Larkin with Babs

[Lampedampe]

I think one thing is pretty safe to say, babcock loved his PP last season and i honesly do not think that Larkin would've gotten that much PP. I'm under the impression that Babs would have absolutely loved Larkin, but for the wrong reasons, he would've had Larkin killing penelties and using his speed and tenacity to forecheck on the 3rd line.

Blashill is using Larkin in a totally different way, i'm pretty sure that the only reason Larkin is not killing penelties is because Blashill see's Larkin as the teams #1 offensive threat thus tries to not have his rookie doing everything his first season. If he starts to slump on PK that could lower his confidence and woud tire him out. A few seasons from now i can see Larkin doing everything, but he's a rookie atm and he has never played 82+ games on a season, and he had barley played against men up untill the start of the season. What Blashill is doing with Larkin is pretty amazing, he could've used him the way the coach used him on the US team in WC, but blashill saw more in Larkin than just his speed and defensive abilities.

 

[Frk It]

Truly think he would've had to start in GR. How long he would've had to stay there?.... Who knows.

 

[ap3x]

Blashill is using Larkin in a totally different way, i'm pretty sure that the only reason Larkin is not killing penelties is because Blashill see's Larkin as the teams #1 offensive threat thus tries to not have his rookie doing everything his first season. If he starts to slump on PK that could lower his confidence and woud tire him out. A few seasons from now i can see Larkin doing everything, but he's a rookie atm and he has never played 82+ games on a season, and he had barley played against men up untill the start of the season. What Blashill is doing with Larkin is pretty amazing, he could've used him the way the coach used him on the US team in WC, but blashill saw more in Larkin than just his speed and defensive abilities.

Pretty sure we'll see him rather sooner than later on the PK.

LARKIN ON PK, BUT NOT YET: Blashill said after Monday's practice that Larkin would start working on the penalty kill.

But that doesn't mean he'll be out there on the PK against Buffalo.

"When he’s always on the PP he doesn’t get any reps in practice on the PK, so that’s a beginning of the process to get some reps in practice," Blashill said. "The one thing I think is important to make clear is we’ve got guys on the penalty kill that have done an unbelievable job. I think we’re ranked fourth in the penalty kill. You only have that type of ranking if you have great penalty killers so (Luke) Glendening, (Drew) Miller, (Darren) Helm, and (Riley) Sheahan have been the majority of the guys doing it lately; (Joakim) Andersson before that. They are elite, elite penalty killers. So Dylan Larkin is in the process of learning how to do that. It takes time and then he’s got to grab one of those guys’ jobs and say I can do it just as well, if not better. So that’s gonna take time for sure. Really happy with the job that our guys on the penalty kill have done so far."

[...]

"Just try and use my speed, maybe get a few breakaways," Larkin said. "Just try and use my speed to create pressure."

The rookie forward, already an impact player in so many game situations, will be seeing penalty killing responsibility, coach Jeff Blashill said.

Especially now with Drew Miller (knee) out for an indefinite period, Larkin is likely to see time in an aspect of the game he has had success in before.

“When Larks went over to the world championships (last spring), he wasn’t on the power play but he killed penalties (for the U.S. team),” Blashill said. “He’s done a lot of it in his career. Larks was touted coming in, after we drafted him, for his 200-foot game and he was a really good penalty killer.”

 

[Henkka]

Truly think he would've had to start in GR. How long he would've had to stay there?.... Who knows.

I think the exact opposite.

Larkin was too good to be sent down, it's that simple.

Babcock ain't that stupid in evaluating player talent.

 

[Frk It]

I think the exact opposite.

Larkin was too good to be sent down, it's that simple.

Babcock ain't that stupid in evaluating player talent.

Hindsight is 20/20 dude. We know that now. Didn't know that in camp.

Larkin has exceeded all expectations. Easy to say this now. Again, Nyquist started a season in GR and then went on to score more goals than anyone in the NHL over a 4 month span. We've seen it before.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

This thread is basically "how do you feel about Babcock?"


The way Larkin played right out of the gate, it's hard to imagine he would've spent any time in the AHL under any head coach. Also, people are forgetting Holland's role in setting the roster.

 

[Pavels Dog]

The year he scored 19 goals, Tatar was healthy scratched for like 7 straight games to start the season.

