He scores a lot of goals, but it's junior. Alexander Daigle scored a lot of goals too in junior.
To be honest, I have two main grievances with Landeskog:
1) I don't believe his goal scoring (in close, hash marks in) is successful for 50 goal scorers at the NHL level (you might pot 30, like Brendan Morrow or Ryan Smyth).... but you'll take a ton of punishment.
2) As a related point, Landeskog's tendencies towards physical play as well as the tendency to play a smash mouth type game means injury concerns are substantial... Just look at how many games players like Lindros or Morrow or Forsberg miss.
I think RNH is a safer pick, because his offensive instincts are off the charts, he's a playmaker (rather than scorer, but has a decent shot), and he is more likely to make the players around him better.
Based on what? By all accounts since Landeskog has returned the entire team has performed better. Sometimes the effect a player has on his team is more than just through playmaking. Creating space through the way Lando plays is a big part of why his linemates are so successful (making them 'better.')
But again, you're right scoring in the juniors doesn't mean it will carry over...but the same thing applies to RNH although to a different extent. He isn't even outpacing Landeskog, but Landeskog doesn't only score from the hashmarks in and I don't know where people are getting this idea (I'm pretty sure it's because someone said that once trying to discredit him but they had never seen him play before.) Even if most of his goals are there that's where most opportunities to score come from in the NHL so...
RNH isn't going to have the same kind of time and space that he has on the PP in the WHL to make his plays. I wouldn't be surprised if RNH never puts up better than a 50 point season in the NHL. He's small, and he needs too much space to work. I know that you guys are going to argue that he's 'great in tight spaces' but the reality is that he obviously isn't or he'd have more even strength production. He might be able to skate around in circles with a D man on him, but he's not producing from that type of situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minister of Offence
Alex Daigle didn't succeed BECAUSE he's opposite in character to Landeskog.
Also this. Daigle had 10x the talent that RNH has...the reason he didn't succeed isn't because he wasn't capable it's because he wasn't interested.
RNH isn't going to have the same kind of time and space that he has on the PP in the WHL to make his plays. I wouldn't be surprised if RNH never puts up better than a 50 point season in the NHL. He's small, and he needs too much space to work. I know that you guys are going to argue that he's 'great in tight spaces' but the reality is that he obviously isn't or he'd have more even strength production. He might be able to skate around in circles with a D man on him, but he's not producing from that type of situation.
.
RNH isn't going to have the same kind of time and space that he has on the PP in the WHL to make his plays. I wouldn't be surprised if RNH never puts up better than a 50 point season in the NHL. He's small, and he needs too much space to work. I know that you guys are going to argue that he's 'great in tight spaces' but the reality is that he obviously isn't or he'd have more even strength production. He might be able to skate around in circles with a D man on him, but he's not producing from that type of situation.
You haven't watched him too much if you don't think he's good in tight situations. His ability to hold on to the puck, evade defenders, and find people is one of his most impressive attributes. The forwards he works with are not that strong.
His whole game has a lot to gain by maturing physically as well. Much less as it is for Landeskog, 2-3 years is the time line that RNH is on...although it's not out of the question he plays in the NHL next year, just not expected.
It's amusing how much people's opinions seem to deviate over a couple days... Couturier goes from unmentioned to several people wanting him - while RNH apparently falls in popularity.
People's opinions correspond with the hotstreaks of those players.
RNH had what? 27 pts in 10 games.... Follows it up with 8 pts in 9 games and drops off of the map.
Couturier is always putting up 2-ish points per game. When he becomes the primary interest... it's probably because Nugent-Hopkins or Landeskog are on cold streaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minister of Offence
I think his upside is best compared to Iginla. He isn't the shooting threat or one-timer threat that Iginla is...althought I don't know for sure but I assume Iginla's shooting strength was something that developed in his early years in the league. With Landeskog you know he'd be pretty relentless at improving his game if all the claims of his character are true.
In Landeskog's case, that involves his offensive game growing quite a bit. I'm totally down with a prospect improving their game to NHL standards, but not with becoming a better NHL'er than they are a junior player.
He's not a sniper in junior and I don't see him becoming one all of a sudden at the NHL level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by senswon
My concern is that he's currently a man amongst boys in major junior and is what 20th in scoring? Will he dominate as well against men?
