Speculation: 2014 (Larkin) ReDraft thread (And debate)

[Redder Winger]

After Drai and Pasta it comes down to preferences.
I like two-way centers that also score equally or more than wingers, so I rate Larkin and Point ahead of Nylander and Ehlers. Ekblad rounds out the top 5.

I like centers too.... but Nylander is really, really gifted.
Haven't seen enough Ehlers at this point.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Drai/Pasta is a debate to have in its own right, but the area that I see the most interesting debate would be between Larkin-Nylander-Point.


Larkin is playing for a drastically worse team than both Nylander and Point. Offensively speaking, Tampa was the #1 team, Toronto was the #4 team, and Detroit was the #28 team. He broke in as a winger, transitioned and learned center, and now he has come into his own as a two-way top 6 center. Most experience at the NHL level.

Nylander has played with a better team than Larkin, but slightly worse than Point, this was his second full season in the NHL. He's probably had the most protected/restricted usage, having bounced around from playing as a top 6 winger, and dropped as low as playing 4th line center in this season.

Point is playing with the best team around him, and hasn't quite played two full seasons. To his credit, if we are considering Tampa as the best team of the three, he's already carved out a spot in the top 6, which would conceivably be harder than accomplishing the same on the other teams.

Would love to see these guys compared on a level playing field, playing the same roles for the same teams. My guess is Nylander has a lot we haven't seen yet because he's been relatively sheltered and will ultimately be the best of the three.

 

[Shaman464]

Larkin, after a bad year, rebounded with a good year. But he also had every opportunity because virtually nobody played in front of him.


But this can EASILY change. A year ago, Larkin looked anemic. Now he's talked about like the franchise.
For one, I expect a lot of defenseman to rise in the next 2-3 seasons.
Secondly, there are a lot of young guys who played 15-16 minutes. If their coach gives them 19-20 minutes, you could see some of these really step up

I totally agree and said the same in the Ras thread that right now the biggest question mark is how the defensemen in the draft end up shaking out. Right now anywhere between 5 and 8 would be fair for Larkin though with his floor being 12th (if a ton of defensemen do develop and Reinhart is able to lift his game up).

 

[RedWingzz]

If Wings can draft Larkin where they did, imagine what they are going to get this year with their 6th-10th pick! Future looking bright, folks.

6th-10th pick?

The lowest we draft is 8th, and that's if we get no luck whatsoever and 3 teams behind us get lucky. We're picking in the 5-7 range, unless we get real lucky.

 

[newfy]

Nylander is too high on a lot of these lists... top 3 over the other guys in this draft? No way. Point and Larkin are great 2 way centers who outproduce him while doing the heavy lifting on their lines. Nylander is second fiddle to Matthews and a one dimensional winger.

I mean, hes good and right there with those guys but hes not top 3 in a redraft

 

[Pavels Dog]

I like centers too.... but Nylander is really, really gifted.
Haven't seen enough Ehlers at this point.

His father was extremely gifted and very rarely put up the numbers to go with it. His brother is extremely gifted and is dangerously close to bust-territory.
Work ethic is a talent too and I’m not sure I see it in the Nylanders like I see it in Larkin.

 

[ricky0034]

Nylander is too high on a lot of these lists... top 3 over the other guys in this draft? No way. Point and Larkin are great 2 way centers who outproduce him while doing the heavy lifting on their lines. Nylander is second fiddle to Matthews and a one dimensional winger.

I mean, hes good and right there with those guys but hes not top 3 in a redraft

Nylander's also got a track record at his current level of play longer than 1 season which is more than those other guys can say

what if Larkin/Point fall back to being 30-40 point type guys next season? I know i'm waiting to see if they can back it up before seriously considering putting them above a talented guy like Nylander

is it Larkin's 30 point season or his 60 point season that's the fluke? i'm optimistic but I don't think it's set in stone yet

 

[Redder Winger]

His father was extremely gifted and very rarely put up the numbers to go with it. His brother is extremely gifted and is dangerously close to bust-territory.
Work ethic is a talent too and I’m not sure I see it in the Nylanders like I see it in Larkin.

