So… why when he went to the sharks ( who were a good team) with Pavalski, Thornton Marleau, Hertl, Burns, Vlasic etc. did he turn into a 30- 40 point d man? Try harder, wrong narrative. Truth is he plays better when his teams are shit. Playing with better players and teams don’t always equal better stats and Karlsson is living proof.
Funny how you don’t talk about the sweep the year before when they made Binnington look like an AHL goalie
The sharks were a good team for ONE year Karlsson has been there, in which he scored 45 points in 53 games. When did he turn into a 30-40 point dman? In his entire tenure with the sharks hes been scoring at a 0.72 points/game pace, which would average 59 points/82 game season.
Might as well call every top 15 players the 2nd best player in the league if they played with McDavid. To me your argument is close to the one used against Draisaitl when called the 2nd best player in the league. "He plays with McDavid if X player played with him he would be as productive as Drai right now." Fact is that we don't know maybe Makar produces even more when he doesn't have to defect the puck to Mack or maybe with the lack of talent he rushes even more or play similar to how Karlsson played back then. Again we don't know we can only speculate.
I'm glad beating Colorado in a November game without Landeskog, Nishukin, Byram and Girard numbs the pain of getting eliminated by the same team two years in a row. Hopefully you're sleeping better now.
In fairness, that was a fluke and Karlsson will never repeat it again.
He's got 2 norris seasons, one with 78 points (10th highest in scoring) and one with 82 (4th highest in scoring). Which one is the "fluke" season?
The top 4, and who said anything about his Norris being a fluke? He was just lucky a lot of the top scorers that year, missed a lot of games.
So it's a fluke and he's lucky to finish top 4, but when he finishes top 10 that's not a fluke? I don't understand your logic here.
