Jonathan Marchessault vs Mitch Marner

Who do you take?


  • Total voters
    202

DRW204

Registered User
Dec 26, 2010
22,097
26,692
It depends how you interpret the question

Marchessault had 96 pts in 97 gp RS/PO combined last year vs 78 in 89 for Marner.

Marner has age/upwards trajectory on his side, he also will likely far exceed Marchessaults 5M contract by 2-3M (maybe more?)

so if this is a current/what have you done for me lately question Marchessault, if it is who do you take going forward Marner but not by a huge amount.
 

Regal

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
24,539
13,832
Vancouver
Actually it's you who's completely wrong :laugh:

Marner is exactly a PPG player in the playoffs and Marchessault is 0.81 PPG in the playoffs.

Looking forward to you not replying to this LMAO

Yea, what Marchessault did as a bottom 6 player is super relevant. The guy was just 2nd in scoring on the Stanley cup runner up with over a PPG. Anyone claiming Marner is a superior playoff player based on 13 games in two first round losses is grasping as straws. Neither one has enough of a playoff record worth putting much stock in other than so far they've looked pretty good.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Haatley

Tad Mikowsky

Only Droods
Sponsor
Jun 30, 2008
20,857
21,557
Edmonton
Actually it's you who's completely wrong :laugh:

Marner is exactly a PPG player in the playoffs and Marchessault is 0.81 PPG in the playoffs.

Looking forward to you not replying to this LMAO

I was looking at this past playoffs. Which is more relevant to the discussion.

LMAO for using a 13 game sample size! Good job buddy. You never cease to amaze us of blindly going for the Maple Leaf in every case without question.
 

IPS

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
15,461
24,487
I was looking at this past playoffs. Which is more relevant to the discussion.

LMAO for using a 13 game sample size! Good job buddy. You never cease to amaze us of blindly going for the Maple Leaf in every case without question.
Oh so we're only going by the most recent playoffs then?

Marner still had a better PPG. Keep digging yourself further it's getting hilarious.
 

Fledgemyhedge

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
2,646
3,254
bob
Oh so we're only going by the most recent playoffs then?

Marner still had a better PPG. Keep digging yourself further it's getting hilarious.
21 points in 20 games is way more impressive than 9 in 7. The answer to the poll is Marner regardless.
 

Voodoo Child

Registered User
Jun 16, 2009
6,317
2,408
Marner is 21 very recently and on an ELC, of course he will be getting paid.

Marchessault is 27, but his contract is very reasonable.

I remember getting roasted for preferring Marner over pool party, and for saying he could one day hit 90. The kid is stupid talented.

I would think most gms would take the potential of Marner, but Marchy would be a huge add as well.
 

garyturner3

Registered User
Jun 16, 2015
2,323
955
I have to assume this poll is for right now only. That's the only way it can be taken seriously because if it's a going forward poll it should be unanimous in Marner's favor.
 

olli

Unregistered User
Dec 2, 2016
3,631
1,786
cÃnÃdÃ
Actually it's you who's completely wrong :laugh:

Marner is exactly a PPG player in the playoffs and Marchessault is 0.81 PPG in the playoffs.

Looking forward to you not replying to this LMAO
IPS at it again, cherry picking stats to pump up his beloved leaf player. In the 2015 and 2016 playoffs Marchessaualt was getting 4th line minutes with no PP time. It's completely reasonable to say he's a ppg player in the playoffs.

You're the one who probably won't reply to this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tad Mikowsky

IPS

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
15,461
24,487
IPS at it again, cherry picking stats to pump up his beloved leaf player. In the 2015 and 2016 playoffs Marchessaualt was getting 4th line minutes with no PP time. It's completely reasonable to say he's a ppg player in the playoffs.

Your the one who probably won't reply to this.
This was already brought up. If it's only the most recent playoffs we're using, Marner still has a better PPG. Your other friend just moved the goalposts when I rebuted this.
 

Meeqs

Registered User
Aug 23, 2012
9,295
1,677
USA
Marner is the younger and better player imo. When we take EVERYTHING into consideration it is looking like JM will cost half of the cap hit of Marner and is better than half of him as a player.

So while I don't think he is better I'm going with JM if I am trying to build the best roster that I can. (It is also the same reason I would take Mackinnon over McDavid)
 

Tad Mikowsky

Only Droods
Sponsor
Jun 30, 2008
20,857
21,557
Edmonton
Oh so we're only going by the most recent playoffs then?

Marner still had a better PPG. Keep digging yourself further it's getting hilarious.

Learn to read for the sake of context. Ford said that March didn’t have a PPG in the playoffs. I pointed out he did.

March also played more than 7 games in the playoffs. You think Marner would keep that sample size up? Well, we’d have to get the Leafs to actually win a series to find out.

I like how you completely avoided the 13 game career sample size. LMAO.
 

IPS

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
15,461
24,487
Learn to read for the sake of context. Ford said that March didn’t have a PPG in the playoffs. I pointed out he did.

March also played more than 7 games in the playoffs. You think Marner would keep that sample size up? Well, we’d have to get the Leafs to actually win a series to find out.

I like how you completely avoided the 13 game career sample size. LMAO.

He was 100% correct that March did not have a PPG in the playoffs. You decided to move the goalposts and only count the most recent playoffs instead of admitting your mistake.

Perhaps it's you who needs to learn to read for the sake of context?
 

olli

Unregistered User
Dec 2, 2016
3,631
1,786
cÃnÃdÃ
This was already brought up. If it's only the most recent playoffs we're using, Marner still has a better PPG. Your other friend just moved the goalposts when I rebuted this.
How about using a sample size for Marner that is closer to Marchessualt these playoffs? Marner has 13 points in the 13 playoff games he's played. Marchessault has 21 in 20 in the only playoff games he's played as a top 6 forward with PP time.

If you wanna use 7 game sample sizes:
Marner: 9 points in 7 games these playoffs
Marchessault: 12 points in 7 games from April 30th to May 16th Jonathan Marchessault Stats and News

This is probably where you choose not to reply.
 

Tad Mikowsky

Only Droods
Sponsor
Jun 30, 2008
20,857
21,557
Edmonton
He was 100% correct that March did not have a PPG in the playoffs. You decided to move the goalposts and only count the most recent playoffs instead of admitting your mistake.

Perhaps it's you who needs to learn to read for the sake of context?

I didn't move any goal posts. I read it as PPG from the most recent season. There was nothing in his post to suggest overall career. Don't even try to twist your way out of that one.

You're still not admitting that 13 games is a ridiculous small career sample size. Why can't you admit your mistake here?

One player moved on beyond one round. The other still hasn't.
 

Fledgemyhedge

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
2,646
3,254
bob
Oh I see.

Small sample sizes in the playoffs are only useful when Matthews is called a playoff choker.
Nice straw man.
1. You're putting words into my mouth
2. Unless you hold a double standard you must bieleve that Matthews is a playoff choker. ( If you call Marner a playoff performer after an amazing 7 games then you must call Matthews a choker after his 7 invisible games)
3. Marners playoff performance was phenomenal it just wasn't as impressive as march's because his was longer.
4. You won't reply
 
Last edited:

Marner

Hi I'm Mitch
Jan 30, 2010
1,678
703
Ottawa
Marchessault. Just because Marner plays for Toronto doesn't mean he's as good as their legion of fans says he is. Marchessault is better and more clutch and I would take him on my team first as he would also likely be cheaper.

umm there a reason as to why he will be cheaper
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->