Yeah, well Nylander's father is better than Larkin's father.
And Nylander's brother is better than Larkin's brother.

Seriously.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Yeah, well Nylander's father is better than Larkin's father.
And Nylander's brother is better than Larkin's brother.

Seriously.

I think you missed the point. Between two 60 point players I take the two-dimensional center over the one-dimensional winger even if the winger is supposedly more ”talented”.

 

[newfy]

Nylander's also got a track record at his current level of play longer than 1 season which is more than those other guys can say

what if Larkin/Point fall back to being 30-40 point type guys next season? I know i'm waiting to see if they can back it up before seriously considering putting them above a talented guy like Nylander

is it Larkin's 30 point season or his 60 point season that's the fluke? i'm optimistic but I don't think it's set in stone yet

At the age of 23 Larkin has a 23 goal 45 point season as a 19 year old, and a 63 point 21 year old season.Its not a 28 year old having a career year, its a highly touted young prospect following a development curve. Larkins bad season was a transition to center and working on his defensive play on a low offense team. Nylander doesnt worry about defensive play and play with Matthews who plays Larkins role on that line.

In their time in the league, Larkin has the highest goal total, and highest point total in different seasons between the 2 with better defensive play and playing center. I bet he would put up 70 points playing on Matthews wing

 

[SuperScript29]

Would love to see these guys compared on a level playing field, playing the same roles for the same teams. My guess is Nylander has a lot we haven't seen yet because he's been relatively sheltered and will ultimately be the best of the three.

Not sure how sheltered Nylander is but keep in mind that it can go both ways. Sometimes you shelter players from playing against the best opposition and that gives them an advantage, then you up the competition and they struggle.

 

[Ulysses31]

watched a fair share of leafs last 2 years and as of right now Larkin>Nylander but its possible nylander will be better in years to come. think id take larkin over ehlers as well.

 

[Redder Winger]

I think you missed the point. Between two 60 point players I take the two-dimensional center over the one-dimensional winger even if the winger is supposedly more ”talented”.

I got your point. Your point about Nylander's family not being as good as their talent level.

I demonstrated why that point is invalid.

If you want to criticize Nylander's work ethic, you shouldn't need to bring in his family. He's got his own NHL track record to judge.

Nylander doesn't seem to have debilitating work ethic issues.
As he grows into his job and gets more minutes, he's going to be a monster.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Not sure how sheltered Nylander is but keep in mind that it can go both ways. Sometimes you shelter players from playing against the best opposition and that gives them an advantage, then you up the competition and they struggle.

I mean Larkin and Point played nearly averaged 3 minutes more than Nylander. Both Larkin and Point played a top 6 center role, whereas Nylander played wing at the top 6 level and center at the bottom 6 level. Center is a significantly harder position to adapt to than wing. Less minutes playing a combination of the easier position and a lesser level of the harder position would be sheltered to me; think about how Athanasiou was used for Detroit this year. Sheltering is intended to be a benefit to the player with better matchups, but I think most would agree that Nylander is more likely to increase production with an increased role, maybe not at first, but down the road.

 

[WingsMJN2965]

I mean Larkin and Point played nearly averaged 3 minutes more than Nylander.

Two of those three minutes are because Larkin and Point PK and Nylander doesn't.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Two of those three minutes are because Larkin and Point PK and Nylander doesn't.

So Larkin is an all situations player, Nylander is more of an ES+PP player. Still reads as a form of sheltering to me; Nylander doesn't play in a situation that is probably not a strong suit of his game. That's the only point I'm trying to make. And that being said, I like Larkin more than Nylander right now. I think Nylander projects to be a better offensive player, but if Larkin can mold himself into Bergeron-lite and have an impact in every facet of the game, putting up similar numbers as this year (maybe a modest increase), and being an top faceoff guy and a shut down two way center, I would take him each and every time this discussion comes up.

