasenko?
Now I love Landeskog, and I'd find it impossible to say I don't want him on the Blues. He'd fit the team to a t. But let's not pretend that Tarasenko doesn't show many of the exact same qualities that make Landeskog successful. Tarasenko is a great skater; one of the best in the preseason skates when he was here. He has a nose for the net; he scored a hattrick last year in the playoffs in under 15 minutes of ice time. He also led his team in playoff scoring getting under 15 minutes a game. Not bad. He's a leader; he captained the remarkable comeback by the Russian WJC team against Canada two years ago. He was hurt, came back, scored and had an assist. He's physical. Watch him play.
I never changed the question. Playing as an 18 year old in a league of men is impressive. I don't see why that credit can only be given to Landeskog when Tarasenko did it, too
Thanks for the deep response RS. Tarasenko finished second in ROTY voting in the 2nd best league in the world as a 17 year old, yet that doesn't matter
Thanks for the deep response RS. Tarasenko finished second in ROTY voting in the 2nd best league in the world as a 17 year old, yet that doesn't matter
Who said it doesn't matter? I never did.
I am one of the biggest Tarasenko fans out there, but there isn't much of a comparison between these two at this point, in my opinion.
Tarasenko didn't have the opportunity to play in the NHL until now. Pesky contracts! Of course Tarasenko was the runner up in ROTY voting in the 2nd best league in the world as a 17 year old.
You're right. Landeskog is more proven in the world of hockey, by a bit. In the NHL, he's much more proven. But the world of hockey, which is what was the topic of conversation when you responded, isn't limited to the NHL. So when we said a bit, referring to the world of hockey, you disagreed with something you just admitted to agreeing to. I like it when people argue just to argue.
Or we can look at it right now. There is no NHL. So Tarasenko is one of the premier players in the best league in the world. Landeskog is one of the best in the 2nd best league in Sweden. So right now, isn't it easy to say Tarasenko?
Now I love Landeskog, and I'd find it impossible to say I don't want him on the Blues. He'd fit the team to a t. But let's not pretend that Tarasenko doesn't show many of the exact same qualities that make Landeskog successful. Tarasenko is a great skater; one of the best in the preseason skates when he was here. He has a nose for the net; he scored a hattrick last year in the playoffs in under 15 minutes of ice time. He also led his team in playoff scoring getting under 15 minutes a game. Not bad. He's a leader; he captained the remarkable comeback by the Russian WJC team against Canada two years ago. He was hurt, came back, scored and had an assist. He's physical. Watch him play.
The question from OP is: who will you take on your team? Obviously NHL team. So we were speaking about NHL.
In the World of hockey, Landeskog is proven on a higher level than Tarasenko. Tarasenko mught be even better than him, but he needs to prove it in NHL first.
Comparing where they are now is meaningless. Judging by this logic AHLer Petri Kontiola>>>>>>>>>Anze Kopitar. It's lockout, Landeskog is using the chance to play for his hometown team.
The thing is, even if Tarasenko and Landeskog played in the same league and Tarasenko was outproducing Landeskog that would mean nothing, just like Backlund outproducing Kopitar or Glenn Metropolit outproducing Spezza or Sergei Mozyakin outproducing Ovechkin means nothing.
Now this 2nd best league in the World term is really overused. It's not like SEL or NLA are farm leagues of KHL.
Thanks for the deep response RS. Tarasenko finished second in ROTY voting in the 2nd best league in the world as a 17 year old, yet that doesn't matter
You're confusing the meaning of this award, it's not like Tarasenko was lighting KHL up, He had 10 pts in 38 games. That was enough to be 2nd though, after a goalie who is now a 3rd goalie in CSKA.
It seems more of a "Proven vs. Potential" at this point (big shocker there). I think Landeskog and Tarasenko are two similar to really compare. They both are physical, both have excellent skating, both have great shots, and both know how to set-up great scoring chances. I think it's to close to call at this point because they both seem like two sides of the same coin. When Tarasenko comes over and plays, than I can reach a decision. But right now, I don't want to call it yet.
