Is Ronalds Kenins a better hockey player than Brandon Prust?

[Captain Bowie]

Chris Higgins is a better hockey player than Kenins right now; however, this team needs to develop younger players so Ronalds Kenins is the better fit for what this team needs to do.

Higgins would be best utilized on a playoff team that's taking a legitimate run at the Stanley Cup, in a 3rd line role.

This exactly. Higgins should get us a decent return at the deadline and do for a St. Louis or Tampa Bay what he did for us in 2011.

To be honest, we should all be very happy if Kenins turns out to be as good as Higgins.

 

[vanuck]

I guess you can consider it 2nd line production, stats wise, but no regular team is winning the cup with Higgins as their 2LW.

If you stuck him in that slot in, say, Chicago, it would probably work fine but when you don't have their kind of depth and top-end star-power, I don't really see it happening.

Is that an established fact though? It's sort of chicken and egg. Is it a "regular" team because Higgins is on the 2nd line, or conversely is he there because it's a regular team?

There are multiple wingers who are 40-point guys at best and won Cups while playing on their teams' 2nd line. Having him there in of itself isn't an issue.

 

[vancityluongo]

Kenins is not better than Higgins haha. Some of you guys have been playing too much EA NHL where the "best" players are the ones with the highest skating and hitting attributes and nothing else matters. Seems in line with Bennings thinking, so that might be it too...

 

[LeftCoast]

I guess you can consider it 2nd line production, stats wise, but no regular team is winning the cup with Higgins as their 2LW.

If you stuck him in that slot in, say, Chicago, it would probably work fine but when you don't have their kind of depth and top-end star-power, I don't really see it happening.

The LA Kings won a Stanley Cup with Tanner Pearson as their 2nd line LW.

Of course Higgins a better hockey player than Ronalds Kenins. I think he is ideally suited as a 3rd line winger who can move up to the 2nd line to fill in for injuries or to provide a different look to the line up. But don't under rate his utility; he's the type of player that any team would want for a Stanley Cup run.

 

[ahmon]

The LA Kings won a Stanley Cup with Tanner Pearson as their 2nd line LW.

And Pearson put up 12 pts in 24 gms on the 70s line.

In comparison higgins only had 8 in our cup run.

I bet you most teams rather have Pearson than Higgins even though Higgins is more proven.

 

[arsmaster*]

Chris Higgins was on the 3rd line until the San Jose series in 2011.

 

[ahmon]

Chris Higgins was on the 3rd line until the San Jose series in 2011.

What about the next 3 1st round losses.

2 pts....

He disappeared.

 

[LeftCoast]

And Pearson put up 12 pts in 24 gms on the 70s line.

In comparison higgins only had 8 in our cup run.

I bet you most teams rather have Pearson than Higgins even though Higgins is more proven.

So Pearson had 4 more points, playing 2nd line minutes and 2nd unit PP time, with Carter and Toffoli, while Higgins played 3rd line minutes with Lapierre / Hodgson / Malhotra and Hansen, with virtually no PP time. Okay - sounds like a fair comparison.

The only thing in Pearson (or Kenins) advantage is that they are both younger and likely to improve.

 

[arsmaster*]

What about the next 3 1st round losses.

2 pts....

He disappeared.

Who cares, Kenins is not better than him....Kenins comp is Prust.

 

[ahmon]

Who cares, Kenins is not better than him....Kenins comp is Prust.

he brought up Pearson...

 

[arsmaster*]

he brought up Pearson...

I didn't quote anybody.

Fact of the matter is Chris Higgins is better at hockey. Period.

It shouldn't even be up for debate.

 

[ahmon]

So Pearson had 4 more points, playing 2nd line minutes and 2nd unit PP time, with Carter and Toffoli, while Higgins played 3rd line minutes with Lapierre / Hodgson / Malhotra and Hansen, with virtually no PP time. Okay - sounds like a fair comparison.

The only thing in Pearson (or Kenins) advantage is that they are both younger and likely to improve.

Samuelsson was injured against Nashville. Higgins was moved up to the 2nd line and got power play time.

He never played with Malhotra. Malhotra had the eye injury and came back only in the finals in a limited 4th C role.

It isn't a fair comparison, because Pearson was able to produce as a "rookie".
A rookie putting up 12 pts in 24 playoff games is unreal. Higgins quite seasoned, 28 year old when we went on the run.

How did Higgins do in the playoff in 2012? 2013? zero points.

 

[ahmon]

I didn't quote anybody.

Fact of the matter is Chris Higgins is better at hockey. Period.

It shouldn't even be up for debate.

you quoted me. and I was responding to the pearson post.

