Prospect Info: 2017 NHL Draft / Pick #7 - Lias Andersson (C)

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Yet you had no issues comparing Buch's stats to Kuznetsov, Tarasenko and co. Don't say you didn't because PB threads are full of it.

You can't argue the discussion, so you bring up unrelated issues that have nothing to do with this thread.

People still compare his stats to those players. I saw it the other day, I see it all the time, why are you coming after me? Its because you've got nothing to argue in this discussion so you try to discredit me with rubbish. And also, people make way too big of a deal over stats in comparison to a player's skill-set. The stats should be a compliment to the opinion, not the other way around, similar to using analytics. I think Andersson won't be a 1C because of what I watch. I don't know what you watch or anyone else, but thats my own personal opinion, and I've described it in detail. I described it before the draft, I didn't change my opinion like many around here because of the draft. It is very common that prospects have similar stats to players who project better than them.

You can twist and turn the stats around to make Kopitar's stats comparable to Andersson's in some way, but Kopitar also had 61 points in the NHL his D+2 season from the same contorted stats that @Amazing Kreiderman used. You think Andersson will have that? Using prospect stats to claim Andersson will be as good as these players is weak. I'd respect the argument much more if you said you think he has a skill-set of a 1C.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

You can't argue the discussion, so you bring up unrelated issues that have nothing to do with this thread.

People still compare his stats to those players. I saw it the other day, I see it all the time, why are you coming after me? Its because you've got nothing to argue in this discussion so you try to discredit me with rubbish. And also, people make way too big of a deal over stats in comparison to a player's skill-set. The stats should be a compliment to the opinion, not the other way around, similar to using analytics. I think Andersson won't be a 1C because of what I watch. I don't know what you watch or anyone else, but thats my own personal opinion, and I've described it in detail. I described it before the draft, I didn't change my opinion like many around here because of the draft. It is very common that prospects have similar stats to players who project better than them.

You can twist and turn the stats around to make Kopitar's stats comparable to Andersson's in some way, but Kopitar also had 61 points in the NHL his D+2 season from the same contorted stats that @Amazing Kreiderman used. You think Andersson will have that? Using prospect stats to claim Andersson will be as good as these players is weak. I'd respect the argument much more if you said you think he has a skill-set of a 1C.

But using his current play to say the opposite isn't?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

PB rooting hard for LA to fail so that his dubious scouting credibility remains intact.

Please show me where I said this.

I've remained consistent and my opinion is also consistent with those of the experts. Some others here have swayed like the wind because he was drafted by their team.

You won't concede a single thing to a view that opposes yours and it is just sad.

It is going to get to the point where even if you have a well argued position people won't agree with you because you lobbed all your credibility out the window.

Blatant misdirection. Yes or no, do you believe he projects as a 1C?

The thing is, I understand what you and a few others are trying to do. You are trying to "protect" Andersson because you are fans of his NHL team, but you know how ridiculous the assertion is that he projects as a 1C, so you won't even back the assertion, you'll just try to discredit someone else who is pushing back on something you probably agree with them about.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

But using his current play to say the opposite isn't?

Where did I say that? You are blurring the lines here by making it seem like the argument I'm using that he won't be a 1C is due to his overall play instead of the overall skill-set. Its not, and I don't think his play this season would sway my opinion on that. If he shows it in the NHL, it would, but thats years down the road. Fast and Lindberg also put up nice SHL stats, I'm not saying he's comparable to them, but eventual good NHL'ers should be able to put up good stats at his age in a development league, especially if they are supposed to make the NHL team rather soon.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Where did I say that? You are blurring the lines here by making it seem like the argument I'm using that he won't be a 1C is due to his overall play instead of the overall skill-set. Its not, and I don't think his play this season would sway my opinion on that. If he shows it in the NHL, it would, but thats years down the road. Fast and Lindberg also put up nice SHL stats, I'm not saying he's comparable to them, but eventual good NHL'ers should be able to put up good stats at his age in a development league, especially if they are supposed to make the NHL team rather soon.

