#/Analysis of Larkin: Stacking up to 1C's very well

NickH8

Registered User
Jul 3, 2015
3,647
3,773
Yesa. The only issue is that Larkin will ALWAYS be a step behind the McDavids of the world. He'll be a really good 1C, but he's not going to be top 5. So much of his success is predicated on playing harder... but that playstyle is hard to keep going for an entire season and playoff run. Larkin is kind of in the same mold as a Ryan Kesler or Ryan O'Reilly. He can function as a 1C, obviously, but optimally, he's your AMAZING 2C. Or, he's your shutdown type C on the top line that still gets you 60-70 points and you have a 2C who racks up points. Basically, if Larkin is your 1C, he's really a 1A and you need to have a 1B.
Let's hope that 1B is Veleno
 

ricky0034

Registered User
Jun 8, 2010
14,870
6,955
Did they really though?

Pulkkinen was never anything but a 4A player.
Jurco was a BABCOCK **** up, not a Blashill one. Jurco looked like he could be something, hurt himself and never got back.
Mrazek has never been anything more than an erstwhile inconsistent goalie. Him making the conference finals last year is indicative of Carolina being a good team, not him being a good goalie.
Ouellet was never fast enough for extensive NHL action
Sproul was basically a defensive black hole. He never improved. There was nothing promising about his career once that became apparent in the AHL.
Smith was promising, but it was him being a rock-headed neanderthal that derailed him. When he didn't have to think or have time to think (playoffs), he was good. When he was given any responsibility to make a play or run a PP, he was worthless.
Marchenko was also never fast enough for extensive NHL action.

There was literally one player in this list of guys that you could argue as being "ruined" by a coach and it's not even the current coach of the Wings.

Mantha, AA, Larkin, and Bertuzzi have vastly improved under Blashill.

Tatar was basically the same player throughout his time in Detroit (sloughing off right before the trade happened because he was playing 2nd line minutes with a guy who wasn't Zetterberg or Datsyuk)
Nyquist was literally on his way to a 60-70 point season before the trade to San Jose.

Sproul/Ouellet/Marchenko never improved their biggest weaknesses and Mrazek was a headcase?

hmm I wonder if the guy that coached them all for multiple years when they hit the AHL had something to do with that
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChrisReevesLegs

SoupNazi

Serenity now. Insanity later.
Feb 6, 2010
26,341
14,039
It's amazing how much defense Trashill gets.
He's terrible.
First coach in Red Wings history to miss the playoffs 3 straight years.
Alienates young players so veterans can drive the team to the basement.

I'm not so sure people are defending him, as much as they recognize that as newsyworthy as it is that we've missed the playoffs for three straight years, it's because the Wings have not had a good team for those seasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kliq and TheMule93

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
Sproul/Ouellet/Marchenko never improved their biggest weaknesses and Mrazek was a headcase?

hmm I wonder if the guy that coached them all for multiple years when they hit the AHL had something to do with that

Sproul never learned basic defensive positioning. Given that other defensemen did, this is a Ryan Sproul defect, not a coaching defect.

Ouellet and Marchenko were physically too slow to keep up. Not entirely certain how that’s on the coach that they had heavy feet.

Mrazek has been the same guy since he started. We even brought in “his” goalie coach who ended up working better with Howard.

But yeah, those guys not progressing was totally on Jeff Blashill. The players sometimes just aren’t any damn good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Zetterberg Era

ricky0034

Registered User
Jun 8, 2010
14,870
6,955
Sproul never learned basic defensive positioning. Given that other defensemen did, this is a Ryan Sproul defect, not a coaching defect.

Ouellet and Marchenko were physically too slow to keep up. Not entirely certain how that’s on the coach that they had heavy feet.

Mrazek has been the same guy since he started. We even brought in “his” goalie coach who ended up working better with Howard.

But yeah, those guys not progressing was totally on Jeff Blashill. The players sometimes just aren’t any damn good.

yeah i'm sure it's just a coincidence that so many players did well at lower levels and then failed to progress under his watch

skating is something people improve all the time it's not an unsolvable issue
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChrisReevesLegs

SCD

Registered User
Apr 8, 2018
1,607
1,037
yeah i'm sure it's just a coincidence that so many players did well at lower levels and then failed to progress under his watch

stack up enough "coincidences" and you got yourself a trend
Frankly, that is the case with every prospect pool. Fewer and fewer make it to the next level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kliq

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
yeah i'm sure it's just a coincidence that so many players did well at lower levels and then failed to progress under his watch

skating is something people improve all the time it's not an unsolvable issue

Ouellet and Marchenko were PHYSICALLY outmatched. They weren't physically fast enough to keep up with the guys they were defending without cheating.