You are right. I did quote your first post first.

 

[arsmaster*]

Why are you so hung up on playoff production....Jon Toews had 14 in 24 on way to winning a cup.

I could see the comparable if Ronnie was putting up 50 points or something, you know, like 24 year old Chris Higgins did.

I like Ronnie, alot. At this stage in his career he can't hold a candle to what Higgins can do on the ice.

This thread is stupid, there really isn't a basis for comparison.

 

[ahmon]

Why are you so hung up on playoff production....Jon Toews had 14 in 24 on way to winning a cup.

I could see the comparable if Ronnie was putting up 50 points or something, you know, like 24 year old Chris Higgins did.

I like Ronnie, alot. At this stage in his career he can't hold a candle to what Higgins can do on the ice.

This thread is stupid, there really isn't a basis for comparison.

because its important.

Toews is also a matchup C that can play a shutdown role and plays a more direct game. Toews is underrated at going hard to the net. Its create a lot of pressure on the other team and defense.

If Toews consistently puts up 14 in 24 games pace (he doesn't), I would say the same thing and call Toews overrated.

Sure if we are comparing young Higgins to Kenins, I take Higgins 10/10.

But we are comparing 32 year old Higgins vs Kenins, this is where I feel their production is likely comparable, but Kenins offer more physicality, forechecking ability and simply a player that is harder to play against.

 

[topheavyhookjaw]

really? a contender would have higgins on the 3rd line? not impactful enough.

2 pts in last 15 playoff games.

21 pts in career 62 playoff games.

he's an ok 3rd liner, but surely not a great one on a contender.

Kenins is already better yes.

Samuelsson was injured against Nashville. Higgins was moved up to the 2nd line and got power play time.

He never played with Malhotra. Malhotra had the eye injury and came back only in the finals in a limited 4th C role.

It isn't a fair comparison, because Pearson was able to produce as a "rookie".
A rookie putting up 12 pts in 24 playoff games is unreal. Higgins quite seasoned, 28 year old when we went on the run.

How did Higgins do in the playoff in 2012? 2013? zero points.

Yeah, Higgins is a complementary player, when his line is going he'll get points, when it's not he's not going to create a whole lot on his own. You don't get him to carry a second or third line, he's going to fit somewhere in your bottom 9 forwards where the chemistry is best and in a wholly unspectacular way score some points and play sound defensive hockey. You're smart enough to know playoff production is hugely variable and that his last few playoff series mean very little to what he's going to do in his next one.

At the end of the day if I was a contending team that was strong down the middle but thin at the wing position he's an ideal target, cheap, versatile, can play PK effectively, and defensively sound enough to contribute when he's not scoring. He's also not going to be expensive to acquire because he's tremendously unsexy as a player (abs aside).

His ES production is fine, but he's truly an awful PP player.

I do agree that he gets way too much hate. The guy busts his ass every shift and every game. Produces for what he's paid, is solid defensively and seems like a high character individual. He is a frustrating player to watch since he isn't a hitter, not flashy offensively and misses a lot of high scoring chances these days but the bottom line is that he's well worth his salary.

Players who aren't big, aren't super fast, and don't play a flashy game will always be under-appreciated, which is partly how the Canucks acquired him for such a low price initially (and why some team is likely to do the same).

 

[arsmaster*]

Fair enough Ahmon, I'm gonna leave the thread, but in parting I don't think playing a more physical game necessarily makes you more difficult to play against. Dorsett is physical and if I'm the opposition coach, I'm licking my chops at the thoughts of getting my good players out against him. I think being a good board player and good defensive player is more important than flushing the d out on the forecheck, not that it isn't important, but I think Higgins can do a lot more than you're willing to admit and your stance is almost solely based on playoff stats, which year to year (toews) can be highly volatile. Even look at a guy like Dustin Brown....20 points in 20 games to win the cup, next year 4 in 18, next year 14 in 26.

In my perfect scenario BOTH of these guys are regular roster players and can move around the lineup....it's unfortunate we have Prust and Dorsett blocking the young guys progress.

 

[me2]

Samuelsson was injured against Nashville. Higgins was moved up to the 2nd line and got power play time.

He never played with Malhotra. Malhotra had the eye injury and came back only in the finals in a limited 4th C role.

It isn't a fair comparison, because Pearson was able to produce as a "rookie".
A rookie putting up 12 pts in 24 playoff games is unreal. Higgins quite seasoned, 28 year old when we went on the run.

How did Higgins do in the playoff in 2012? 2013? zero points.