Probably not and he's virtually maxed out his NHL weight already.
His game is heavily dependent on his work ethic and ability to dominate players physically at the junior level. No doubt he'll be a leader in the NHL at some point and will be some level of scorer, but it's not going to be anywhere near as easy to dominate men physically and he doesn't have a whole heck of a lot of room to grow or get meaner. This is the problem when comparing Landeskog to and RNH. Landeskog is a near finished product with somewhat limited upside. He'll probably blow RNH away for the next 2-4 years from this June... but then what? Is RNH going to be a much better offensive player for the next decade after that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPhoenixM
He's 20th in scoring because he missed so many games, but really, he's not even close to being on the big side of the OHL. Keep in mind that he has just as much room to grow as any other player out there and he can still put on some size...he's only just turned 18 he hasn't even developed man strength yet. He only looks like a man amongst boys because he's so strong and such a good player.
1) He's 44th in scoring in the OHL because he's missed so many games.
2) He has by far the lowest PPG of any forward in the top-10 and plays in by far the highest scoring league.
3) He's 18 and 6'0 tall. He's not likely to get any taller and no team is going to let him get much bigger than the 207 lbs he is now.
4) He's huge for junior hockey and extremely strong.
Here, take a look at Bobby Mac's top 65 with heights and weights listed. NHL hockey weight averages are roughly 6'0, 200 lbs +/- 5 lbs for every inch (ie: 6'1, 205... 5'11, 195).
I counted 8 players there out of 65 who have matched or exceeded their probable filled-out NHL weights. 3 of them are top ranked power wingers (Landeskog, Saad, Biggs) which is scary because they're being judged on their ability to power through players who aren't even close to filled out.
Here's how filled out some of the top prospects are based on the sizes McKenzie listed:
Landeskog scores at a higher pace than Hall did last season. He's relatively close to Skinner as well. Why do people continue to say he has limited offensive potential? Everything I've heard about this guy is how good he skates and that he's driving to the net and has a wicked shot. If you skate well,pay the price down low and you have a very good shot - I think you're a sure bet to be a goalscorer at the pro level as well, and a damn good one.
First of all, he doesn't have a wicked shot nor is he a sniper at the junior level.
To answer your question, he plays a very limited classic power forwards game in juniors and will presumably do so in the NHL. The majority of classic power forwards in the NHL put up around 30 goals and 60 points in their best seasons (Morrow, Holmstrom, Smyth, etc). It's just not a style of play leads to a lot of production and he's not some dominant physical force in size, strength and speed (Bertuzzi in his prime) who's going to change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensfanman
Size doesn't matter, if the kid can play, he can play.
His game is highly dependent on size and size match-ups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suiteness
I haven't seen him as much as some of you so I don't really know. Does he have a Ovechkin like shot? Can he unleash one-timers like Stamkos or Kovalchuk? In what ways does he compare to the top snipers in the game?
He doesn't and no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyke
He scores a lot of goals, but it's junior. Alexander Daigle scored a lot of goals too in junior.
To be honest, I have two main grievances with Landeskog:
1) I don't believe his goal scoring (in close, hash marks in) is successful for 50 goal scorers at the NHL level (you might pot 30, like Brendan Morrow or Ryan Smyth).... but you'll take a ton of punishment.
2) As a related point, Landeskog's tendencies towards physical play as well as the tendency to play a smash mouth type game means injury concerns are substantial... Just look at how many games players like Lindros or Morrow or Forsberg miss.
I think RNH is a safer pick, because his offensive instincts are off the charts, he's a playmaker (rather than scorer, but has a decent shot), and he is more likely to make the players around him better.
Damnit, all that work for nothing when I could have just "ditto'ed" the last post in the thread!
In Landeskog's case, that involves his offensive game growing quite a bit. I'm totally down with a prospect improving their game to NHL standards, but not with becoming a better NHL'er than they are a junior player.
He's not a sniper in junior and I don't see him becoming one all of a sudden at the NHL level.
Then try and find a better comparable. I didn't say it was spot on. You could say Morrow, but he's clearly a better skater and puck handler than Morrow is.