Petr Mrazek did well and did badly at all levels. Mrazek is not some example to use about succeeding or failing. Dude had a year and a half of really good hockey in Detroit. Then people found out that he cheats and plays uber aggressive and used it against him and then he didn't work with his goalie coach on that.

Teemu Pulkkinen was the quintessential 4A guy. He clearly had more talent than AHL level, but the only NHL level tool he had was a big shot... and even that was a slow windup that would never work in the NHL.

Why is everyone acting like these guys were ****ing superstars in the minors and oh no, mean ol' Blashill ****ed them up? They all had some kind of thing that was going to be a fatal flaw if they didn't fix it. That's why they tended to be around in the 4th and later. Ouellet was a second rounder and maybe could/should have done more... but he just skated like he was in cement.

It's not a coincidence that these guys failed. They were longshots from the word go (again, aside from maybe Ouellet) and IF they succeeded it would have been a home run. They were guys that had one good tool and that the Wings thought maybe they could sand down the rough edges on everything besides that tool to make them usable.

And I mean, a guy like Ouellet. He had 29 points in 61 games at GRG. He wasn't an offensive dynamo nor a top shutdown defenseman. Marchenko was a bottom pairing shutdown defenseman. Seriously, let's stop acting like the Wings were drafting like gods and it was just the stupid ass player development people who had no idea what to do with them. They took flawed players and tried to fix their flaws. For most of them, they couldn't. And neither could anyone else really, which is why you don't see Ouellet or Marchenko or Pulkkinen in Edmonton or Boston or Toronto lighting up the scoreboard or putting a lid on the other team. They picked high floor guys without much of a ceiling.

Seriously, if the Wings were so bad and ruined so many players, where the hell are any successes of guys after they left here? Obviously a change of scenery should have worked wonders for these guys who were so good but were just stifled by bad coaching.

Oh but wait, it's not their fault anymore, mean ol' Jeff just crushed their confidence so bad that they're worthless as hockey assets. Even after he promoted up to the Wings he even drug those guys down in GRG. It's amazing.

I mean, Nail Yakupov was a G-D superstar before he got to the NHL. Then he came up and flamed out miserably. Angelo Esposito, Julius Honka, Cam Barker, etc. Guys who performed well at lower levels flame out or don't progress literally all the time. Add in the fact that the guys in question for Detroit here all had, at best, 20% chances to even make the NHL, why do you think it's a surprise that none of them turned out to be any good?
 

plymouthmi

Registered User
Jan 17, 2015
181
129
Chicago
The exciting thing for me with Larkin is regardless of whether you think he is already a legit 1st line center, there is still room for growth with him and he's still trying to improve his game. I'm looking forward to seeing what he does next year. I do think his counting stats could improve with a better power play.

Larkin is 56th among NHL centers in points/60 (500 minute minimum.)
FYI, I'm assuming you got this from Natural Stat Trick, and quite a few of the people above Larkin on the list are people who I don't consider to be centers (guys like Konecny, Guentzel, Marner, Nyquist jumped out at me and I'm sure there are others). So he'd actually be a bit higher on a true center list.
 

The Zetterberg Era

Ball Hockey Sucks
Nov 8, 2011
40,957
11,577
Ft. Myers, FL
PAYWALL WARNING FOR THOSE THAT GET UPSET ABOUT THAT:

Dylan Larkin’s compete
It is true that almost every NHLer works hard. Then you have a smaller group, the guys who work harder amongst those hard-working guys. Then there are the guys who compete so hard night in night out in borders on weird. That’s the company Larkin keeps and it’s the stuff that captains are made from.

Bourne: In a league full of exceptional talents, which...

In his tier two, but breaking down who is the best of the best at individual hockey attributes. Not surprised and agree with this quote which is small enough to break out by the rules.
 

Fil Larkmanthanasiou

Registered User
Feb 10, 2018
1,114
603
Nope.

Blashill has put this team to overachieve at two seasons in-a-row.

We need more elite talent, than we need a different coach.

Period.
Wtf???
They finished the season strong because the moron finally realized that AA was much better than anybody on the team other than Larkin and he still finished averaging less than 17 minutes of ice-time per game. Blashill kept going back to that stupid back pass thing on the PP to enter the zone when it clearly doesn't work. These are just 2 examples that are just as stupid as re-signing Cleary over and over again after it was obvious that he was done.
 
