Sean Couturier vs. Gabriel Landeskog

[ponder]

This interview is from under 3 months ago, so shows how big Landeskog is. Ryan Murphy (an undersized dman) is standing a bit in front of Landeskog, so it's hard to judge, but Tobias Rieder is standing right beside him. Rieder is listed at 5'10", 165 lbs, and that's probably being generous. Landeskog is definitely a bit bigger, but no way is he 4" taller and 60 lbs heavier! I would bet everything I own that Landeskog is not 6'2", 225 lbs, my guess would be 6'-6'1", 200-205 lbs.



I have a Rugby playing friend who's a jacked/lean 6'2", 230 lbs, he looks absolutely massive, WAY bigger than Landeskog looks here. Ryane Clowe, a fully grown man, is 6'2", 225 lbs, Landeskog does not look like Clowe.

 

[slapshot12phil]

Sean Couturier will be a much better player than Landeskog. You dont draft guys like Mike Fisher(an example of a guy with intangibles) when you can have players with offensive upside like Couturier.

Landeskog is not the type of player that should be going in the top 5. Although he might because this draft is weak in top end skill.

I believe Doug Hamilton will go before Landeskog and that Ryan Strome and Jon Huberdeau may also get picked before him. Just because you dominate the OHL doesn't mean you will be able to put up points in the NHL.

Landeskog would need to get MUCH bigger in order for his style of game to work in the NHL, with real men, not boys.

 

[trentmccleary]

Hands? Couturier
Vision? Couturier
Shot? Couturier
Speed? Landeskog
IQ? Landeskog
Captain Material? Landeskog
Creativty? Couturier
Frame? Couturier
Strength? Landeskog
Offensive play? Couturier
Defensive play? Couturier
Overall upside? Couturier

mmm You do realize both are the same age and Coutourier isn't better.

I laugh at those that think Landeskog will not get much much better than he is right now or in the NHL next year.

Couturier is much better offensively and better defensively than Landeskog. Scouts and GM's putting Landeskog above him are attempting to draft "momentum".

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

Hands? Couturier
Vision? Couturier
Shot? Couturier
Speed? Landeskog
IQ? Landeskog
Captain Material? Landeskog
Creativty? Couturier
Frame? Couturier
Strength? Landeskog
Offensive play? Couturier
Defensive play? Couturier
Overall upside? Couturier



Couturier is much better offensively and better defensively than Landeskog. Scouts and GM's putting Landeskog above him are attempting to draft "momentum".

This just isn't true at all, and shows how utterly clueless some people are.

People need to get the idea that Landeskog is just intangibles out of their head. He's a very high calibre Offensive player, who also happens to excell in other assets of the game.

Landeskog may not have the purest upside in this draft. But Landeskog ABSOLUTELY has the upside to be a PPG player in the NHL combined with stellar two way and physical play.

 

[trentmccleary]

This just isn't true at all, and shows how utterly clueless some people are.

People need to get the idea that Landeskog is just intangibles out of their head. He's a very high calibre Offensive player, who also happens to excell in other assets of the game.

Landeskog may not have the purest upside in this draft. But Landeskog ABSOLUTELY has the upside to be a PPG player in the NHL combined with stellar two way and physical play.

Elaborate on that point for me please. I'll be all ears.

 

[Ward Cornell]

This just isn't true at all, and shows how utterly clueless some people are.

People need to get the idea that Landeskog is just intangibles out of their head. He's a very high calibre Offensive player, who also happens to excell in other assets of the game.

Landeskog may not have the purest upside in this draft. But Landeskog ABSOLUTELY has the upside to be a PPG player in the NHL combined with stellar two way and physical play.

Of all those physical aspects posters want to know about between SC and Landeskog it can be slanted to be 100% towards one player or another. But it really boils down to is who's the better hockey player (which has next zero value for physical aspects)
Ryan Leaf and countless others may have had better physical tools than Peyton Manning or Tom Brady but those two QB's are two of the greatest QB's ever!

IMHO....once the NHL teams sit down with Landeskog at the NHL combines he'll will definitely blow them out of the water!