The SHL isn't a development league.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

The SHL isn't a development league.

They all are compared to the NHL. Notice how all players eventually join the NHL, if they are good enough.

 

[darko]

You are contradicting yourself with this statement. So no one's saying he'll be Kopitar but he could turn into another Kopitar? Seems a strange statement to me.

Do you seriously not see the difference between the 2?

I don't think he turns into Kopitar. More into Stepan but to say he can't be Kopitar is just flat out wrong. Lias' numbers in the same league at the same age are the same or even better than Kopitar's.

 

[darko]

You can't argue the discussion, so you bring up unrelated issues that have nothing to do with this thread.

People still compare his stats to those players. I saw it the other day, I see it all the time, why are you coming after me? Its because you've got nothing to argue in this discussion so you try to discredit me with rubbish. And also, people make way too big of a deal over stats in comparison to a player's skill-set. The stats should be a compliment to the opinion, not the other way around, similar to using analytics. I think Andersson won't be a 1C because of what I watch. I don't know what you watch or anyone else, but thats my own personal opinion, and I've described it in detail. I described it before the draft, I didn't change my opinion like many around here because of the draft. It is very common that prospects have similar stats to players who project better than them.

You can twist and turn the stats around to make Kopitar's stats comparable to Andersson's in some way, but Kopitar also had 61 points in the NHL his D+2 season from the same contorted stats that @Amazing Kreiderman used. You think Andersson will have that? Using prospect stats to claim Andersson will be as good as these players is weak. I'd respect the argument much more if you said you think he has a skill-set of a 1C.

Impressive novel full of useless crap.

You used Buch's KHL stats and compared them to Kuznetsov/Tarasenko. Fact. Yet you have a problem when someone does it with Lias/Kopitar. Fact. Irony much?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Impressive novel full of useless crap.

You used Buch's KHL stats and compared them to Kuznetsov/Tarasenko. Fact. Yet you have a problem when someone does it with Lias/Kopitar. Fact. Irony much?

So as I thought, you don't have anything to add to the discussion in favor of the viewpoint that Andersson can be a #1C, you are just here to try to discredit me. The irony is how you have added 0 substance, you are just in defend Andersson mode from a completely consensus opinion that he doesn't have 1C potential. I'll ask again, can anyone show me one expert that said he has 1C potential?

No, not a fact. What I have a problem with is the logic that since Andersson has similar stats to Kopitar in D+1 season, completely leaving out the over 10 month age difference in those seasons, that Andersson is suddenly worthy of a 1C label, as if that specifically makes him a prospect with 1C potential. Stats alone doesn't make someone comparable to other prospects, in my opinion at least, it means their stats are comparable, I would think you gotta actually be similar to that player in how you play the game or how good you are to be comparable, not just be comparable in one statistical measure that could be explained by a million different things. Brian Gibbons has any many goals right now as Stamkos, Crobsy, McDavid, Gaudreau, must be comparable to them because of that statistical measure.

And here's the thing you leave out of all these arguments against Buchnevich, people thought he was good mostly because of his hockey ability, not his stats, so to try to compare stats makes little sense. You are making up an argument, actually.

 

[Irishguy42]

I think Andersson will be a good Top 6 player for us. Like the kid.

 

[Ori]

1, 20, 33, 46, 51, 37 <- Mika career stats. Why do so many fans believe that Mika is a 1 center?
He is on his 4th or 5th concussion report in relative young age, and I`ve notion Ottawa moved him based on that reason alone, and not because he has habit to go cold middle of the season for long stretches. And when he his hot he is a streaky player almost ppg,

So that could be up for debate too and we have much better stat pool to evaluate Mika compare to Lias, and his overall skillset is highly unknown based on his draft year.

 

[darko]

Not trying to discredit you at all PB. I just find it hilarious when you have a go at people for comparing Lias/Kopitar stars when you've done very similar stuff in the past.

