Prospect Info: Johan Larsson (2013 via trade) – '14-15: Rochester #26 (AHL)

[vcv]

I said its the biggest thing holding back Cody. It doesn't have to be for everyone. As I said in my first post, I hope he has enough quality to overcome it. Of course, you choose to focus on CoHo, because for some, anything that criticizes CoHo, they be fightin' words.

I never said anything about CoHo, you did. I took issue with your assertion that heavy feet = bad defensively.

Cut it out with being so defensive about the kid. Especially when you brought him up, I never said anything about him, and this is a thread about Johan Larsson.

 

[Dubi Doo]

Nothing about this kid excites me at all. He sounds an awful lot like Jochen Hecht part 2. Which is ok I guess, because younger Jochen was a key on the post lockout teams, but if he chips in more than like 40 points a year I'd be shocked.

He could be a Callahan type of player. If that doesn't excite you then...

 

[stokes84]

I never said anything about CoHo, you did. I took issue with your assertion that heavy feet = bad defensively.

Cut it out with being so defensive about the kid. Especially when you brought him up, I never said anything about him, and this is a thread about Johan Larsson.

It's not that hard of a leap to make. Our top center is struggling defensively against top guys because of his skating. He was heralded in juniors and minors for being a good two-way player. It hasn't translated, IMO because of his skating. Johan Larsson has many of the same qualities and was heralded in lesser leagues as a good two-way player. He also struggles with skating. Will his two-way game translate? I don't know. It's a legitimate concern.

 

[MacOfNiagara]

See him wearing #22 in one of those clips. Hmm, wonder if he will wear it for Buffalo

 

[vcv]

It's not that hard of a leap to make. Our top center is struggling defensively against top guys because of his skating. He was heralded in juniors and minors for being a good two-way player. It hasn't translated, IMO because of his skating. Johan Larsson has many of the same qualities and was heralded in lesser leagues as a good two-way player. He also struggles with skating. Will his two-way game translate? I don't know. It's a legitimate concern.

Uh, lesser leagues? Actually he has shown defensive chops in both the SEL (men's league) and AHL now. Different situation than Hodgson.

 

[stokes84]

Uh, lesser leagues? Actually he has shown defensive chops in both the SEL (men's league) and AHL now. Different situation than Hodgson.

I didn't realize that the SEL and AHL are equivalent to the NHL now. Yes, lesser leagues. BTW, he was a -10 in Sweden and an even in the AHL, and I doubt you watched many of his games, but it's clear he wasnt lighting it up defensively.

 

[Dubi Doo]

I didn't realize that the SEL and AHL are equivalent to the NHL now. Yes, lesser leagues. BTW, he was a -10 in Sweden and an even in the AHL, and I doubt you watched many of his games, but it's clear he wasnt lighting it up defensively.

Come on. Damn near every Minnesota fan and Aeros fan have said he's very strong defensively. These are the people who, you know, have watched him a lot more than you and I.

This kid is going to be a puck battling bull. He may not be the fastest, but he's going to win puck battles. A majority of them. That's something Hodgson hasn't been able to do. Hodgson also has terrible positioning right now. His speed does play a role in his defensive weakness, but it's not the only factor. It's not even the biggest factor.

 

[vcv]

I didn't realize that the SEL and AHL are equivalent to the NHL now. Yes, lesser leagues. BTW, he was a -10 in Sweden and an even in the AHL, and I doubt you watched many of his games, but it's clear he wasnt lighting it up defensively.

Ok, you're right. They are "lesser leagues". I framed that poorly.

What I mean is Larsson has played against men since he was 18 and by accounts of those who have watched him, he is solid defensively.

Someone like Hodgson only started playing against men when he was 20.

The point being, it's hard to compare how someone plays on the defensive side against men (SEL, AHL) at 18, 19 vs. someone playing against boys (OHL) at 16, 17, 18, 19.

 

[Dubi Doo]

Oh, and he is exactly the type of player I want. I have been harping on Darcy to get players who battle in the dirty areas. Who can win puck battles. I love the direction he's going with this team. I just hope it pans out.


Ott
Leino
Tropp
Girgs
Larsson
Cats
Foligno
etc...

These are players who can play two-way hockey, forecheck, win puck battles, and have some offensive upside. Those are the players who win playoff series. Boston, NYR (last year), NJD, Phoenix, LA...they had a great mix of skilled guys and guys who can grind down low and score a timely goal.

Keep it up, Darcy!

 

[cybresabre]

I said its the biggest thing holding back Cody. It doesn't have to be for everyone. As I said in my first post, I hope he has enough quality to overcome it. Of course, you choose to focus on CoHo, because for some, anything that criticizes CoHo, they be fightin' words. And yes, having size can absolutely help overcome other deficiencies. That much is common sense.

You bring up Hodgson, vcv mentions Gaustad, then you jump on him for making everything about Hodgson? You're trying way, way too hard.

 

[stokes84]

You bring up Hodgson, vcv mentions Gaustad, then you jump on him for making everything about Hodgson? You're trying way, way too hard.