 

[Bjorn Le]

Elaborate on that point for me please. I'll be all ears.

Have you ever watched him? No I didn't think so.

And I really lol'd that Couturier is much better offensivey and better defenisvely. That's hilarious. More people who know nothing about Landeskog.

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

Have you ever watched him? No I didn't think so.

And I really lol'd that Couturier is much better offensivey and better defenisvely. That's hilarious. More people who know nothing about Landeskog.

Exactly. Landeskog had this reputation of having intangibles and being a tremendous two way player which has led to this weird belief that he doesn't have Offensive skills. He wouldn't be consistently ranked in the Top 5 if he didn't have high end Offensive skills. He wouldn't have 60 pts (32 goals) in 43 games if he lacked Offensive talent. He may not be as flashy but his Offensive game is going to translate well to the NHL and he will be an extremely productive forward for along time at the NHL level IMO.

 

[YNWA14]

Landeskog is a better goal scorer, more intelligent and better defensively. He's more physical and he has the intangibles. Landeskog will be a 30 - 40 goal ppg captain with selke type performance.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Just because people think Couturier has higher offensive upside - most scouts do too - I'm not sure why fans of Lando infer this means they think Gabriel has no offensive upside.

I am in that camp, myself.

 

[Dean Vernon]

Just because people think Couturier has higher offensive upside - most scouts do too - I'm not sure why fans of Lando infer this means they think Gabriel has no offensive upside.

I am in that camp, myself.

So you have polled every NHL Amateur scout in the league to know this? Or are you just assuming?

 

[trentmccleary]

Have you ever watched him? No I didn't think so.

And I really lol'd that Couturier is much better offensivey and better defenisvely. That's hilarious. More people who know nothing about Landeskog.

Yes I have, a handful of times as well as all of those handy youtube videos. Enough to see what he is and isn't doing at the OHL level and to judge what he's going to be able to take with him to the next level.

Exactly. Landeskog had this reputation of having intangibles and being a tremendous two way player which has led to this weird belief that he doesn't have Offensive skills. He wouldn't be consistently ranked in the Top 5 if he didn't have high end Offensive skills. He wouldn't have 60 pts (32 goals) in 43 games if he lacked Offensive talent. He may not be as flashy but his Offensive game is going to translate well to the NHL and he will be an extremely productive forward for along time at the NHL level IMO.

- That depends on what you mean by high-end offensive skills or what you think those will translate into in the NHL.

- He wouldn't make it into the top-10 based on offensive ability. All of Couturier, Nugent-Hopkins, Strome and Huberdeau are more skilled offensive talents than Landeskog is.

So you have polled every NHL Amateur scout in the league to know this? Or are you just assuming?

Do you believe that published scouting reports and quotes from professional organizations do not consitute a representative sample of scouts or a professional opinion on the matter?

Is there any published material coming from any scouting agency that contradicts the opinion that Couturier has higher offensive upside than Landeskog?

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

- That depends on what you mean by high-end offensive skills or what you think those will translate into in the NHL.

- He wouldn't make it into the top-10 based on offensive ability. All of Couturier, Nugent-Hopkins, Strome and Huberdeau are more skilled offensive talents than Landeskog is.

You've named 4 Forwards, not 10. More skilled? They may be flashier and better stickhandlers, but that doesn't neccessairly project them to be more Offensively effective at the NHL level than Landeskog.

Landeskog should clearly translate to the NHL. He has high end tools ; good shot, good skater and soft hands. There are others who may have better of one category, but Landeskog is a very well rounded Offensive player. Combine this with excellent hockey sense and i can't see how Landeskog doesn't become A 1st line Forward who is near a PPG on a regular basis. PPG forwards are pretty rare in the NHL ; add in the other assets of his game and i fail to see how he doesn't warrant a Top 5 or even higher selection.

Sure, SC may have slightly more upside (5-10 points). Strome and Hub may have more Pure talent, but at the NHL level that doesn't neccessairly translate to actual production.

 

[trentmccleary]

You've named 4 Forwards, not 10.