Last edited:

MBH

Players Play
Jul 20, 2019
13,497
7,298
SE Michigan
redwingsnow.com
TheAthletic on Larkin as a #1 C

2019-20 NHL Season Preview: Detroit Red Wings
Larkin is a top-line calibre centre, but he’s not in the elite tier and that’s the foundation from which elite teams are generally built upon. Those types of teams have players of Larkin’s ilk usually commanding a second line. And that’s according to this model; Evolving Hockey’s WAR is even less kind


On offence Larkin brings the heat with his speed, but he still struggles at the other end of the ice, giving a lot of his value back.

While Larkin was 37th in points per game at 0.96 among forwards, most of that was due to his huge ice time advantage where he ranked ninth in the league, playing 21:51 per game. His point rate drops substantially when looking at points per 60 where he ranked 64th with 2.64. At 5-on-5 that drops further as his 1.94 points per 60 ranked 110th.

That’s the rub with Larkin, who’s obviously not the problem in Detroit – far from it – but may not be the long-term solution to the No. 1 centre problem that plagues all rebuilding teams.
.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446

Stop it with P/60. Seriously. I'd rather have a guy like Larkin who scores 0.96 PPG while being defensively responsible and driving play for most of the game over a guy who has a better rate stat. Why on Earth is Larkin *penalized* for being good enough that the Wings want/need him on the ice that much? A guy who can sustain 21:51 a game and still score at 0.96 or more is a guy I want as my 1C. And that's with having absolute bull**** on the back end passing to him.

Like I understand where you're driving at with this and what the author is trying to say. If Larkin was on a better team, he'd probably score more points and his overall ice time would be less. You're missing the forest for the trees on this one. P/60 annoys me as a stat because while it does put some context to the stat, it blurs the flow of the game context. Like if the Wings are up 2-0 entering the third or 2-1 or 1-0, the team is trying to possess the puck and be responsible defensively more than going balls out to score. P/60 ranks all minutes and situations equally when that's simply not the case.
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,077
12,078
Tampere, Finland
Marchenko were physically too slow to keep up. Not entirely certain how that’s on the coach that they had heavy feet.

Marchenko was almost the last pick on the draft. How he did progress was a success, not a failure.

Guy also had several serious injury issues (knee + ankle).

Must be Blashill's fault.
 

MBH

Players Play
Jul 20, 2019
13,497
7,298
SE Michigan
redwingsnow.com
Stop it with P/60. Seriously. I'd rather have a guy like Larkin who scores 0.96 PPG while being defensively responsible and driving play for most of the game over a guy who has a better rate stat. Why on Earth is Larkin *penalized* for being good enough that the Wings want/need him on the ice that much? A guy who can sustain 21:51 a game and still score at 0.96 or more is a guy I want as my 1C. And that's with having absolute bull**** on the back end passing to him.

Like I understand where you're driving at with this and what the author is trying to say. If Larkin was on a better team, he'd probably score more points and his overall ice time would be less. You're missing the forest for the trees on this one. P/60 annoys me as a stat because while it does put some context to the stat, it blurs the flow of the game context. Like if the Wings are up 2-0 entering the third or 2-1 or 1-0, the team is trying to possess the puck and be responsible defensively more than going balls out to score. P/60 ranks all minutes and situations equally when that's simply not the case.

Larkin IS OUR 1C.
Nobody disputes that.
Chill out.

The question is, is Larkin good enough to be the 1C of a good team.

And that's going to be something we'll find out in the coming years.
 

MBH

Players Play
Jul 20, 2019
13,497
7,298
SE Michigan
redwingsnow.com
I'm pretty darn comfortable with Larkin at 1C going forward, and I don't doubt the Wings can win with him there. The question is who is behind him.

We'll see.
But the Athletic's analysis is on topic and worth considering in a thread like this.

I don't think he's there yet. But he's continued to improve, so he for me, he may get there yet.

Hoping Veleno will give him a run for the money, or at least maybe be a good #2.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
We'll see.
But the Athletic's analysis is on topic and worth considering in a thread like this.

I don't think he's there yet. But he's continued to improve, so he for me, he may get there yet.

Hoping Veleno will give him a run for the money, or at least maybe be a good #2.

Here's another way of looking at it. Where do you rank Ryan O'Reilly among centers? I don't think he's top 10. arguably not top20. I think Larkin is arguably already in that same range as ROR. St. Louis just won a Cup with that guy because they had the right team around him.

If Veleno becomes as effective as Larkin, the Wings could really start rolling again. They might not be the top center combo in the league, but they wouldn't be fun to go against.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NotLeddy

Mlotek

Registered User
Feb 28, 2017
921
346
South of US Border
Ouellet and Marchenko were PHYSICALLY outmatched. They weren't physically fast enough to keep up with the guys they were defending without cheating.
Perhaps true for XO, but not true for Marchenko. He was the far better skater compared to his defensive partner (Human Pylon V2). Marchenko's defensive position was so good he didn't really have to cheat.

