Rickard Rakell

[duxfever]

This isn't about tearing down Rakell. This is about a Cup contending team being forced to rely on a 21 year old. Rather than acquiring an actual proven 3C and making Rakell earn a spot in the playoffs with his play. I don't want to get rid of Rakell, but if BM doesn't get a 3C this summer I have serious doubts in this team's ability to win the Cup. BB needs to be able to roll 4 lines and it would be great to take some PK minutes from Getz.

I agree, but to blame the player is wrong. Was there anyone else on the roster that could have played the C role and done a better job than Rakell? If there was, then I digress.

If anything, this would be a Bob Murray issue, which I am not willing to kill him over it either since you can only do so much in a given amount of time and he did a great job filling many of the other holes on the roster. Not everything is going to be perfect and not every team is going to be void of holes. That's why fans must be patient with young players and understand there are going to be bumps in the road of a players development.

 

[Ducks DVM]

No, that is not my position. I am giving Rakell the benefit of the doubt and looking at historical numbers that say young centers struggle early in this area of the game, especially a 21 year old. Your point was that Rakell did not put enough effort or practice into getting better at faceoffs and that is why he was not good enough at them. I find that hard to believe unless he is lazy, but I have not heard anything about that being the case. I could be wrong of course since I am not on the inside.

I agree that experience is another form of practice, but then how can you blame a guy that has not had a chance to gain experience? Experience is a huge part of it, but you can only get so much experience at the age of 21 and only so much practice as well.

It takes time, learning from other players, understanding what works and what does not, studying opponents, facing opponents multiple times, some luck, etc. To say Rakell struggled simply because he did not practice is ridiculous.

It's demeaning of the player and his effort and I think that's a low blow to a guy you really know nothing about.

Again, I told you to disprove my statement without injecting your own baggage into it.

I said he hadn't practiced enough to be better. I didn't say it was because he was lazy, I didn't say it was because the coaches didn't train him, I didn't say it was a lack of effort, I didn't say it was because he was no good, I didn't say it was because he didn't practice at all, I didn't comment if it was reasonable to have expected him to be any better, I in fact said none of the things you just accused me of saying. I said he hadn't practiced enough to be good enough.

As I said, it's a factual statement. I didn't make a single value judgement with that post.

 

[AngelDuck]

This isn't about tearing down Rakell. This is about a Cup contending team being forced to rely on a 21 year old. Rather than acquiring an actual proven 3C and making Rakell earn a spot in the playoffs with his play. I don't want to get rid of Rakell, but if BM doesn't get a 3C this summer I have serious doubts in this team's ability to win the Cup. BB needs to be able to roll 4 lines and it would be great to take some PK minutes from Getz.

I'd stay the course and actually play Rakell more than 12 minutes next regular season to let him develop at the NHL level. This team is making the playoffs either way. Getzlaf/Kesler should see their minutes decreased next regular season so they're fresh for the playoffs anyway.

If it's really an issue he can give up some of his shiny prospects for a 3C at the trade deadline.

An extra year of development, and a summer to train will turn Rakell into a legit 3C IMO. He's already shown to be pretty damn close as a rookie. He needs to fine tune his faceoffs and that can be done over the summer and during the regular season next year

 

[KaseMeOutside]

rakell will be fine, get a grip this was his first full season

 

[duxfever]

Again, I told you to disprove my statement without injecting your own baggage into it.

I said he hadn't practiced enough to be better. I didn't say it was because he was lazy, I didn't say it was because the coaches didn't train him, I didn't say it was a lack of effort, I didn't say it was because he was no good, I didn't say it was because he didn't practice at all, I didn't comment if it was reasonable to have expected him to be any better, I in fact said none of the things you just accused me of saying. I said he hadn't practiced enough to be good enough.

As I said, it's a factual statement. I didn't make a single value judgement with that post.

How is that factual? You completely dismiss every other variable with that statement, which is not reasonable. Practice does not equal results. It just does not.

If just practicing made players good enough, then that is all it would take to be good? No natural talent, no luck, no knowledge, just practice? I don't know how you can make that claim.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

I'm not sure why people are ******** their pants over the idea that Rakell wasn't effective. He wasn't. In the end he was hugely sheltered and he still wasn't good. Does anyone disagree with that? Does anyone disagree that we'd have had a better roster in the playoffs with Bonino rather than him? I'd like to hear a rational reason why, because I can't think of one.