The key words there? "to start the season". Never happened again. He gave the veterans 7 games to show they deserved to play, they didn't, and Tatar played the rest of the way. It's possible Babcock would have shown a little more "tough love" to Larkin than Blash has, but it's speculation. Babcock generally LOVES players like Larkin so I don't see why he would have treated him the same way he did Tatar who is a completely different player and person.

Babcock also pushed for Jurco to be on the team, and kept him in the lineup and on the PP for almost an entire year despite Jurco doing nothing to deserve it. The myth that Babcock doesn't give chances to young players is the worst kind of re-writing of history.

 

[Eastopia]

Larkin might still be playing in the NCAA if Babcock hadn't left so just assuming that it would be all the same doesn't seem like such a safe bet. Even assuming that he would still sign with us I think he would've gotten the veteran-tie-elimination and started in the AHL.

 

[FlashyG]

This thread is basically "how do you feel about Babcock?"


The way Larkin played right out of the gate, it's hard to imagine he would've spent any time in the AHL under any head coach. Also, people are forgetting Holland's role in setting the roster.

Holland doesn't really have a role in setting the roster.

The way it has always worked under him is that the coach sets the line-up, if the coach doesn't use a guy with waiver exemptions on a top 2 line or top 2 defence pair then Holland would rather they play in the AHL.

Babcock wanted some of the younger players at times, but it seems he didn't want to play them in those positions so to the AHL they went, where they got more playing time.

 

[izlez]

I'd say I trust Babcock's (and the red wings' organization) over-ripening philosophy and their ability to evaluate talent.

The fact that none of the young players HFBoards has hyped: Jurco, Pulkinnen, Athanasiou, Nyquist, Tatar, etc. are currently not as good as Larkin or still borderline NHL talents, shows me that none of those guys were ready and needed to be developed. I think Babcock would have got it right

 

[jerrymac]

Larkin might still be playing in the NCAA if Babcock hadn't left so just assuming that it would be all the same doesn't seem like such a safe bet. Even assuming that he would still sign with us I think he would've gotten the veteran-tie-elimination and started in the AHL.

Didn't he waive his NCAA eligibility before Babs was gone? Thought he did that when he played last year in GR?

 

[redwings8831]

Didn't he waive his NCAA eligibility before Babs was gone? Thought he did that when he played last year in GR?

He signed with the Wings on the same day Babcock got hired by the Leafs (May 21st). He was able to play in the Worlds without giving up NCAA eligibility (May 1st-17th) and the Griffins conference final was after that (24th-June 2nd).

 

[SirloinUB]

Hindsight is 20/20 dude. We know that now. Didn't know that in camp.

Larkin has exceeded all expectations. Easy to say this now. Again, Nyquist started a season in GR and then went on to score more goals than anyone in the NHL over a 4 month span. We've seen it before.

An undersized 4th round pick should not be compared to a 6'1 top 15 pick, especially with the significant differences in playing style. Moreover, Larkin was heralded for his ability to play in all 3 zones. Team USA used him as their 4th line C in a bit of a pk/shutdown role at the world championships. Babcock witnessed that first hand, as he travelled to the WCs last spring.

Lastly, Mantha was expected to get a look at on Datsyuk's wing after his last year in the CHL. Given that Larkin had accomplished more than Mantha at the same age its naïve to believe that Larkin wouldn't get the same opportunity. Once he was given the opportunity (by Blash) he ran with it.

I have a hard time believing Larkin would not be on this team even if Babcock was still the coach.

 

[Dotter]

Because of this reason alone I am not a fan of Babcock

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Holland doesn't really have a role in setting the roster.

The way it has always worked under him is that the coach sets the line-up, if the coach doesn't use a guy with waiver exemptions on a top 2 line or top 2 defence pair then Holland would rather they play in the AHL.

Babcock wanted some of the younger players at times, but it seems he didn't want to play them in those positions so to the AHL they went, where they got more playing time.

That's not true. Part of Holland's job is to set the roster, obviously with the coach's input.

There's been many instances over the years of Babcock and Holland disagreeing on players being called (or not called) up. The last one I can think offhand was with XO. Holland sent him down and Babcock wanted him in the lineup. Holland had final say, not Babcock.