Larsson, Hamilton, Murphy and Siemens are all projected by most to go top-10, as well as 1 or 2 forwards at the bottom end of the top-10 which change depending on the list.

More skilled? They may be flashier and better stickhandlers, but that doesn't neccessairly project them to be more Offensively effective at the NHL level than Landeskog.

Landeskog should clearly translate to the NHL. He has high end tools ; good shot, good skater and soft hands. There are others who may have better of one category, but Landeskog is a very well rounded Offensive player.

Better stickhandlers, better playmakers and at least two of them have a better shot than Landeskog (Couturier & Strome).

Landeskog is currently a man dominating a boys league playing a physical style. At the NHL, I see a player who will be much more limited to playing even more of a classic power forwards game than he is now (which is already quite limited). He rarely seems to carry the puck up ice, can't set up the play, the puck is better out of his hands... he is dependent on playing with more creative players than he is (Akeson, Catanacci, Murphy, D'Amigo). He helps retrieve the puck and goes to the slot. I don't see any classic power forwards racking up a PPG in the NHL these days.

Combine this with excellent hockey sense and i can't see how Landeskog doesn't become A 1st line Forward who is near a PPG on a regular basis. PPG forwards are pretty rare in the NHL ; add in the other assets of his game and i fail to see how he doesn't warrant a Top 5 or even higher selection.

Sure, SC may have slightly more upside (5-10 points). Strome and Hub may have more Pure talent, but at the NHL level that doesn't neccessairly translate to actual production.

You're greatly overestimating the talent in this draft, making it sound almost as if the top-5 players will all be PPG players. Only 17-19 players hit 80+ points a year nowadays. This draft would be lucky to produce one or two.

I don't think that Landeskog will ever be as talented or as productive as Rick Nash... and after years establishing himself in the league is up around 65-75 point range.

 

[FrozenJagrt]

I'm a huge Landeskog fan, but it's shocking how defensive some of you are getting about him.

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

Larsson, Hamilton, Murphy and Siemens are all projected by most to go top-10, as well as 1 or 2 forwards at the bottom end of the top-10 which change depending on the list.

You said Top 10 on Offensive potential. You should define your measurements correctly.

Better stickhandlers, better playmakers and at least two of them have a better shot than Landeskog (Couturier & Strome).

It is marginal. Landeskog's intelligence for me is better than those guys. And it isn't like Landeskog doesn't have an excellent shot, skating etc.

Landeskog is currently a man dominating a boys league playing a physical style. At the NHL, I see a player who will be much more limited to playing even more of a classic power forwards game than he is now (which is already quite limited). He rarely seems to carry the puck up ice, can't set up the play, the puck is better out of his hands... he is dependent on playing with more creative players than he is (Akeson, Catanacci, Murphy, D'Amigo). He helps retrieve the puck and goes to the slot. I don't see any classic power forwards racking up a PPG in the NHL these days.

That argument doesn't make sense. I often hear that scouts are down on players because they play a perimeter game and are soft. Yet when a player plays a physical game, people say it's a bad thing because he is playing against boys (He isn't, he's playing against players older then him) and he has less potential? It's a pointless and false angle used to manipulate and justify ones stance.

Secondly, Landeskog plays a safe simple game. So what? It works, its efficient and shockingly in the NHL, this type of game will work MUCH MORE than the Junior style. He plays a pro game ; which is exactly what i'd be looking for. He doesn't rely on the players you mentioned (Hell, D'Amigo only just joined Kitchener and is far inferior on terms of talent compared to Landeskog). Akeson recently struggled without Landeskog. Saying these guys are more talented than Landeskog is frankly absurd, and shows how little you actually know. Landeskog isn't a classical powerforward either. He's a very talented hockey player who is physical.

You're greatly overestimating the talent in this draft, making it sound almost as if the top-5 players will all be PPG players. Only 17-19 players hit 80+ points a year nowadays. This draft would be lucky to produce one or two.