 

[darko]

So as I thought, you don't have anything to add to the discussion in favor of the viewpoint that Andersson can be a #1C, you are just here to try to discredit me. The irony is how you have added 0 substance, you are just in defend Andersson mode from a completely consensus opinion that he doesn't have 1C potential. I'll ask again, can anyone show me one expert that said he has 1C potential?

No, not a fact. What I have a problem with is the logic that since Andersson has similar stats to Kopitar in D+1 season, completely leaving out the over 10 month age difference in those seasons, that Andersson is suddenly worthy of a 1C label, as if that specifically makes him a prospect with 1C potential. Stats alone doesn't make someone comparable to other prospects, in my opinion at least, it means their stats are comparable, I would think you gotta actually be similar to that player in how you play the game or how good you are to be comparable, not just be comparable in one statistical measure that could be explained by a million different things. Brian Gibbons has any many goals right now as Stamkos, Crobsy, McDavid, Gaudreau, must be comparable to them because of that statistical measure.

And here's the thing you leave out of all these arguments against Buchnevich, people thought he was good mostly because of his hockey ability, not his stats, so to try to compare stats makes little sense. You are making up an argument, actually.

10 months older? Hmmm interesting. I guess it's a good thing Lias' stats are better at the same stage.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Do you seriously not see the difference between the 2?

I don't think he turns into Kopitar. More into Stepan but to say he can't be Kopitar is just flat out wrong. Lias' numbers in the same league at the same age are the same or even better than Kopitar's.

Plus the thing about Kopitar is that the Kings were a putrid, stinky doormat and had no hope. They handed him the keys to the castle as a teenager. Lias is going to have to really duke it out and outperform some quality vets to be able to put up similar numbers in his first or second full season.

My only concern with Andersson (besides his skating) is that he'll probably start out as a 3c or 4c and do such a great job in his own end that the coach (possibly the GM as well) will pigeon hole him in that role. And that could get compounded if Zibanejad and Chytil are the 1c and 2c of the future.

Persnally, I think they should move him to wing. He played wing with HV71 and it increases the chance of getting a Top-6 role.

 

[Alluckks]

You can't argue the discussion, so you bring up unrelated issues that have nothing to do with this thread.

People still compare his stats to those players. I saw it the other day, I see it all the time, why are you coming after me? Its because you've got nothing to argue in this discussion so you try to discredit me with rubbish. And also, people make way too big of a deal over stats in comparison to a player's skill-set. The stats should be a compliment to the opinion, not the other way around, similar to using analytics. I think Andersson won't be a 1C because of what I watch. I don't know what you watch or anyone else, but thats my own personal opinion, and I've described it in detail. I described it before the draft, I didn't change my opinion like many around here because of the draft. It is very common that prospects have similar stats to players who project better than them.

You can twist and turn the stats around to make Kopitar's stats comparable to Andersson's in some way, but Kopitar also had 61 points in the NHL his D+2 season from the same contorted stats that @Amazing Kreiderman used. You think Andersson will have that? Using prospect stats to claim Andersson will be as good as these players is weak. I'd respect the argument much more if you said you think he has a skill-set of a 1C.

Blatant misdirection. Yes or no, do you believe he projects as a 1C?

The thing is, I understand what you and a few others are trying to do. You are trying to "protect" Andersson because you are fans of his NHL team, but you know how ridiculous the assertion is that he projects as a 1C, so you won't even back the assertion, you'll just try to discredit someone else who is pushing back on something you probably agree with them about.

Did you just give separate responses 10 minutes apart to my one short response? Are you schizophrenic? Which one of you am I responding to?

I said that you are being incredibly combative, not having a conversation, it is very off-putting, and people (including myself) are likely to start disregarding even your most well constructed arguments. You could take that in stride, ignore it, or respond by literally writing the same thing you have posted all over already. It seems crazy. I used to think that you have an incredible bias towards Russians, Czechs, etc. but now I think it is an incredible bias towards your own thoughts. Like this is your platform to educate us rather than have fun discussing the Rangers with other Rangers fans.

