Different situations. Zibanejad has come over young and isn't the same kind of player. He has never shown dominance at any level of play. He has tools and potential though.
This isn't the same situation at all...we were talking purely about potential with Rundblad and it never bothers me when someone has a differing opinion. What bothers me is when the arguments are illogical or flat out false (like saying Zibanejad had a better year than Silfverberg or calling what Silfverberg has done so far unimpressive).
I don't have to wait until someone is the same age to compare them, either. Everyone has a different developmental curve, and they are two very different kinds of players. Silfverberg's adjustment was always going to be harder due to this.
Anyway...I don't like this kind of thing either because a lot of comments make it become confrontational. I think they're both going to be good players. I just think that Silfverberg will be on a different level to Zibanejad.
My mistake, Zibanejad is only two years behind Silf. Well, it's a half mistake because he technically is about 2.5 years younger than Silfverberg (early 1993 vs late 1990), which was what I was trying to stress.
They are two players with different styles, and you're right that Silfverberg's adjustment will be more difficult as Zibanejad already played a very North American style in Sweden, but age is still a factor that should be considered.
Two and half years of physical development is quite significant. I have to believe that, in 2.5 years, Zibanejad will be more filled out and much stronger than he is today. Silfverberg has already had those 2.5 years to train and improve his strength, so he physically is further ahead on his trajectory. That's not to suggest he's stronger by any means, but that he's reached maybe 80% of his personal physical development, whereas Zibanejad is at his personal 70%. As a result, Silfverberg is physically a 10% more finished project than Zibanejad (using these arbitrary numbers) and this should be factored into determining who will have the better career.
From a skills perspective, as you said, a prospect's progress is not linear, and thus there is a level of uncertainty inherent in projecting any young player's career. We don't know if Silfverberg's going to skyrocket and Zib's going to stagnate, or vice versa, or whatever else may happen. However, if you're trying to ascertain which prospect is going to develop into the greater player, in my opinion it's best to eliminate as many other variables as possible (or just account for them, if elimination is not possible). Since both prospects entered the NHL at the same time, we don't have to consider number of years spent on North American ice, but age should be acknowledged here because Silverberg has had two more years than Zibanejad honing his skills in professional leagues.
As for the notion that Silverberg has dominated the SEL while Zibanejad was an average player, I think it's in large part because of that European (Silfverberg) vs North American style (Zibanejad) that Silf was the better player in Europe. Not entirely due to that factor, but I think it's important to remember.
Silverberg should not be given credit twice for his style of play in saying that:
- He dominated the SEL
- He is having a difficult time adjusting to the NHL
Also, Zibanejad should not be criticized twice for
his style of play, in saying that:
- He did not dominate in the SEL
- He is having an easier transition to the NHL
There's a trade-off for playing that European style; while you may dominate the SEL, you will have a more difficult shift to the NHL. Silfverberg reaped the rewards in Sweden, and Zibanejad is now receiving his benefits in the NHL.
That said, they're both great players. I'm primarily playing Devil's advocate here, though I do think Zibanejad has the higher boom/bust potential and consequently prefer him.