That's not the way I read it, but whatever, we're past that, moving on.

 

[Myllz]

I didn't realize that the SEL and AHL are equivalent to the NHL now. Yes, lesser leagues. BTW, he was a -10 in Sweden and an even in the AHL, and I doubt you watched many of his games, but it's clear he wasnt lighting it up defensively.

You didn't watch many (any) of his games either, yet you feel confident you can say he was bad defensively because you looked at his +/-? That's rich. Zetterberg was a -1 in 2010-2011 and is currently a -1 this year. What a defensive scrub he is.

 

[stokes84]

You didn't watch many (any) of his games either, yet you feel confident you can say he was bad defensively because you looked at his +/-? That's rich. Zetterberg was a -1 in 2010-2011 and is currently a -1 this year. What a defensive scrub he is.

Is it not a legitimate concern? Is it wrong to have questions? And I didn't say he was bad, but you'll be hard pressed to find a guy that is -10 and say that he was lighting it up. Is that wrong?

 

[Myllz]

Is it not a legitimate concern? Is it wrong to have questions?

It wasn't a question. You looked at his statline and said he clearly wasn't playing well defensively. Not only that, you used the most useless stat in the game to "prove" your point.

Not only that, you claim someone hasn't watched his games so they can't say how he played defensively, yet you feel entitled to without watching him.

 

[stokes84]

It wasn't a question. You looked at his statline and said he clearly wasn't playing well defensively. Not only that, you used the most useless stat in the game to "prove" your point.

Not only that, you claim someone hasn't watched his games so they can't say how he played defensively, yet you feel entitled to without watching him.

Actually I never said any of what you are claiming.

 

[Myllz]

Actually I never said any of what you are claiming.

"It's clear he wasn't lighting it up defensively."

Prove it.

 

[ZZamboni]

It wasn't a question. You looked at his statline and said he clearly wasn't playing well defensively. Not only that, you used the most useless stat in the game to "prove" your point.

Not only that, you claim someone hasn't watched his games so they can't say how he played defensively, yet you feel entitled to without watching him.

And your surprised and confused by that? It's Stokes. You know his schtick.

Until I see Larsson play in the NHL as a Sabre for several games, not just 3 or 4, I will reserve blanket judgement statements, assumptions, concerns, or praise. On it's surface, he's a good prospect.

 

[stokes84]

"It's clear he wasn't lighting it up defensively."

Prove it.

-10

According to you, "not lighting it up" translates to "clearly playing badly".

 

[Myllz]

-10

According to you, "not lighting it up" translates to "clearly playing badly".

And you wonder why nobody takes your opinions seriously.

 

[vcv]

-10

According to you, "not lighting it up" translates to "clearly playing badly".

There's no such thing as "lighting it up" defensively. You're either playing well or you're not.

 

[stokes84]

And you wonder why nobody takes your opinions seriously.

Because it's so common for someone with a double digit negative +/- rating to win selkes.

 

[HiddenInLight]

Because it's so common for someone with a double digit negative +/- rating to win selkes.

+/- rating is the most misleading recorded stat in hockey and everyone knows it. As proof I submit to you that Marc-Andre Gragnani was a +10 at the time of his trade in 11-12, while being one of the worst defensemen that most of us have ever seen. The guy just HAPPENED to step out on the ice just as we scored TONS of times that year.

 

[stokes84]

+/- rating is the most misleading recorded stat in hockey and everyone knows it. As proof I submit to you that Marc-Andre Gragnani was a +10 at the time of his trade in 11-12, while being one of the worst defensemen that most of us have ever seen. The guy just HAPPENED to step out on the ice just as we scored TONS of times that year.

I understand that +/- is extremely limited, but what I have to go on is extremely limited. Apparently bringing up potential concerns is frowned upon here.

 

[Jame]

It wasn't a question. You looked at his statline and said he clearly wasn't playing well defensively. Not only that, you used the most useless stat in the game to "prove" your point.

Not only that, you claim someone hasn't watched his games so they can't say how he played defensively, yet you feel entitled to without watching him.

Actually I never said any of what you are claiming.

"It's clear he wasn't lighting it up defensively."

Prove it.

-10

According to you, "not lighting it up" translates to "clearly playing badly".

And you wonder why nobody takes your opinions seriously.

Thanks. I've had the flu for the last 3 days... I been puking my brains out... and generally feeling like total crap.

Thanks for for cheering me up

 

[tsujimoto74]

I understand that +/- is extremely limited, but what I have to go on is extremely limited. Apparently bringing up potential concerns is frowned upon here.

It's not a concern because literally every Minnesota fan has said he's good defensively, and his AHL coach said he loves the kid because he hates losing puck battles. He's been regarded as a leader on nearly every team he's played for in part because of his 200' effort. Yet you're trying to claim what everyone knows to be the most useless counting stat proves otherwise. At the very least, let's wait and see how he does in Rochester before proclaiming him a bust, eh?