Meet a New Canuck: Philip Larsen

[BobbyJazzLegs]

hardly looks top 6 to me. he offers far less than stecher in a pretty similar package

 

[biturbo19]

Like I said, because he is way too soft defensively and makes a lot of bad moves in his own end.

He's definitely slick to look at with his above average skating and quick hands with the passing and a decent shot, but if you sit down and only watch him, not the game, you will notice what the coaches are seeing: A player not fullfilling a complete role of a defenseman.

It might work if you are as good as Erik Karlsson, but if your level is "fairly good offensively in KHL" it's not enough to carry over in to the NHL.

I find it hard to imagine what there is to be gleaned in watching only one single player, and not the game.

Zeroing in on what a single player is doing is entirely reasonble...but you still have to do that within the context of the game itself, and what they're doing relative to all of the game going on around them.


As to this silly Erik Karlsson comparison...Thanks a lot Pierre.

But the reality for Larsen with the Canucks this year, is that he doesn't have to be anywhere near as good as Karlsson, to be a valuable contributor to our lineup. Nobody is expecting him to log half a game in minutes or go PPG over the season or match up against quality offensive players in tough minutes and defensive zone starts.

The ask is basically:

1)Show some chemistry and spark on the PP with the Sedins.

2)Don't be a complete trainwreck 5v5.

 

[Vandalay Industries]

I find it hard to imagine what there is to be gleaned in watching only one single player, and not the game.

Zeroing in on what a single player is doing is entirely reasonble...but you still have to do that within the context of the game itself, and what they're doing relative to all of the game going on around them.


As to this silly Erik Karlsson comparison...Thanks a lot Pierre.

But the reality for Larsen with the Canucks this year, is that he doesn't have to be anywhere near as good as Karlsson, to be a valuable contributor to our lineup. Nobody is expecting him to log half a game in minutes or go PPG over the season or match up against quality offensive players in tough minutes and defensive zone starts.

The ask is basically:

1)Show some chemistry and spark on the PP with the Sedins.

2)Don't be a complete trainwreck 5v5.

You clearly didn't grasp the point in my statement, so I'll cut to the chase, in order to not confuse you with a long answer:

Larsen is too weak defensively for a player who is pretty average offensively for an NHL player!

I find it hard to imagine what there is to be gleaned in watching only one single player, and not the game.

Probably a good thing, you're not a scout.

 

[Hit the post]

Like I said, because he is way too soft defensively and makes a lot of bad moves in his own end.

He's definitely slick to look at with his above average skating and quick hands with the passing and a decent shot, but if you sit down and only watch him, not the game, you will notice what the coaches are seeing: A player not fullfilling a complete role of a defenseman.

It might work if you are as good as Erik Karlsson, but if your level is "fairly good offensively in KHL" it's not enough to carry over in to the NHL.

Actually I was referring to Martin Marincin (always scratched my head why he was always sent down to the farm when I thought he was among the better Oiler defenders).

 

[Vandalay Industries]

Actually I was referring to Martin Marincin (always scratched my head why he was always sent down to the farm when I thought he was among the better Oiler defenders).

Ah, yes. I see that now. My bad.

 

[me2]

I find it hard to imagine what there is to be gleaned in watching only one single player, and not the game.

Zeroing in on what a single player is doing is entirely reasonble...but you still have to do that within the context of the game itself, and what they're doing relative to all of the game going on around them.


As to this silly Erik Karlsson comparison...Thanks a lot Pierre.

I was living the dream, Karlsson Lidstrom Chara and some guy named Tanev. Our future was so bright.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

.@craigjbutton: I don't think Philip Larsen is an NHL player. If Philip Larsen is on your team, I don't think you're a very good team

Can't argue here. He's terrible. So is Tryamkin.... ugh. Everyone picks us to finish last or bottom 3 again this year. Gonna be a long year.

 

[rune74]

.@craigjbutton: I don't think Philip Larsen is an NHL player. If Philip Larsen is on your team, I don't think you're a very good team

Can't argue here. He's terrible. So is Tryamkin.... ugh. Everyone picks us to finish last or bottom 3 again this year. Gonna be a long year.

Was good last night.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Was good last night.

Was average playing against AHL fodder. Gets knocked over with every gust of wind. Doesn't belong in NHL.

 

[rune74]

Was average playing against AHL fodder. Gets knocked over with every gust of wind. Doesn't belong in NHL.

OK, thanks for your insight.

 

[VanJack]

This guy may bring some offense, but my-my-my, in his own zone he's like a reed in the wind....and at 26-27 it's not like he's ever going to bulk up...what is it about Jimbo and his flyers on potential pp d-men?....he was saying the same kind of things about Clendening....the only way to acquire a pp quarterback is to draft 'em....oops, I forgot, they actually did draft one in Forsling, but he's suiting up for the Hawks to start the season.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

We lost Forsling for nothing. Much better version of Larson.