Well at least he is cheaper than Dorsett, who going by his efforts so far, will never score a playoff goal and will be lucky to finish his career with 4 or 5 playoff points.

 

[Huggy]

I don't even need to look at Higgins playoff points to take Kenins 100/100

 

[Shareefruck]

The thing I've always felt about Kenins is that he's underrated offensively and overrated defensively. I liked the Sedin experiment, personally. I'd definitely try that before trying Virtanen with them. If he's up to it, it's a great fit.

 

[Captain Bowie]

The thing I've always felt about Kenins is that he's underrated offensively and overrated defensively. I liked the Sedin experiment, personally. I'd definitely try that before trying Virtanen with them. If he's up to it, it's a great fit.

Yes I don't think he'll ever be a defensive forward to the extent that Higgins is, but at least an energy forward with some skill and good skating.

 

[LeftCoast]

Samuelsson was injured against Nashville. Higgins was moved up to the 2nd line and got power play time.

He never played with Malhotra. Malhotra had the eye injury and came back only in the finals in a limited 4th C role.

It isn't a fair comparison, because Pearson was able to produce as a "rookie".
A rookie putting up 12 pts in 24 playoff games is unreal. Higgins quite seasoned, 28 year old when we went on the run.

How did Higgins do in the playoff in 2012? 2013? zero points.

Do you really want to compare Chris Higgin's rookie numbers?

Never mind, the point isn't that Higgins is an offensive dynamo in a 2nd role. His value is that he is very good defensively and on the PK, he always gives an honest effort and has the ability when needed to move up or down the line up. When he's been put in a 2nd line role he has produced well enough (43 pts / 18 goals in 2011-12, 39 pts / 17 goals in 2013-14).

I also think most would agree that Higgins is a better player than Kenins, however due to age, Kenins has more upside potential.

The Tanner Pearson comparison was only to show you don't need an offensive dynamo at 2nd line LW to succeed. Pearson had a great playoff run, but his body of work at the NHL level is incredibly small and very inconsistent.

I also don't think it comes down to Higgins vs Kenins on the 2nd line LW. I think Baertschi is going to start the season there, and some combination of Baertschi, Kenins, Higgins and possibly Gaunce and Shinkaruk will all play there and on the 3rd line. Kenins is also equally suited to the RW, where he will be in the mix with Burrows and Hansen.

 

[ahmon]

Do you really want to compare Chris Higgin's rookie numbers?

Never mind, the point isn't that Higgins is an offensive dynamo in a 2nd role. His value is that he is very good defensively and on the PK, he always gives an honest effort and has the ability when needed to move up or down the line up. When he's been put in a 2nd line role he has produced well enough (43 pts / 18 goals in 2011-12, 39 pts / 17 goals in 2013-14).

I also think most would agree that Higgins is a better player than Kenins, however due to age, Kenins has more upside potential.

The Tanner Pearson comparison was only to show you don't need an offensive dynamo at 2nd line LW to succeed. Pearson had a great playoff run, but his body of work at the NHL level is incredibly small and very inconsistent.

I also don't think it comes down to Higgins vs Kenins on the 2nd line LW. I think Baertschi is going to start the season there, and some combination of Baertschi, Kenins, Higgins and possibly Gaunce and Shinkaruk will all play there and on the 3rd line. Kenins is also equally suited to the RW, where he will be in the mix with Burrows and Hansen.

I think Baertschi wouldn't last very long in the NHL. we will find out soon enough.

 

[LeftCoast]

I think Baertschi wouldn't last very long in the NHL. we will find out soon enough.

Yeah, he hasn't shown a lot yet, but at least it looks like he's going to get a chance tonight with a more skilled centre. My biggest reservation about Baertschi-Horvat-Vrbata is how they handle tough match ups. A rookie, a near rookie and a veteran who plays a finesse game will struggle against deeper teams unless Willie can keep protected and allow the Sutter line to take the more difficult matchups.

I'm not on the Sutter hate train, but if you want offensive players to succeed in offensive role, you need a C that is more creative with the puck than Sutter. Listen to the way Vrbata talks about Horvat but says basically nothing about Sutter.

 

[Nick Lang]

Is that an established fact though? It's sort of chicken and egg. Is it a "regular" team because Higgins is on the 2nd line, or conversely is he there because it's a regular team?

There are multiple wingers who are 40-point guys at best and won Cups while playing on their teams' 2nd line. Having him there in of itself isn't an issue.

I believe that lack of him bringing any psychological of hockey minded danger to opposing teams while still adding up points in a point position is and has been for years a big problem. He's a tremendous athlete and plays the boards extremely well but he is easy to play against for other teams.