He does a lot of the things Toews and Iginla do to me, and I don't use Toews as a comparison for intangibles, I use it because Landeskog engages in 1 on 1 battles all over the ice and usually comes out the winner. He uses his body to win battles, and he uses hockey sense to put the puck in the right places. But he's also bullish down low, is more in the power forward mold that Iginla is.
He's a good shooter already, it can improve quite a bit with time. I expect this is a kid that will be e relentless worker and when you factor in how far he's come since coming to Canada I think his work ethic could take his game quite a ways.
I don't expect him to be the one-timer threat that Iginla is although I wouldn't be surprised if he became a bigger shooting threat in time. I also don't expect him to be such a surgical shooter like Toews is.
Don't usually see prospects like this at the height of the draft. But I emphasize, he isn't just Mike Fisher with intangibles or something stupid like that.
It's amusing how much people's opinions seem to deviate over a couple days... Couturier goes from unmentioned to several people wanting him - while RNH apparently falls in popularity.
It's amusing how much scouting list seem to deviate from month to month as well. But like people's opinion, this is normal given there isn't much separation between these prospects' potential. It's okay to be really high on one player, but there's still some hockey left to be played and opinions can change if certain players step up. For example, I want Landeskog to take his team far since "intangibles" is supposedly one of his strong suit. Well, I want to see it in action. Similarly, I also want to see RNH and Couturier step up their offensive production in the playoffs where it matter most so we can tell what type of character they really are.
Damnit, all that work for nothing when I could have just "ditto'ed" the last post in the thread!
You picked the post that used Daigle as an example of how some players don't live up to hype? At least point out that Daigle faltered because he wasn't interested.
Landeskog's scored 3/4 goals a game for pretty much the whole season, when's the hot streak gonna end. I don't even doubt Couturier may put up more points at the next level, RNH may as well.
It's not even to say RNH or Couturier are one dimensional either, I just don't think they match up to everything Landeskog will bring, and it's not just about intangibles either, it's how they effect the game all over the ice. IMO, Landeskog does a better job than Couturier.
Why did professionals rank him #1 in the CHL anyways despite the underwhelming point totals?
For one, when scouts look at statistics for a winger they are more interested in goal scoring, especially if the player obviously plays well with others and is team-oriented. Two, they don't really care about statistics.
People's opinions correspond with the hotstreaks of those players.
RNH had what? 27 pts in 10 games.... Follows it up with 8 pts in 9 games and drops off of the map.
Won't quote the whole thing because it was so long, but great post!
It's not even to say RNH or Couturier are one dimensional either, I just don't think they match up to everything Landeskog will bring, and it's not just about intangibles either, it's how they effect the game all over the ice. IMO, Landeskog does a better job than Couturier.
Couturier already plays a pretty damn solid 2 way game though.
People's opinions correspond with the hotstreaks of those players.
RNH had what? 27 pts in 10 games.... Follows it up with 8 pts in 9 games and drops off of the map.
:
Not necessarily true but definitely worth mention.
I was less enthused about Couturier to open the year and into the WJC and felt confirmed, hadn't paid attention to his stats. I liked Landeskog most to start the year, hadn't tracked his stats. I started flip/flopping between RNH and Landeskog before Christmas and into Christmas, hadn't tracked stats.
Determined that they are all probably franchise players of different molds in the future, I believe the top 4 will all become cornerstone pieces. And then I chose my preference, especially after having continued to watch these guys play. All without paying much attention to their stats and streaks.
It's possible not to be swayed by hot and cold streaks if you don't really pay attention to them.
I've said before, but I'll say it again. It's worth noting that Couturier has always been dominant in every level he played in. He's not a fast riser on draft year, he's consistently been top consideration for his class. Unless he shares Daigle's attitude, I think he's the safest pick.
Couturier already plays a pretty damn solid 2 way game though.
I know that. I like Landeskog's two way game more, call me crazy. Hell, I like Toews game from the offensive blue line and back more than I like anyone elses. I like Landeskog's for the same reasons. That's not to say Couturier isn't an exceptional two way player.
The thing I don't like though when people talk about two way play, or defensive responsibility, is that if you are a two-way forward you are lumped together as equals with any other forward that is considered a strong two-way player. People don't care so much to differentiate which good two-way forward is better than the other good two-way forward. When it comes to offense though it's broken down easily, everyone has an opinion on which is the best offensive forward.