Whatever, you proved my point. Don't go to bed angry, pal.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Vilardi and Andersson have several similarities except three -- Vilardi is bigger, has softer hands and is a far better playmaker.

His straight-line speed is average. The problem is that has an awkward stride. I'd say Andersson has a quicker first step but top speed is about the same.

One reason they probably passed on Vilardi knowing Chytil was going to be there at 21.

I'd love to find out what they specifically liked in Andersson over Necas and Mittelstadt but we'll never know.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Did you just give separate responses 10 minutes apart to my one short response? Are you schizophrenic? Which one of you am I responding to?

I said that you are being incredibly combative, not having a conversation, it is very off-putting, and people (including myself) are likely to start disregarding even your most well constructed arguments. You could take that in stride, ignore it, or respond by literally writing the same thing you have posted all over already. It seems crazy. I used to think that you have an incredible bias towards Russians, Czechs, etc. but now I think it is an incredible bias towards your own thoughts. Like this is your platform to educate us rather than have fun discussing the Rangers with other Rangers fans.

Whatever, you proved my point. Don't go to bed angry, pal.

I responded to two different posters who were in "defend Rangers prospect" mode against a rather consensus opinion, doesn't seem like you have much interest in responding to the content of the discussion.

 

[Alluckks]

I responded to two different posters who were in "defend Rangers prospect" mode against a rather consensus opinion, doesn't seem like you have much interest in responding to the content of the discussion.

My mistake, my page was glitched and showed me being quoted in every quote on the page. Didn't realize it till now.

 

[Ola]

SteveK- Yeah, I am just saying that I don’t really think it’s fair to say that Vilardi has more potential than Andersson.

Vilardi can definitely become better than Andersson. If he becomes Getzlaf II and Andersson becomes Kreuger II, surely Vilardi was the better pick. But if Andersson becomes a ROR/Zetterberg type and Vilardi becomes a Bennet, or even a Zajac type, I would probably take the former.

I just object against the idea that Andersson has let potential, especially when that idea is based on Vilardi scoring a little more than a PPG in the OHL when Andersson surely would have scored about no less than 1.3-1.5 PPG there. Don’t think it’s possible to say that Vilardi has Getzlaf potential but expecting Andersson to become a No 1C is like expecting Tanner Glass to start to score like Ovechkin.

 

[Miamipuck]

SteveK- Yeah, I am just saying that I don’t really think it’s fair to say that Vilardi has more potential than Andersson.

Vilardi can definitely become better than Andersson. If he becomes Getzlaf II and Andersson becomes Kreuger II, surely Vilardi was the better pick. But if Andersson becomes a ROR/Zetterberg type and Vilardi becomes a Bennet, or even a Zajac type, I would probably take the former.

I just object against the idea that Andersson has let potential, especially when that idea is based on Vilardi scoring a little more than a PPG in the OHL when Andersson surely would have scored about no less than 1.3-1.5 PPG there. Don’t think it’s possible to say that Vilardi has Getzlaf potential but expecting Andersson to become a No 1C is like expecting Tanner Glass to start to score like Ovechkin.

Less potential at this point is basically less flash. He has the potential to be a very important piece for the Rangers. A great 2 week period where it's falling into place for Lias isn't really going to extrapolate to a career. I think it's ridiculous at this point to throw a number on it.

Most of us should be happy and largely are, except PB the super scout, that he's improved his #'s significantly over the last few weeks. I am not sure what that portends for Lias 5 years down the road. I am more interested in the next off season and how his preparations will improve his chances of making the team. Hopefully, he won't be gassed where he's shell of himself at next camp.

