Prospect Info: At 9th Overall the Detroit Red Wings Select Michael Rasmussen

[jkutswings]

At 20 years old Larkin's worst season is already better that Helm's best season.

Not quite. Larkin just went 17-15-32 in 80 games. In 2014-15, Helm went 15-18-33 in 77 games.

Then there is the fact that Helm's best season came on Datysuk's wing while Larkin's worst season saw him play the majority of the season without elite linemates and juggled throughout the lineup.

No argument there, but you're arguing against something I never said.

Unless you prefer "alternative facts" and believe Larkin can't improve as a player that answer is obvious.

Again, I never said anything of the sort that Larkin can't improve. In fact, I actually outright acknowledged that he DID improve toward the end of this past season.

What I'm saying is the following:

1) Some fans didn't like the Larkin pick at the time it happened.
2) Dylan Larkin's body of work, thus far, does not cement him as anything more than a secondary piece.

Now what happens going forward could be anywhere from full development into a 1C, to continued floundering as a depth forward. My best guess? He ends up as a 2C. But none of that is a GUARANTEE that people should not have had any concerns with the pick.

Just like saying the Svech's and Hronek's of the world are great picks now.

Overall, I scoff at those who are scoffing at any doubting of the way this franchise drafts players, because their last decade and change of drafting players is utterly pedestrian.

 

[Leronziia]

He'll be a handy guy, reliable, predictable, consistent, hard-working yet pretty skilled.

It's not particularly ideal, but given current circumstances, building the support team around the (hopefully) incoming core is a feasible task.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Holland could've went for a home run with a Vilardi or Liljegren type pick. Instead he went for the single. Rasmussen might turn out to be a top 6 player but is more likely destined to be a third liner. Ceiling is a solid 2C with size, more likely to be a winger though.

Not a great start to the rebuild.

 

[Marky9er]

Holland could've went for a home run with a Vilardi or Liljegren type pick. Instead he went for the single. Rasmussen might turn out to be a top 6 player but is more likely destined to be a third liner. Ceiling is a solid 2C with size, more likely to be a winger though.

Not a great start to the rebuild.

Well at least we've got a runner on? I think Vilardi has good hands, but I don't he's much more than a mucker himself. I would have liked the pick, but I think Rasmussen is comparable. Necas or Tippett may be the ones that make for second guessing. (I think Tippett landed in a favorable situation.)

I'm not getting too hung up on the 5v5 stats as injury disrupted his year halfway. If he didn't have a wrist injury in early January things may have been different. Maybe that's too optimistic of a thought, but what else do we have besides feeling sorry for ourselves?

 

[SirloinUB]

I've already voiced my opinion on Rasmussen being undersold on this forum but I was just doing some reading from Bob McKenzie. Seems there are a few professionals that disagree with our naysayers as well.

The decision isn't nearly as black and white as some of you would like to believe.

Windsor Spitfire forward Gabe Vilardi is No. 4 on TSN's list and his rankings ranged from as high as No. 3 and as low as No. 14. Vilardi isn't the swiftest skater but he gets there and his hockey sense and ability to make plays are both above average.

Big 6-foot-6 (technically, listed at 6-foot-5 and 3/4) Tri City centre Michael Rasmussen, whose range was from 4th to 12th. Rasmussen moves well for a big man and plays the game with an edge but can make plays, too. It’s a blend of talent and toughness that makes him so attractive.

For emphasis:

Moves well, make plays, blend of talent and toughness.

Can we move on from this hyperbole of the kid lacking upside.

 

[Frk It]

I've already voiced my opinion on Rasmussen being undersold on this forum but I was just doing some reading from Bob McKenzie. Seems there are a few professionals that disagree with our naysayers as well.

The decision isn't nearly as black and white as some of you would like to believe.






For emphasis:


Can we move on from this hyperbole of the kid lacking upside.

There's a dissenting view on him with fans just like there was with the professionals.

Lowest I saw him was #15 by hockeyprospect.com, which is one of the most respected scouting services out there.

But he was primarily in that 9-12 range, so it wasn't a reach.

But he has been the trendy pick to be the "bust" among the top 15 picks for months now on the prospect board. Seems to be some general hesitation toward bigger guys who can produce but aren't super skilled, as far as if that is because of skill or just outmuscling teenagers. Crouse and Virtanen are probably to blame there some. That coupled with the ES production concerns led someone like Tage Thompson to be the trendy bust pick last year, but he had a great +1 season and WJC tournament this year.

So we will see. A lot of it is going to hinge on his development, and from all of the reports I've seen he seems to be a high character guy so hopefully he surprises some of us and just keeps improving.

I'd really like to see that assist production come up next year. I'm not really worried about his skating or his scoring ability.

 

[lomekian]

While at #9 I'm not sure Rasmussen would have been my pick, all the players I was massively more enthusiastic about were off the board by then.

My observations about the criticism the pick has received would be

1) He looks a player whose capacity to show his skillset may have been limited by his usage and his line-mates. If you look at the rest of the roster, he was still only 3 goals behind the top scorer with 22 less games. And on a roster and with linemates that were primarily set up guys. His passing and playmaking ability was under-utilised due to the strengths and weaknesses of his team-mates.