I think if your looking at 200 foot games I prefer Landeskog's over Couturier. 2-way play will be a plus for both in scouts eyes. But my preference leans to Landeskog's total package over Couturier...and I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that Couturier could put up more points. I just think Landeskog brings more to the table that Ottawa is sorely lacking. I'm happy in the top 4, we're going to get a really good player.
In Landeskog's case, that involves his offensive game growing quite a bit. I'm totally down with a prospect improving their game to NHL standards, but not with becoming a better NHL'er than they are a junior player.
He's not a sniper in junior and I don't see him becoming one all of a sudden at the NHL level.
What are you talking about? If he's even close to the NHL player that he is as a junior he'll dominate the league. He's already considered to possibly be the best player in the OHL period including overagers. All the things that you say about his offensive game are flat out lies so I don't expect you to understand...it seems like you have some kind of grudge against Lando for whatever reason.
Right now his offensive game is almost perfectly suited to the NHL and he's only going to continue to improve.
Quote:
Probably not and he's virtually maxed out his NHL weight already.
His game is heavily dependent on his work ethic and ability to dominate players physically at the junior level. No doubt he'll be a leader in the NHL at some point and will be some level of scorer, but it's not going to be anywhere near as easy to dominate men physically and he doesn't have a whole heck of a lot of room to grow or get meaner. This is the problem when comparing Landeskog to and RNH. Landeskog is a near finished product with somewhat limited upside. He'll probably blow RNH away for the next 2-4 years from this June... but then what? Is RNH going to be a much better offensive player for the next decade after that?
1) He's 44th in scoring in the OHL because he's missed so many games.
2) He has by far the lowest PPG of any forward in the top-10 and plays in by far the highest scoring league.
3) He's 18 and 6'0 tall. He's not likely to get any taller and no team is going to let him get much bigger than the 207 lbs he is now.
4) He's huge for junior hockey and extremely strong.
Here, take a look at Bobby Mac's top 65 with heights and weights listed. NHL hockey weight averages are roughly 6'0, 200 lbs +/- 5 lbs for every inch (ie: 6'1, 205... 5'11, 195).
Just figured I would bunch all this together because it involves so much misinformation. First of all, the OHL is slightly higher scoring than the WHL and the Q...but that can simply be because there are better offensive talents in the OHL. Traditionally speaking most of the top scorers in the NHL come from the O and the Q. Landeskog is putting up 1.36 PPG and RNH is putting up 1.42...I hardly think that is 'by far' lower, and he is scoring goals at more than double the pace of RNH (to put it into perspective assuming a 69 game season Lando should have about 94 points with 53 goals and RNH would have 98 points with 22 goals...please tell me which you would prefer.) On top of that Landeskog has been doing this consistently whereas RNH has had his struggles producing.
Also, even with guys like Akeson, Catennaci and Murphy, Landeskog still has a hand in 35ish % of his teams scoring.
Then there's the knock on his size. He can still grow, and you are comparing him to the other players that are being drafted with him and their sizes...but they don't play the same game as Landeskog. What you should be doing is looking at the size of the defenders that he plays against and supposedly 'uses his size to dominate.' I didn't have time to go through each and every team in the OHL right now, but just looking at his game against Saginaw (1 goal 1 assist) their defenders are as follows:
I have a hard time believing that Landeskog dominates those guys because he is bigger than they are.
Anyway, there's absolutely nothing that indicates that RNH has a higher upside, or more potential nor is there anything that even says that RNH will reach that potential. At the very least Landeskog is bringing a great two way game, goal scoring, leadership and physicality. He also brings a lot of potential with the hard working attitude that he has and the fact that he is only 18.
Quote:
First of all, he doesn't have a wicked shot nor is he a sniper at the junior level.
To answer your question, he plays a very limited classic power forwards game in juniors and will presumably do so in the NHL. The majority of classic power forwards in the NHL put up around 30 goals and 60 points in their best seasons (Morrow, Holmstrom, Smyth, etc). It's just not a style of play leads to a lot of production and he's not some dominant physical force in size, strength and speed (Bertuzzi in his prime) who's going to change that.