 

[Mac n Gs]

What I like the most about Lias is that he has the chance to turn into that Swiss-army knife, all situations, pain in the ass center that can wreak havoc on other teams because he can be a puck hound and has really good-on puck skills. It’s kind of like what we hoped to see from JTM down the middle, but it hasn’t manifested yet. Lias is also a much smarter hockey player than JTM, so I think his chances are prettt decent for becoming that player for us. I don’t think a 50-55 point range is unreasonable to project, and I’ll take the slightly lower scoring if he can add that dynamic.

We took our boom or bust top-C pick on Chytil at 21. Calling Andersson a reach at 7OA in a six player draft (for the record I wanted Middlestadt) is silly. He’s having a really good D+1 year, and AK has watched him numerous times and has reported on how mature his game is already. Arguing against this kid because we didn’t take a Villardi, Liljegren, or Brannstrom is just stupid. Be f***ing happy our prospect is doing well. We need BOTH Andersson and Chytil to spearhead our next core of young kids.

We’re gonna need the element Andersson brings, just as much as we’ll need Chytil’s skill.

 

[Irishguy42]

Yeah, I agree SteveK

My biggest concern is him coming here and our coach (be it AV or someone else) pigeon-holing him as a Bottom 6 player if he starts there and succeeds.

Would massively suck,

 

[eco's bones]

I think Steve makes a good point talking about Andersson also on the wing. Whenever I've seen him he's been a buzzsaw in the corners. He knows how to use his body to protect the puck and he keeps his feet moving and everything he does is aimed at getting himself and/or the puck to the net. The other part of his game is he's well rounded--he's not all about offense. Most forwards--even guys drafted above him or in the first round are going to need a lot more work in the neutral and defensive areas of the ice. Another thing about Lias is he really acts like a pro--he's ahead of almost all his peers there too. In any case I don't see him necessarily as a center at this point--I think he can be either a center or a wing or both depending on how his coaches want to use him. I suspect he'll be a player that coaches love--and even if his level doesn't turn out as high as say Mittelstadt or Vilardi--his game will be more dependable and consistent and coaching staff's love those qualities. The guy that exemplifies that on the Rangers these days is Jesper Fast.

 

[UnSandvich]

I think Steve makes a good point talking about Andersson also on the wing. Whenever I've seen him he's been a buzzsaw in the corners. He knows how to use his body to protect the puck and he keeps his feet moving and everything he does is aimed at getting himself and/or the puck to the net. The other part of his game is he's well rounded--he's not all about offense. Most forwards--even guys drafted above him or in the first round are going to need a lot more work in the neutral and defensive areas of the ice. Another thing about Lias is he really acts like a pro--he's ahead of almost all his peers there too. In any case I don't see him necessarily as a center at this point--I think he can be either a center or a wing or both depending on how his coaches want to use him. I suspect he'll be a player that coaches love--and even if his level doesn't turn out as high as say Mittelstadt or Vilardi--his game will be more dependable and consistent and coaching staff's love those qualities. The guy that exemplifies that on the Rangers these days is Jesper Fast.

So what you're saying is he's Fast, if Fast had any degree of offensive capability?

 

[Mac n Gs]

I think Steve makes a good point talking about Andersson also on the wing. Whenever I've seen him he's been a buzzsaw in the corners. He knows how to use his body to protect the puck and he keeps his feet moving and everything he does is aimed at getting himself and/or the puck to the net. The other part of his game is he's well rounded--he's not all about offense. Most forwards--even guys drafted above him or in the first round are going to need a lot more work in the neutral and defensive areas of the ice. Another thing about Lias is he really acts like a pro--he's ahead of almost all his peers there too. In any case I don't see him necessarily as a center at this point--I think he can be either a center or a wing or both depending on how his coaches want to use him. I suspect he'll be a player that coaches love--and even if his level doesn't turn out as high as say Mittelstadt or Vilardi--his game will be more dependable and consistent and coaching staff's love those qualities. The guy that exemplifies that on the Rangers these days is Jesper Fast.

Sounds like Brayden Schenn or Sean Cotourier