He might be due for a big step up next season, he was actually starting to look pretty good at times later in the regular season. But his potential didn't make our fourth line not crap.

 

[Ducks DVM]

How is that factual? You completely dismiss every other variable with that statement, which is not reasonable. Practice does not equal results. It just does not.

If just practicing made players good enough, then that is all it would take to be good? No natural talent, no luck, no knowledge, just practice? I don't know how you can make that claim.

Again, you are correct that practice does not guarantee results, but non-practice does guarantee non-results when you're discussing a skill. Different people will also progress at different rates while they practice, but more is always better. The other stuff you're talking about determines how good you will top out at. Practice is what determines how fast you get to being topped out.

Are you arguing that someone can never practice faceoffs and they will get better because of only natural talent, luck, and knowledge (how do you get knowledge without practice - even studying by watching tape is a form of practice)? Faceoffs aren't like skating faster.

 

[duxfever]

Again, you are correct that practice does not guarantee results, but non-practice does guarantee non-results when you're discussing a skill. Different people will also progress at different rates while they practice, but more is always better. The other stuff you're talking about determines how good you will top out at. Practice is what determines how fast you get to being topped out.

Are you arguing that someone can never practice faceoffs and they will get better because of only natural talent, luck, and knowledge (how do you get knowledge without practice - even studying by watching tape is a form of practice)? Faceoffs aren't like skating faster.

He needs more practice and experience because he is young, not because he didn't practice enough. It's called development. That's what I'm getting at. Not that hard to understand.

Why do you think veterans are generally better face off guys? Find me a guy in his first or second year that is a great face off guy. It is to be expected that a younger player will struggle in this area of the game.

 

[Papaspud]

Interesting way this thread went way off topic on a tangent about Rakell.

My take...
He needs to learn to be more of a *****. He's too nice. blackhawk players were cheating left and right in the face-off dot, while our only rookie centerman was concerned about playing by the rules, so much so that on a couple of occasions he actually put his stick down first on home draws. someone needs to show him it's okay to be greasy during the play-offs and cheat when cheating is allowed.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

I'm not sure why people are ******** their pants over the idea that Rakell wasn't effective. He wasn't. In the end he was hugely sheltered and he still wasn't good. Does anyone disagree with that? Does anyone disagree that we'd have had a better roster in the playoffs with Bonino rather than him? I'd like to hear a rational reason why, because I can't think of one.

He might be due for a big step up next season, he was actually starting to look pretty good at times later in the regular season. But his potential didn't make our fourth line not crap.

i don't think anyone thinks that
but the canucks wouldn't have done that trade the same way with rakell in his place

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

i don't think anyone thinks that
but the canucks wouldn't have done that trade the same way with rakell in his place

Yeah, they made the right choice. I'm pretty high on Rakell, but the resistance to him as a weak point on the roster right now is irksome.

 

[nbducksfan19]

Again, you are correct that practice does not guarantee results, but non-practice does guarantee non-results when you're discussing a skill. Different people will also progress at different rates while they practice, but more is always better. The other stuff you're talking about determines how good you will top out at. Practice is what determines how fast you get to being topped out.

Are you arguing that someone can never practice faceoffs and they will get better because of only natural talent, luck, and knowledge (how do you get knowledge without practice - even studying by watching tape is a form of practice)? Faceoffs aren't like skating faster.

He never said that he practiced faceoffs or that someone could get better with no practice. He is just pointing out that you said rakkel was not good at face-offs, therefore it is a fact that he did not practice enough, which is not true. You could practice all your life and still be under 30% on the dot. It is a fact that Rakkel was not good enough on faceoffs this year, but you have no clue how much he practiced.

 

[Ducks DVM]

He needs more practice and experience because he is young, not because he didn't practice enough. It's called development. That's what I'm getting at. Not that hard to understand.

Why do you think veterans are generally better face off guys? Find me a guy in his first or second year that is a great face off guy. It is to be expected that a younger player will struggle in this area of the game.