His game is highly dependent on size and size match-ups.
See above for why you are wrong.
Landeskog is not Morrow or Smyth. He does have a great shot (you can just youtube videos of him scoring to see this), he has better skating and he has better hockey sense. Lando is the whole package and you sir have no idea what you are talking about.
To be frank...RNH can't even be consistent in juniors what makes you think he can be in the NHL?
I really hope the team doesn't factor "two-way" game into who to pick with a top 4 pick.
Jordon Staal probably plays a two-way game (selke type) than Toews or Backstrom, but he isn't on par with their games in terms of pure value. I'd much rather have Toews and Backstrom's offensive game and compromise a bit with the two-way stuff.
I think Couturier is probably the biggest impact offensive player in the draft, altough that's certainly debatable. That's why I'd pick him. Not because he has a better two-way game than RNH (or Lando).
I hope our scouts focus on the overall offensive impact the player will make. That's what we need to build around. Especially since none of the top 4 guys have any character concerns.
as it stands now Nashville's pick is at #15 .. lets say it is anywhere from 10-15 on draft day..
Would you trade that pick plus our 2nd rounder (31-35 probably) to get a second top 5 pick (the #5 pick)
Better question would the other team do that (Teams that could be in that position Colorado, Florida, Atlanta, Boston <via Toronto>)
Unlikely. Every year teams try and get into the top 6-7 picks....every year they probably try and do it with deals similar to this.
Think about it, no ones trading a franchise player for scraps when the players have emerged. So no ones trading a potential franchise player for a couple 2nd liners at the draft.
If you want in the top 5, you have to give up something that makes the team feel it's worth while.
as it stands now Nashville's pick is at #15 .. lets say it is anywhere from 10-15 on draft day..
Would you trade that pick plus our 2nd rounder (31-35 probably) to get a second top 5 pick (the #5 pick)
Better question would the other team do that (Teams that could be in that position Colorado, Florida, Atlanta, Boston <via Toronto>)
You're not getting a top 5 pick for picks (Unless you're trading from the 6th or 7th spot and even then it's not a sure thing). Moving the 15th and 31st could get you a one or two spot improvement but not much else.
You're not getting a top 5 pick for picks (Unless you're trading from the 6th or 7th spot and even then it's not a sure thing). Moving the 15th and 31st could get you a one or two spot improvement but not much else.
Probably right..
Using the stats sheet I have been going (projecting finish using ppg over last 10 to extrapolate the remaining games).. Nashville's pick will be #12 (assuming trends continue)
My Sens Draft (2 rounds, based on current standings, with no trades):
2nd: Ryan Hopkins-Nugent
15th: Joel Armia
32nd: Tomas Jurco
51st: Christopher Gibson
55th: Myles Bell
Reasoning:
-RNH: I went back and forth between him and Couturier for awhile. I have Spezza as our #1 and all championship teams have 2 top-flight centers. I was leaning towards Couturier because he doubles as an elite defender but I went with the higher offensive upside and figured we could have our 3rd line centre be the shutdown/PKer (a cheaper Mike Fisher, if you will)
-Armia: I think he might slip to 15 unless Minny leapfrog NSH. He is a big, goalscoring winger who would look good on RNH or Spezza's wing. He has more offensive upside, I think, than Biggs. If he doesn't fall, I would go with Zibanejad.
-Jurco: Bang or bust. High end offensive potential. We need that in our prospect pool.
-Gibson: Top goalie in the draft. We need someone behind Lehner.
-Bell: Best defender that may be available at that spot. Truth be told, I don't know much about the guys that are around at about 55-60, so I drafted more for need than BPA.
What I'd Like to See:
-Use CHI's 2nd and a 4th to move up 5 spots to 10 and snag Huberdeau. The shame is that if we could get Huberdeau, I would draft Landeskog instead of a center at 2. But that's hindsight. Maybe have a deal in place with whomever drafts Landeskog (hopefully they want RNH) to swap if we get Huberdeau. Would also love Siemens if we get a top 10 pick and JH is gone.
-Also or alternatively (because while moving up is nice, doing it twice may cost us too many picks). Moving the 32nd up high enough to get Jensen or Puempel.