In the end he decided to go back to KHL where he can be top dog compared to bottom pairing shutdown guy in the NHL. Which is a shame cause I loved watching him defensively.


ts said:
Teemu Pulkkinen was the quintessential 4A guy. He clearly had more talent than AHL level, but the only NHL level tool he had was a big shot... and even that was a slow windup that would never work in the NHL.
Pulki had underrated playmaking ability. The biggest 'perceived' tool he had was the one timer but as you said, too long wind up, too slow shot, and lacked accuracy on it.

From what I recall, he spent much of his time in Detroit in the pressbox. My guess is coaches lack of confidence in his defensive game. Same reason Blash was benching AA during Lightning playoffs, despite him being the only guy generating any offensive chances.

I love Pulki, but there is a difference between dominating AHL offensively, and being defensively sound enough for coaches to trust you in the NHL.

Generally when someone gets called up mid-season a coach just wants someone to plug into the bottom 6 without being a defensive liability.


ts said:
Seriously, if the Wings were so bad and ruined so many players, where the hell are any successes of guys after they left here? Obviously a change of scenery should have worked wonders for these guys who were so good but were just stifled by bad coaching.
Marchenko has an Olympic Gold and KHL championship to his name the past 2 seasons. Sure he didn't make stick in the NHL (mutual termination), he would still be a solid shutdown D-man (lower pairing) in the NHL if he chose to stay.


There aren't many examples of players being ruined by coaching but I would put Jurco as one. Jurco's biggest toolset in the AHL was being a netfront guy with good tipping ability and lighting quick hands to swing at loose pucks.

When he got called up to Detroit he was often scratched, and when he did play, Babcock tried to turn him into a 4th line grinder. Even at the start when he was playing lower 3rd line minutes he was on pace for 30+ points which is pretty good for 3rd line production. His 2-way deal with Edmonton is probably his last shot at the NHL.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
Perhaps true for XO, but not true for Marchenko. He was the far better skater compared to his defensive partner (Human Pylon V2). Marchenko's defensive position was so good he didn't really have to cheat.

In the end he decided to go back to KHL where he can be top dog compared to bottom pairing shutdown guy in the NHL. Which is a shame cause I loved watching him defensively.



Pulki had underrated playmaking ability. The biggest 'perceived' tool he had was the one timer but as you said, too long wind up, too slow shot, and lacked accuracy on it.

From what I recall, he spent much of his time in Detroit in the pressbox. My guess is coaches lack of confidence in his defensive game. Same reason Blash was benching AA during Lightning playoffs, despite him being the only guy generating any offensive chances.

I love Pulki, but there is a difference between dominating AHL offensively, and being defensively sound enough for coaches to trust you in the NHL.

Generally when someone gets called up mid-season a coach just wants someone to plug into the bottom 6 without being a defensive liability.



Marchenko has an Olympic Gold and KHL championship to his name the past 2 seasons. Sure he didn't make stick in the NHL (mutual termination), he would still be a solid shutdown D-man (lower pairing) in the NHL if he chose to stay.


There aren't many examples of players being ruined by coaching but I would put Jurco as one. Jurco's biggest toolset in the AHL was being a netfront guy with good tipping ability and lighting quick hands to swing at loose pucks.

When he got called up to Detroit he was often scratched, and when he did play, Babcock tried to turn him into a 4th line grinder. Even at the start when he was playing lower 3rd line minutes he was on pace for 30+ points which is pretty good for 3rd line production. His 2-way deal with Edmonton is probably his last shot at the NHL.

For the last one, that was my point. Jurco was wrecked by Babcock’s coaching. For the most part, the rest of the guys were simply eh to meh.

Marchenko is a guy the Wings could have kept in a bottom pairing role, but they tried sneaking him through waivers to keep Sproul. But a solid bottom pairing shutdown guy would not be the difference between them being good or bad. Yeah, Marchenko could have stuck around, but he had limitations on his game at the NHL level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mlotek

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
For the last one, that was my point. Jurco was wrecked by Babcock’s coaching. For the most part, the rest of the guys were simply eh to meh.

Marchenko is a guy the Wings could have kept in a bottom pairing role, but they tried sneaking him through waivers to keep Sproul. But a solid bottom pairing shutdown guy would not be the difference between them being good or bad. Yeah, Marchenko could have stuck around, but he had limitations on his game at the NHL level.

Agreed about Marchenko, but at the same time Toronto picked him up and did nothing with him as well. I think "meh" describes him well.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->