2)While many other players have been cited, being guys who flourished in junior due to size but didn't make the jump to the NHL, only Brian Boyle is as big, and he wasn't either as fully grown at 18 or, crucially as experienced in an established developmental league. Sure he flourished in US high school hockey, but at a level somewhat below the WHL. While College hockey is obviously harder to score points in than CHL hockey, Boyle's draft +1 year yielded 8 points in 35 games. At the WHL Rasmussen just posted better than PPG, despite being pretty late in the draft year birthday wise (unlike boyle). The other, more offensive guys cited for their junior bullying like Virtanen and Crouse had significantly worse point ratios in their draft years and actually slightly worse than Rasmussen in their draft + 1 years. And Rasmussen is a fair bit bigger than they were, meaning that as long as he gains muscle in the way one would expect, he'll be better driving to and around they net than them.
The only similarly proportioned center, with similar goal/assist ratios picked outside of the top 5 that I could find with a noticeably better stat line was Dave Andreychuck. A player 2/3 that good would be very nice indeed.

Its also worth noting that big guys often take longer to fully develop co-ordination and fluidity. Rasmussen's easy skating stride (for the most part) and hands around the net being pretty damn good already bodes well.

3) He;s not the playmaking genius we all wanted, and probably never will be, but those comparing him with Riley Sheahan need to take a look at themselves, as he's bigger, a better skater at the same age and with much more developed offensive instincts.

 

[lilidk]

we have to many players that can stand in front of the net , not enough who have bring puck to the zone and pass.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

we have to many players that can stand in front of the net , not enough who have bring puck to the zone and pass.

Actually we need more of both.

 

[Frk It]

While at #9 I'm not sure Rasmussen would have been my pick, all the players I was massively more enthusiastic about were off the board by then.

My observations about the criticism the pick has received would be

1) He looks a player whose capacity to show his skillset may have been limited by his usage and his line-mates. If you look at the rest of the roster, he was still only 3 goals behind the top scorer with 22 less games. And on a roster and with linemates that were primarily set up guys. His passing and playmaking ability was under-utilised due to the strengths and weaknesses of his team-mates.

2)While many other players have been cited, being guys who flourished in junior due to size but didn't make the jump to the NHL, only Brian Boyle is as big, and he wasn't either as fully grown at 18 or, crucially as experienced in an established developmental league. Sure he flourished in US high school hockey, but at a level somewhat below the WHL. While College hockey is obviously harder to score points in than CHL hockey, Boyle's draft +1 year yielded 8 points in 35 games. At the WHL Rasmussen just posted better than PPG, despite being pretty late in the draft year birthday wise (unlike boyle). The other, more offensive guys cited for their junior bullying like Virtanen and Crouse had significantly worse point ratios in their draft years and actually slightly worse than Rasmussen in their draft + 1 years. And Rasmussen is a fair bit bigger than they were, meaning that as long as he gains muscle in the way one would expect, he'll be better driving to and around they net than them.
The only similarly proportioned center, with similar goal/assist ratios picked outside of the top 5 that I could find with a noticeably better stat line was Dave Andreychuck. A player 2/3 that good would be very nice indeed.

Its also worth noting that big guys often take longer to fully develop co-ordination and fluidity. Rasmussen's easy skating stride (for the most part) and hands around the net being pretty damn good already bodes well.

3) He;s not the playmaking genius we all wanted, and probably never will be, but those comparing him with Riley Sheahan need to take a look at themselves, as he's bigger, a better skater at the same age and with much more developed offensive instincts.

Significantly worse pt/game ratios in their draft years? Rasmussen had 1.1 ppg, Virtanen was at 1.0 ppg in his draft year, and Crouse was at .9 ppg.

We are using 'significantly' very liberal here. I don't think you are looking at either of those players actual draft seaons, though. Guessing you are looking at their -1 seasons.

 

[ricky0034]

I've already voiced my opinion on Rasmussen being undersold on this forum but I was just doing some reading from Bob McKenzie. Seems there are a few professionals that disagree with our naysayers as well.

The decision isn't nearly as black and white as some of you would like to believe.






For emphasis:


Can we move on from this hyperbole of the kid lacking upside.

that just means there's a few scouts here and there that have outlier opinions

if one guy has a range of 3rd to 14th and another guy has a range of 4th to 12th yet on a ranking list that literally compiles and takes all of that into account they end up in 5th and 9th respectively then that clearly shows that one of them was overwhelmingly viewed as being in in the top end of their range while the other was overwhelmingly viewed as being in the bottom end of theirs

 

[Birko19]

we have to many players that can stand in front of the net , not enough who have bring puck to the zone and pass.

A side from Abdelkader, no one in our lineup stands in front of the net effectively.

 

[Mlotek]

A side from Abdelkader, no one in our lineup stands in front of the net effectively.

Completely disagree. Jonathan Ericsson is one of the best screens in the business (DeKeyser is not too bad either although he tends to shoot it into his net). He probably led the Red Wings in goals as well... if deflections into own net count. Some are absolute beauties.