 

[The Stig]

We lost Forsling for nothing. Much better version of Larson.

Thanks for your insightful input.

 

[biturbo19]

This guy may bring some offense, but my-my-my, in his own zone he's like a reed in the wind....and at 26-27 it's not like he's ever going to bulk up...what is it about Jimbo and his flyers on potential pp d-men?....he was saying the same kind of things about Clendening....the only way to acquire a pp quarterback is to draft 'em....oops, I forgot, they actually did draft one in Forsling, but he's suiting up for the Hawks to start the season.

I think the thing is that, like Canucks fans who fancy themselves real smart have been *****ing about for years now since Ehrhoff left...Benning has perhaps noticed the Canucks haven't had a quality PPQB back there in many years. And perhaps he wants to find one.

 

[F A N]

This guy may bring some offense, but my-my-my, in his own zone he's like a reed in the wind....and at 26-27 it's not like he's ever going to bulk up...what is it about Jimbo and his flyers on potential pp d-men?....he was saying the same kind of things about Clendening....the only way to acquire a pp quarterback is to draft 'em....oops, I forgot, they actually did draft one in Forsling, but he's suiting up for the Hawks to start the season.

Well if Benning is going to take a flyer on a player, don't you want him to take a flyer on a player with offensive upside? And Gillis mostly did the same thing when it came to Dmen. Gragnani, Barker, Weber... these guys had zero chance of being good defensively.

 

[VanJack]

Well if Benning is going to take a flyer on a player, don't you want him to take a flyer on a player with offensive upside? And Gillis mostly did the same thing when it came to Dmen. Gragnani, Barker, Weber... these guys had zero chance of being good defensively.

And mercifully they cut their losses with all these guys....and unless Larsen can get a lot-stronger in his own zone, he'll be next...very few NHL teams can afford to carry a guy on a roster who's just a second-unit pp guy.....Stecher will have his job by Christmas, if not sooner.

 

[me2]

Forward anyone?

 

[Shareefruck]

Thanks for your insightful input.

That was insightful input.

 

[Shareefruck]

Well if Benning is going to take a flyer on a player, don't you want him to take a flyer on a player with offensive upside? And Gillis mostly did the same thing when it came to Dmen. Gragnani, Barker, Weber... these guys had zero chance of being good defensively.

What did Gillis give up to get Gragnani, Barker, and Weber, though? I forget. I can't imagine it was very much, though.

 

[biturbo19]

What did Gillis give up to get Gragnani, Barker, and Weber, though? I forget. I can't imagine it was very much, though.

Seems like major reaching when your argument is essentially, "well the last guy got his useless castaways for cheap!"

 

[geebaan]

Seems like major reaching when your argument is essentially, "well the last guy got his useless castaways for cheap!"

for free.......instead of using picks that could actually be useful.

 

[alternate]

for free.......instead of using picks that could actually be useful.

3rd for Alberts. 1st++ for Ballard. Gillis moved picks for dmen too.


I've been happy with Larsen. Some defensive issues for sure, but I'm okay trading a bit of defense for some offence. It's going to take a few regular season games to get a feel for whether the O is worth the D, but this organization needs more aggressive dmen, not less. Stecher probably did outplay Larsen, but it's a no-brainer to do what you need to do to keep both.

 

[me2]

3rd for Alberts. 1st++ for Ballard. Gillis moved picks for dmen too.


I've been happy with Larsen. Some defensive issues for sure, but I'm okay trading a bit of defense for some offence. It's going to take a few regular season games to get a feel for whether the O is worth the D, but this organization needs more aggressive dmen, not less. Stecher probably did outplay Larsen, but it's a no-brainer to do what you need to do to keep both.

Alberts was a deadline acquisition though, so a different situation, you need to pay something that time of year as there are none left as UFAs.

Ballard for sure though. And Ehrhoff is another.

 

[Shareefruck]

Seems like major reaching when your argument is essentially, "well the last guy got his useless castaways for cheap!"

Nonsense. You're not inherently hurting the team by taking a flier on types of players that you desperately need that are intriguing but unlikely to work out. You are hurting the team by actively spending useful assets to find them. One is something that every GM should look into, and the other is a total waste and detriment.

It makes all the difference, IMO. If Benning got Larsen or Clendenning or Vey for free, they would be legitimately solid depth moves/shot-in-the-dark no-risk-limited-reward projects. Nothing wrong with that-- if anything, an attempt/effort worth applauding. But to spend anything on players of that caliber would be the equivalent of giving up a 1st round pick to ensure getting Stecher or Caligula when they became available. As much as I like those guys, that would be very dumb.

Gillis is no saint. He's made some individual moves that are as dumb as Benning's. But picking up Weber, Barker, or Gragnani for free (?? Could have sworn we spent something to get Gragnani) are not among them, IMO.

 

[Jyrki21]

(?? Could have sworn we spent something to get Gragnani) are not among them, IMO.

Alex Sulzer.