 

[SirloinUB]

Work ethic is a talent too

Retweet.

Larkin, Cholowski and Rasmussen all have a fantastic drive. They all have great athleticism and think the game well. All are looking like underrated picks and I felt that way from day 1 with each of them.

I absolutely love the mix of youth, skill, size, work ethic, and athleticism assembled by holland and co.

Add in some lottery luck and I’ll be thrilled with the potential of this team.

 

[newfy]

So Larkin is an all situations player, Nylander is more of an ES+PP player. Still reads as a form of sheltering to me; Nylander doesn't play in a situation that is probably not a strong suit of his game. That's the only point I'm trying to make. And that being said, I like Larkin more than Nylander right now. I think Nylander projects to be a better offensive player, but if Larkin can mold himself into Bergeron-lite and have an impact in every facet of the game, putting up similar numbers as this year (maybe a modest increase), and being an top faceoff guy and a shut down two way center, I would take him each and every time this discussion comes up.

So Nylander doesnt have to tire himself out playing short handed and can focus exclusively on offensive minutes while Larkin and Point are both less rested in their offensive minutes because theyve been killing penalties. Add on top of that that they are working harder in the defensive end as well.

Somehow youre trying to spin that in Nylanders favour over Larkin/Point or am I missing your point?

 

[masta8]

Absolutely no way I would ever take nylander over larkin/point. Nylander is not as complete a player as larkin and point..

 

[Pavels Dog]

I got your point. Your point about Nylander's family not being as good as their talent level.

I demonstrated why that point is invalid.

If you want to criticize Nylander's work ethic, you shouldn't need to bring in his family. He's got his own NHL track record to judge.

Nylander doesn't seem to have debilitating work ethic issues.
As he grows into his job and gets more minutes, he's going to be a monster.

It's an easy comparison to make because Willie plays so much like his father (not a bad thing, Michael was always one of my favorite players). But Willie definitely has all the tools and the right situation to have a much better career. He might also be the guy that goes if Toronto wants to upgrade their D via trade.

 

[Lampedampe]

As of right now I'd say that Lakin is in the same tier as Point, Ehlers, Nylander. And to me that's the only thing that matters, if you were to rank them one by one you could argue for weeks, it would only really come down to personal preference.

Larkin was a damn good pick at 15, especially since he wasn't a no-rainer at the time.

 

[obey86]

Drai/Pasta is a debate to have in its own right, but the area that I see the most interesting debate would be between Larkin-Nylander-Point.


Larkin is playing for a drastically worse team than both Nylander and Point. Offensively speaking, Tampa was the #1 team, Toronto was the #4 team, and Detroit was the #28 team. He broke in as a winger, transitioned and learned center, and now he has come into his own as a two-way top 6 center. Most experience at the NHL level.

Nylander has played with a better team than Larkin, but slightly worse than Point, this was his second full season in the NHL. He's probably had the most protected/restricted usage, having bounced around from playing as a top 6 winger, and dropped as low as playing 4th line center in this season.

Point is playing with the best team around him, and hasn't quite played two full seasons. To his credit, if we are considering Tampa as the best team of the three, he's already carved out a spot in the top 6, which would conceivably be harder than accomplishing the same on the other teams.

Would love to see these guys compared on a level playing field, playing the same roles for the same teams. My guess is Nylander has a lot we haven't seen yet because he's been relatively sheltered and will ultimately be the best of the three.

I think the whole "Player A plays on a worse team and got the same amount of points as player B who plays on the significantly better team, therefore player A is better" line of thinking I see from so many people is often very flawed and overlooks the TOI aspect of putting up points. There are a lot of players on bad teams who put up a good amount of points but are only getting so much ice time on said bad team because the team is bad. Put them on, say a Tampa, and their ice team likely declines and so does their ability to put up points. Yes, individual talent and teammates affect points, but so does TOI. The latter is too often ignored. I think someone like Ryan O'Reilly is a good example of being an overrated player because he has played on shitty teams nearly his entire career and gotten tons of ice team because of it. But the dude can play like 21 min a game (near the top of the NHL) and barely crack 60 points. Good/solid player? Would I love to have him on my team? Of course! But overrated (offensively) because he plays big minutes on shitty teams. Absolutely IMO.