I think you misunderstood me. I don't think the top end of this draft is that great. I aware pointed out that very few players hit PPG status, so i don't know why you think im oblivious to this. This draft will produce a few who hit it in their careers and a a few who may regularly hit it (Because some will develop at rates we cannot predict). Players like Perry, Richards. Toews are 70 pt forwards in the NHL and Landeskog compares favourably to them for the future.

I don't think that Landeskog will ever be as talented or as productive as Rick Nash... and after years establishing himself in the league is up around 65-75 point range.

Rick Nash is one of the most overrated hockey players of the last 5 years. He's a very talented player, but lets face it, is a pretty average #1 pick and has yet to really do anything to warrant the myth that perpetuates around him. Landeskog may not be as talented in dangling as Nash is, but Landeskog is a smarter player with more drive. Whether Landeskog becomes a better player than Nash i don't know, but again, you clearly seem to think that flash and hands = Offensive production, when there are many more variables and skills needed required to be productive.

 

[JawandaPuck]

I'm leaning Couturier over Landeskog by a hair (maybe two ).

 

[Eye of Ra]

grit? Couturier
physical play? Couturier

 

[YNWA14]

Couturier is much better offensively and better defensively than Landeskog. Scouts and GM's putting Landeskog above him are attempting to draft "momentum".

I like Couturier but this statement seems wrong. Couturier is better offensively, but I wouldn't say by much and Landeskog's offence has a better chance of translating to the NHL because he already plays that way. From watching the two I'd also say that Landeskog is better defensively. He's great on the backcheck, very mobile and physical coming back. He's very good in the defensive end.

 

[AwesomePanthers]

Hands? Couturier
Vision? Couturier
Shot? Couturier
Speed? Landeskog
IQ? Couturier
Captain material? Landeskog
Creativity? Couturier
Frame? Tied
Strength? Tied
Offensive play? Couturier
Defensive play? Tied
Overall Upside? Couturier

I'd easily take Couturier over Landeskog.

 

[boredmale]

I'd easily take Couturier over Landeskog.

As an Islanders fan who wants Landeskog, hopefully you guys do.

perfect draft for me would be
1. RNH
2. Huberdeau
3. Couturier

leaving Larsson or Landeskog available at 5th

 

[R S]

Hands? Couturier
Vision? Couturier
Shot? Couturier
Speed? Landeskog
IQ? Couturier
Captain material? Landeskog
Creativity? Couturier
Frame? Tied
Strength? Tied
Offensive play? Couturier
Defensive play? Tied
Overall Upside? Couturier

I'd easily take Couturier over Landeskog.

To be fair, he fits your team perfectly and is exactly what you need. That likely has a GREAT deal of pull in regards to your choice.

 

[GetThePuckOut]

This interview is from under 3 months ago, so shows how big Landeskog is. Ryan Murphy (an undersized dman) is standing a bit in front of Landeskog, so it's hard to judge, but Tobias Rieder is standing right beside him. Rieder is listed at 5'10", 165 lbs, and that's probably being generous. Landeskog is definitely a bit bigger, but no way is he 4" taller and 60 lbs heavier! I would bet everything I own that Landeskog is not 6'2", 225 lbs, my guess would be 6'-6'1", 200-205 lbs.



I have a Rugby playing friend who's a jacked/lean 6'2", 230 lbs, he looks absolutely massive, WAY bigger than Landeskog looks here. Ryane Clowe, a fully grown man, is 6'2", 225 lbs, Landeskog does not look like Clowe.

I would say that's close to a 4 inch difference. The guy doing the interview looks about 3 inches taller than Reider, and Landeskog is clearly taller than that guy.

Also, all 3 are wearing hats, but Landeskog is the only one who's hat is on tight, making the other two look a bit taller.

 

[Bjorn Le]

grit? Couturier
physical play? Couturier

Lol'd

 

[maple8]

I would say that's close to a 4 inch difference. The guy doing the interview looks about 3 inches taller than Reider, and Landeskog is clearly taller than that guy.

Also, all 3 are wearing hats, but Landeskog is the only one who's hat is on tight, making the other two look a bit taller.

No, it's not a 4 inch difference. The guy doing the interview is also clearly standing in front of the 3 players, so you can't judge anything by his apparent height.