No, he was drafted in 2008 by a Senator team, one season removed from the 2007 SC finals.
No relationship to his present day performance or going forward.
My point is that Karlsson didn't choose to play for such a mediocre team, that's a circumstantial factor beyond his control. His fate not to play on a true Cup contender until at least 2018 was sealed the moment his name was called at the podium.
The fact that he dragged them as far as the ECF as their clear-cut MVP is as good as you can realistically expect from a player in his position.
As if any draftee has such a choice?
The issue is what the drafted player accomplishes given the team circumstances.
I think that was his point. Given the team circumstances in case of Erik Karlsson, he might never reach the Conference Finals with Ottawa again, let alone win the Cup. And that would hurt his resume on paper and his standing in the eye of some observers, even if he deserved better based on his performance.
Nothing to do with the draft. Senators drafted well since 2008, but had very poor coaching - Clouston, MacLean, Cameron until Guy Boucher was hired.
Karlsson was drafted by the Senators. He didn't pick the team, the team picked him.
Karlsson was drafted by the Senators. He didn't pick the team, the team picked him.
Does anyone pick the team that drafts them since 1970?
i think his point is that we can probably safely assume that karlsson was more responsible for spezza's career year (and not the other way around) than leetch was for the third or fourth best scoring season of messier's career?
Does anyone pick the team that drafts them since 1970?
Jagr did.
Nothing to do with the draft.
It wasn't a commentary on the draft. I was simply saying that Karlsson's lack of team success isn't something to hold against him. It's a circumstance beyond his control.
I think Karlsson is noticeably ahead of Leetch after 8 seasons. There's a big gap between "noticeably ahead of Leetch" and "top-10 all-time", though. Also, it should be noted that with Leetch, the way his career ended up was probably disappointing considering how the first 9 seasons went, right?
I think Karlsson is noticeably ahead of Leetch after 8 seasons. There's a big gap between "noticeably ahead of Leetch" and "top-10 all-time", though. Also, it should be noted that with Leetch, the way his career ended up was probably disappointing considering how the first 9 seasons went, right?
Yeah, for me it's not so much that Karlsson's blown away Leetch's achievements... it's more that in order for them to end up in the same tier, he'd have to fall off pretty hard the same way Leetch did. While that's certainly a possibility, I find it unlikely enough that I'm not compelled to think of them in the same tier anymore.
It's not like anyone could have predicted Leetch's fall off after season 9 either.
I mean you're basically saying that you believe Karlsson is on a higher tier based on projection and what he hasn't even done yet.
I'm saying it's abnormal for an all-time great talent to fall off the way Leetch did, so unless Karlsson starts showing signs of doing that I'm just going to assume it's not going to happen. Kind of like how I'm going to assume that McDavid isn't going to be the next Cheechoo, and Price isn't going to be the next Carey. It's not that those things *can't* happen, but they very likely won't.
Happens quite a bit though. Injuries being the main reason.
Limiting the discussion to defencemen, O6 era onwards, You would have Tim Horton - post devestating check by Bill Gadsby, Red Kelly - playing thru 1959 injury then moved to forward, Doug Barkley - lost an eye, Jacques Laperrierre early Norris than a series of injuries, Serge Savard - two serious broken legs. Bobby Orr - everyone is familiar with the story, Brad Park reduced to a crawl,Denis Potvin, Mark Howe,Paul Coffey - game did not mature, the Vladimir Konstantinov tragedy, ...., Andrei Markov - knee injuries, Aaron Ekblad post. Far from an exhaustive list.
Erik Karlsson - achilles tendon.
Seems that defencemen are not destined to have Gordie Howe type longevity.
what a list. if anything, it tells us that we were very spoiled with the bourque, chelios, stevens, macinnis generation. spoiled to the point where we expect that to be the norm.
on the other hand, might this be generational? meaning the kinds of injuries that completely changed horton and savard, ended orr's career, etc, were somewhat reversable or mitigatable for the 80s guys (i would include mark howe -- who in fact continued to improve after his catastrophic injury -- in that category).
and perhaps different kinds of career arcs are also generational due to training? odd that other than pronger the greats who came in after leetch didn't even blossom until around year 8: lidstrom (yr 7), blake (yr 8), chara (yr 7), niedermayer (yr 11[!!!]).