Not really a rebuttal to your post i'm quoting and i'm not even disagreeing with you, just kind of thinking out loud

 

[Hen Kolland]

So Nylander doesnt have to tire himself out playing short handed and can focus exclusively on offensive minutes while Larkin and Point are both less rested in their offensive minutes because theyve been killing penalties. Add on top of that that they are working harder in the defensive end as well.

Somehow youre trying to spin that in Nylanders favour over Larkin/Point or am I missing your point?

I'm not spinning anything. My post at the very beginning says that I think the most intriguing debate to have in this redraft as of today is between Point-Larkin-Nylander. Larkin and Point play more minutes because they are more complete, all-situation stylistic players. Nylander plays fewer minutes because he's either lacking the defensive portion of the game, or he's being used in more of an offensive role by coaching because they view his contributions there more valuable than if he was splitting energy between scenarios.

This is a redraft after all, so the point of this debate is, which player do you identify being better. I'm not spinning anything, but just laying out some of the grounds for the debate, because there are so many small nuances that can factor in to a decision when looking at these 3 players. And that's why I mention wishing we could view all of them in the same scenario on the same team.

 

[Hen Kolland]

I think the whole "Player A plays on a worse team and got the same amount of points as player B who plays on the significantly better team, therefore player A is better" line of thinking I see from so many people is often very flawed and overlooks the TOI aspect of putting up points. There are a lot of players on bad teams who put up a good amount of points but are only getting so much ice time on said bad team because the team is bad. Put them on, say a Tampa, and their ice team likely declines and so does their ability to put up points. Yes, individual talent and teammates affect points, but so does TOI. The latter is too often ignored. I think someone like Ryan O'Reilly is a good example of being an overrated player because he has played on ****ty teams nearly his entire career and gotten tons of ice team because of it. But the dude can play like 21 min a game (near the top of the NHL) and barely crack 60 points. Good/solid player? Would I love to have him on my team? Of course! But overrated (offensively) because he plays big minutes on ****ty teams. Absolutely IMO.

Not really a rebuttal to your post i'm quoting and i'm not even disagreeing with you, just kind of thinking out loud

I think it's a two way street. There are players who have artificially propped up numbers, no doubt. There are players on bad teams that might draw more minutes compared to what they would draw on better teams. But with young players, I find it unlikely that they are being force-fed minutes that they couldn't earn on any team. Point and Larkin are virtually the same in ATOI, and the teams are composed significantly different. I like to think that you drop either of those players in Toronto, they continue to be close to the same TOI because of the PK element, but you never know because of Babcock being a little less forgiving with youth.

Players like Tatar would be a good example of the point you are making though. Pulling around 17 minutes a game for a bad team, gets traded to a contender with a bit more depth, his minutes drop and his production dries up. Granted there's a big, big wrench in that example with the trade and getting acclimated to a new team.

 

[obey86]

I think it's a two way street. There are players who have artificially propped up numbers, no doubt. There are players on bad teams that might draw more minutes compared to what they would draw on better teams. But with young players, I find it unlikely that they are being force-fed minutes that they couldn't earn on any team. Point and Larkin are virtually the same in ATOI, and the teams are composed significantly different. I like to think that you drop either of those players in Toronto, they continue to be close to the same TOI because of the PK element, but you never know because of Babcock being a little less forgiving with youth.

Players like Tatar would be a good example of the point you are making though. Pulling around 17 minutes a game for a bad team, gets traded to a contender with a bit more depth, his minutes drop and his production dries up. Granted there's a big, big wrench in that example with the trade and getting acclimated to a new team.

no doubt, agreed!