Rickard Rakell - '14-15 rookie season Anaheim 46.6% (665 in 71 games)
Victor Rask - '14-15 rookie season Carolina 51% (918 taken in 80 games)
Bo Horvat - '14-15 rookie season Vancouver 51.4% (848 in 68 games)

Nate Thompson - '08-09 rookie season NYI 50.4% (439 in 43 games)
Paul Stastny - '08-09 2nd season Colorado 51% (1101 in 66 games)
Jonathon Toews - '08-09 rookie season Chicago 53.4% (956 in 64 games) - ok, that one isn't fair

There are plenty of rookies as bad or worse than Rakell. But there are quite a few rookies better than him as well. Some of them significantly so.

Regardless of your age, practice is what makes you better. More practice makes you better. I'm not sure why this is such an argument. I didn't say he didn't practice enough to be given credit for practicing. I said he didn't practice enough to be any better.

He never said that he practiced faceoffs or that someone could get better with no practice. He is just pointing out that you said rakkel was not good at face-offs, therefore it is a fact that he did not practice enough, which is not true. You could practice all your life and still be under 30% on the dot. It is a fact that Rakkel was not good enough on faceoffs this year, but you have no clue how much he practiced.

Have you heard the phrase "practice makes perfect"? He's pretty damned far from perfect. He has one move. ONE. Doesn't that strike anyone else as odd? That he'd keep trying that one move again and again and again (and getting thrown out again and again...) without ever changing it up? Over the course of months?

If you're practicing, you should improve at something. He didn't. If anything, he regressed as the season went on. And you have the same amount of information as I do, so if you're going to play that card you have no right to say that he practiced enough because you also have no clue as to what he did.

 

[bumperkisser]

Rickard Rakell - '14-15 rookie season Anaheim 46.6% (665 in 71 games)
Victor Rask - '14-15 rookie season Carolina 51% (918 taken in 80 games)
Bo Horvat - '14-15 rookie season Vancouver 51.4% (848 in 68 games)

Nate Thompson - '08-09 rookie season NYI 50.4% (439 in 43 games)
Paul Stastny - '08-09 2nd season Colorado 51% (1101 in 66 games)
Jonathon Toews - '08-09 rookie season Chicago 53.4% (956 in 64 games) - ok, that one isn't fair

There are plenty of rookies as bad or worse than Rakell. But there are quite a few rookies better than him as well. Some of them significantly so.

Regardless of your age, practice is what makes you better. More practice makes you better. I'm not sure why this is such an argument. I didn't say he didn't practice enough to be given credit for practicing. I said he didn't practice enough to be any better.

I don't have any idea what you're saying here. This logic is confounding me. There are people who practice face off and are still bad at them just like there are people who are just better at face off. Talent plays a factor in everything. If he took 1000 more face off in practice would he be better at face off? Potentially. But I'm sure Getzlaf has taken tons of faceoffs by now in his career and he's still not that great at them. He had better numbers this year but I attribute that more to us having Thompson and Kesler so that the people Getzlaf went up again weren't as good

 

[DaDucks*]

Yeah, they made the right choice. I'm pretty high on Rakell, but the resistance to him as a weak point on the roster right now is irksome.

He's probably received the most criticism of the playoffs. That is irksome. Meanwhile Etem gets another pass and is penciled in for 10-15 goals next year. I didn't say a word up until now, but it's getting ridiculous.

 

[Ducks DVM]

He's probably received the most criticism of the playoffs. That is irksome. Meanwhile Etem gets another pass and is penciled in for 10-15 goals next year. I didn't say a word up until now, but it's getting ridiculous.

To be fair, Etem tripled his production in 75% the games.

But Etem is largely being considered a spare forward, dump, or throw-in for the first trade. There's a pretty limited fan club for him right now, unless you're reading threads I'm not reading.

 

[AngelDuck]

He's probably received the most criticism of the playoffs. That is irksome. Meanwhile Etem gets another pass and is penciled in for 10-15 goals next year. I didn't say a word up until now, but it's getting ridiculous.

Etem has 12 goals in his last 74 regular season NHL games. How is 15 goals unreasonable for him next year?

I agree with you on the rest though

 

[duxfever]

I don't have any idea what you're saying here. This logic is confounding me. There are people who practice face off and are still bad at them just like there are people who are just better at face off. Talent plays a factor in everything. If he took 1000 more face off in practice would he be better at face off? Potentially. But I'm sure Getzlaf has taken tons of faceoffs by now in his career and he's still not that great at them. He had better numbers this year but I attribute that more to us having Thompson and Kesler so that the people Getzlaf went up again weren't as good

It's not even worth arguing at this point.