This should be a goal of the year candidate, I mean he's so good he isn't even looking at the puck and tips it into the net. You can't teach that. AMAZING NO LOOK TIP!!!
https://www.nhl.com/stars/video/johns-wrists-shot-in-off-defender/t-277437402/c-48316103


Here is an example of DeKeyser's great hand-eye. There was another goal that game that went straight off DeKeyser's stick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OvA1FKoAG0

DeKeyser deflects the Letang shot in.
Ericsson won't be outdone and makes sure to deflect the Malkin shot into the net to make it 2-0.
Now the third goal is a beauty but if you set it to slow motion you can clearly see that Ericsson's blade is the one who makes contact with the puck for the Cullen goal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GGKA7TKGwk

Oh btw, these 3 games were all within an 8 day stretch in January!
Dallas 1-7
San Jose 1-12
Pittsburgh 1-14

 

[lomekian]

Significantly worse pt/game ratios in their draft years? Rasmussen had 1.1 ppg, Virtanen was at 1.0 ppg in his draft year, and Crouse was at .9 ppg.

We are using 'significantly' very liberal here. I don't think you are looking at either of those players actual draft seaons, though. Guessing you are looking at their -1 seasons.

Oops! This is what happens when i'm typing at 2 in the morning local time!

That said, a center going at a better ratio than a winger, and with a better goals ratio when one of the youngest 25% in the draft class is significant, though perhaps not in the way I intended. I still stand by everything else I wrote though...

 

[lomekian]

A side from Abdelkader, no one in our lineup stands in front of the net effectively.

And lets face it, Abby's not actually that good at it despite willingness to do so.

 

[Birko19]

Completely disagree. Jonathan Ericsson is one of the best screens in the business (DeKeyser is not too bad either although he tends to shoot it into his net). He probably led the Red Wings in goals as well... if deflections into own net count. Some are absolute beauties.

This should be a goal of the year candidate, I mean he's so good he isn't even looking at the puck and tips it into the net. You can't teach that. AMAZING NO LOOK TIP!!!
https://www.nhl.com/stars/video/johns-wrists-shot-in-off-defender/t-277437402/c-48316103


Here is an example of DeKeyser's great hand-eye. There was another goal that game that went straight off DeKeyser's stick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OvA1FKoAG0

DeKeyser deflects the Letang shot in.
Ericsson won't be outdone and makes sure to deflect the Malkin shot into the net to make it 2-0.
Now the third goal is a beauty but if you set it to slow motion you can clearly see that Ericsson's blade is the one who makes contact with the puck for the Cullen goal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GGKA7TKGwk

Oh btw, these 3 games were all within an 8 day stretch in January!
Dallas 1-7
San Jose 1-12
Pittsburgh 1-14

Do you really think Ericsson is THAT good of a screen? Mind you this is a guy that is old and we have been petitioning to have him off this team for years. And you're overrating DD's net presence a bit too much here.

BobMac said that Rasmussen is potentially like Holmstrom in front of the net, there's no player on this team that is remotely close to being as good as Homer in front of the net.

 

[Mlotek]

Birko, did you not watch the videos?

 

[Ezekial]

Do you really think Ericsson is THAT good of a screen? Mind you this is a guy that is old and we have been petitioning to have him off this team for years. And you're overrating DD's net presence a bit too much here.

He was making a joke about screening our goalie. They are quite good at it.

 

[Birko19]

Birko, did you not watch the videos?

No I did not, should have before posting back lol. I knew something was suspicious when you said DD is screening a goalie. I missed most games this season, but don't remember him screening opposition goalies, should have known better

 

[muchbetterthanlada]

Don't know much about Rasmussen and didn't get much of a feel for how he plays based on the highlight vids available,
so I watched the top prospects game and made a compilation of his shifts. Take it for what it's worth...

 

[theD86]

Rasmussen will be a solid third line fringe second line center. Larkin will be fine he's more a second line with a lot of work to get to first line center

 

[RedWingzz]

Don't know much about Rasmussen and didn't get much of a feel for how he plays based on the highlight vids available,
so I watched the top prospects game and made a compilation of his shifts. Take it for what it's worth...

He's nowhere near as bad as people were saying. People were obviously angry that he went ahead of some available players (myself included). You can't blame Rasmussen for being taken at 9, so there is no reason to hate on the kid and hope he fails. Looks like he has decent vision, and good hands around the net. I honestly think he could be a solid 2nd line center, but I don't see the high end skill to be a first line center.

His skating absolutely needs to improve though if he's gonna make it. He needs a solid skating coach ASAP. His stride looks a bit "goofy" for a lack of a better term.

 

[Mlotek]

Great compilation Lada.

 

[ChadS]

Don't know much about Rasmussen and didn't get much of a feel for how he plays based on the highlight vids available,
so I watched the top prospects game and made a compilation of his shifts. Take it for what it's worth...

Awesome, thanks.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Don't know much about Rasmussen and didn't get much of a feel for how he plays based on the highlight vids available,
so I watched the top prospects game and made a compilation of his shifts. Take it for what it's worth...

Looks good. His puck protection game is great, that's an important skill to have.