It seems more of a "Proven vs. Potential" at this point (big shocker there). I think Landeskog and Tarasenko are two similar to really compare. They both are physical, both have excellent skating, both have great shots, and both know how to set-up great scoring chances. I think it's to close to call at this point because they both seem like two sides of the same coin. When Tarasenko comes over and plays, than I can reach a decision. But right now, I don't want to call it yet.
I very seriously doubt you will see Tarasenko be as physical as Landeskog in a single game, let alone in general. Tarasenko is rock solid and he goes hard to the net, but Landeskog is a tough, punishing player. He hits a lot and does it well. As far as two-way play and physicality go, it's unarguably in Landeskog's favor. They're both very young, but if Tarasenko is to equal or surpass him in impact, it's going to be through puck control, scoring chances, and point production.
You're confusing the meaning of this award, it's not like Tarasenko was lighting KHL up, He had 10 pts in 38 games. That was enough to be 2nd though, after a goalie who is now a 3rd goalie in CSKA.
Would you like to look at the list of some of the Calder trophy winners? Raycroft, Mason, etc.
He was also 16 for half of the season. 16! Landeskog played 3 games in the SEL as a 16 year old, before moving to the OHL.
Would you like to look at the list of some of the Calder trophy winners? Raycroft, Mason, etc.
He was also 16 for half of the season. 16! Landeskog played 3 games in the SEL as a 16 year old, before moving to the OHL.
Raycroft and Mason won the award fair and square against some legit competition, espescially Mason. Guys who won rookie of the year in KHL, did it because there was not much to choose from.
What's etc btw? 3rd worst ROTY since Makarov-rule is probably Berard who had his career ruined by an accident.
You're confusing the meaning of award once again. Draft system doesn't really work in KHL and really good players like Kuznetsov and Tarasenko start at really young age when they can't win the award.
Now, you're wrong on the 2nd part of your post. Tarasenko started in 2008-09 season. Landeskog played his 3 games for Djurgarden in the same 2008-09 season. They are in the same position, both are late-borns, but Tarasenko is 1 year older. So, Tarasenko started playing against men 1 year prior to the draft and Landeskog 2 years prior to the draft.
Tarasenko's start 1 year before the draft is impressive, but nothing new really. Espescially since he is late-born, and was one of the oldest 2010 draft prospects. I can list you many euros who did that.
Now 2 years before the draft is rare indeed. Landeskog was like the youngest player ever in SEL.
Tarasenko is putting up impressive numbers in KHL and will join a very deep Blues team eventually. It'll be interesting to see how his game translates to the North American game. No doubt he has higher offensive potential than Landeskog does, but Landeskog brings a lot of other things to the table in addition to being battle tested in the NHL.
It's not really fair to compare NHL players to non NHL players, even if the NHL player is the younger guy.
Seriously though, whoever brought up the fact that Mason and Raycroft were poor Calder winners, Mason was voted the second best goalie in the league in the year he won, and the fourth most valuable player. He was better than Lundqvist, Fleury, Brodeur, Luongo, etc.; everyone but Timmy Thomas. Tarasenko was good for a rookie, and was not even the best forward on his team.
Landeskog is a better all-around player (leadership, defensive play, etc) but i really see Tarasenko as a 40-40 players who can knock with his shoulders.
I'd take Landeskog without hesitation. Tarasenko MIGHT become a better scorer in the NHL but no one can guarantee that, Landeskog is also pretty good at scoring himself so to me it's an easy choice if you add his great leadership etc to it.
It's impossible to really answer this question right now. Personally, I feel like Tarasenko has a higher offensive upside, but Landeskog is definitely more rounded. As a Blues fan who's had to suffer from some pretty horrendus offenses since the last lockout, the homer vote in me says Tarasenko, but it's darn hard to vote against Landeskog. Kid's a keeper for sure.