 

[DaDucks*]

Etem has 12 goals in his last 74 regular season NHL games. How is 15 goals unreasonable for him next year?

I agree with you on the rest though

I can't picture him in the top 6... And he doesn't really fit on our current third. He also isn't a self sustained shooter. It might be my sole opinion, but it seems like a majority of his goals are a combination of garbage and luck.


I do root for him though. He has my fav goal gif

 

[nbducksfan19]

Have you heard the phrase "practice makes perfect"? He's pretty damned far from perfect. He has one move. ONE. Doesn't that strike anyone else as odd? That he'd keep trying that one move again and again and again (and getting thrown out again and again...) without ever changing it up? Over the course of months?

If you're practicing, you should improve at something. He didn't. If anything, he regressed as the season went on. And you have the same amount of information as I do, so if you're going to play that card you have no right to say that he practiced enough because you also have no clue as to what he did.

I am starting to question your reading comprehension. I never said he practiced enough, for all I know he has never practiced face offs in his life. The collective point is you are saying he did not get better and he was bad at faceoffs, therefore he did not practice enough. This simply is not a factual deduction you can make as there are many reasons he could have struggled at faceoffs even if he practiced then more than anyone. It is very simple.

 

[Ducks DVM]

I am starting to question your reading comprehension. I never said he practiced enough, for all I know he has never practiced face offs in his life. The collective point is you are saying he did not get better and he was bad at faceoffs, therefore he did not practice enough. This simply is not a factual deduction you can make as there are many reasons he could have struggled at faceoffs even if he practiced then more than anyone. It is very simple.

This IS binary. Either practice will improve a skill, or you are flawed in some fashion such that practice will not improve that skill. Unless you're arguing he is physically or mentally flawed in some manner that prevents him from progressing with faceoffs, he SHOULD improve with practice. You're correct, it's quite simple. Unless you're willing to commit to that position, there's really no argument to be made to the contrary. If you want to talk what someone has or has not said, I don't recall saying that Rakell hadn't practiced enough because he was lazy, or because he was of poor character, or that he had time that he spent doing other things, or even that I was referring to this year. Yet, I'm making low blows against his character. I do not believe that's he ever would have been slotted as a center if he was fundamentally incapable of taking faceoffs effectively, and thus there are actually no reasons for why he could not improve. Saying "he's young and needs experience" is another way of saying - he needs practice. That's all experience is.

Come up with a rational reason he had only one (very poor) faceoff move that does not involve a lack of practice. Regardless of what center he was up against, using whatever technique, with whichever handedness, he used that same technique. Poorly. When it didn't get him repeatedly thrown out. Why couldn't he develop another one? An injury? A mental block? A lack of intellectual ability? The coaching staff told him to keep failing that way?

 

[Kalv]

Spezza and Kesler were both below 50% in their first 2 years IIRC. Now they are great faceoff guys so Rak still has a chance to be good there.

Rak definitely neets to practice though, i agree.

 

[Ducks Nation*]

Spezza and Kesler were both below 50% in their first 2 years IIRC. Now they are great faceoff guys so Rak still has a chance to be good there.

Rak definitely neets to practice though, i agree.

Does anyone else remember that training camp video of Kesler practicing with Rakell and winning like 20 in a row

 

[Getzmonster]

Wasn't it the growing opinion of the adv stats crowd that faceoffs had a negligible impact on possession anyhow? Seems like the last couple years they have been saying that winning/losing faceoffs only mattered for the first few seconds if at all. And I also read a couple articles a while back discussing Boudreau's brand of hockey and the odd fact that his team was notoriously weak on faceoffs and possession, but somehow it didn't seem to matter in the success of his system.

Then Murray goes out and gets a couple strong faceoff men and everyone is arguing over our faceoff wins. So... which is it? TELL ME WHAT TO BELIEVE!

 

[KaseMeOutside]

ducks are a budget team, they have to play guys on ELC's, maybe more than they should. in the end rakell's performance has very little to do with why anaheim is no longer playing. it's easy to say replace him until you look at anaheims financial situation moving forward

he's 21 and just had his first full season, pretty ridiculous there is so much uproar over essentially a rookie player