THN Mock Draft 2011 has RNH going 3rd overall to Florida

BluechipBulletin

Registered User
Mar 22, 2011
345
0
www.bluechipbulletin.com
It seems to me that you are probably one of a few that has this opinion of him! Will see in 3-4 years who was right and will bump it:nod:

I'm more than fine with being the only one who has a particular opinion. This time, that's not really the case, as I'm aware of several people who agree. In my preliminary ranking, I think I had Larsson 9th overall, behind Murphy and Beaulieu. I don't know where he'll be in my final ranking, but I will obviously still have at least Murphy and Beaulieu ahead of him.
 

Leviathan

Registered User
Nov 25, 2008
1,305
112
I don't get why everyone thinks RNH is a can't miss prospect. It's debatable whether he's even the best player or forward in the draft. He's great, no doubt, but he isn't all that far ahead of the others.
 

Garl

Registered User
Oct 7, 2006
8,019
1,013
Based on his 9 points this season. He may be good defensively but 9 points makes me question his offense.

I would tend to lean towards Doug Hamilton - bigger than Larsson, good defensively and his 58 points lead me to believe he can play offensively as well.

What makes Larsson better than Hamilton?

Hamilton isn't bigger than Adam. He is 1 cm taller that's a marginal difference and is also like 20 kilos smaller.

And 9 pts. Well, Larsson scored it in SEL. Guys like E.Karlsson and T.Enstrom had less points in their draft year. But if Adam was in J20 he would have been a PPG. Why? Because there's a huge difference between senior and junior hockey and it's not just the level of competiton.
 

SurMartin

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
1,462
0
København/Skellefteå
You may have a point about PP time (I don't have the numbers in front of me), but his ice time did increase from last season to this one. So basically what you're unintentionally saying is that he's ineffective at even strength, since an increase in his overall ice time and a decrease in his PP ice time leads to a ~30% reduction in his point production (and yes, I factored for games played).

Rundblad was definitely lights out, but Larsson's poor defensive positioning, his problems with gap control and angles, his turnovers and his poor footspeed no doubt had a strong influence on any decrease in Larsson's ice time in key situations. If what you're saying about Larsson's PP time is true, then it's even more damning evidence against him, as Larsson's offense is obviously more of a selling point than anything else.
I think the fault you're making is looking at statistics without knowing the little facts of how Skellefteå worked. During the regular season, the first line of Skellefteå was hands down the best line in SEL:
1011ov.jpg

but they were also the only line on the team really producing offensivly during major parts of the season. The second line, on which Larsson played, didn't get its production going for quite some time and was used as the shutdown line, usually matched against the opponents best players. So basically what I'm saying is yes, he was ineffective at even strength, but that wasn't their main job for the greater part of the regular season. I think anyone who has followed the SEL could tell you this.

What games are you basing this on? He was awful in the SEL-finals, if you're basing it off that, but so was the whole team.

His decrease in PP-time came mostly from Rundblad becoming the best offensive defenceman in SEL and Erixon having developed if not the, then at least one of the best slapshots in the league.
Then ofc we have the whole matter of him being troubled with injuries and playing less games than last season.

I'm not projecting him to be a new Lidström or anything; just saying what I know.
Just like Pierre Dorion says here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5SS1EDRJUU&feature=youtu.be&t=2m20s I think the main thing Larsson has to do is mature off-ice, learn english and all of that, before he goes to the NHL. If he stays in Sweden he'll probably get to play in all situations as well with Rundblad and Erixon gone, so it would probably be for the best if he's drafted by a team who can let him stay for another year.
 
Last edited:

Bjorn Le

Hobocop
May 17, 2010
19,590
605
Martinaise, Revachol
Based on his 9 points this season. He may be good defensively but 9 points makes me question his offense.

I would tend to lean towards Doug Hamilton - bigger than Larsson, good defensively and his 58 points lead me to believe he can play offensively as well.

What makes Larsson better than Hamilton?

Points are very misleading. Larrsons low point totals are misleading (I'm by no means a Larsson fan, I think his upside is overrated) in accordance to his offensive skills, but Hamiltons high point totals I think are also misleading. He was almost PPG but I think his defense will be his strengh in the NHL more than point totals, I see Seabrook type production in the NHL.
 

BluechipBulletin

Registered User
Mar 22, 2011
345
0
www.bluechipbulletin.com
This pretty much blows everything else you said away. Just wondering, have you actually seen him outside of the wjc and a few streamed elitserien finals?

How many times do I need to answer this question? Just so I know.

And just how is a third place team supposed to be "dominant"? If they were "dominant", then how come they were dominated by Farjestads in the final? How does a "dominant" team not finish at the top of the table?

I think the fault you're making is looking at statistics without knowing the little facts of how Skellefteå worked.

I just noticed your location, which explains your zeal.

The second line, on which Larsson played, didn't get its production going for quite some time and was used as the shutdown line, usually matched against the opponents best players.

Given Larsson's weaknesses defensively and how he played, it wasn't a great decision to put him in a shutdown role.

So basically what I'm saying is yes, he was ineffective at even strength, but that wasn't their main job for the greater part of the regular season.

So someone that you admit was ineffective at even strength is the best D prospect in the draft, is NHL-ready and is comparable to Victor Hedman, a guy who plays a different style, was much more effective his draft year, showed a far superior developmental curve, and has much better size?

If he stays in Sweden he'll probably get to play in all situations as well with Rundblad and Erixon gone, so it would probably be for the best if he's drafted by a team who can let him stay for another year.

Like I said, I think he'd probably benefit from a different coach.
 

Garl

Registered User
Oct 7, 2006
8,019
1,013
Given Larsson's weaknesses defensively and how he played, it wasn't a great decision to put him in a shutdown role.

Stuff like this really shows that you have probably seen only SEL finals.
With all his bad play and defensive weaknesses he managed to finish the regular season with just 14 goals scored when he was on the ice. The closest regular defenseman is Majesky with 20.

So someone that you admit was ineffective at even strength is the best D prospect in the draft, is NHL-ready and is comparable to Victor Hedman, a guy who plays a different style, was much more effective his draft year, showed a far superior developmental curve, and has much better size?
1.Larsson was effective at ES. Defensively.
2.Hedman wasn't more effective in his draft year. That's just not true and once again shows you have probably seen only SEL finals. Hedman had bigger offensive role, because aside from him and Timander MODO had nobody to play as offensive defenseman that year.
3.Far superior developmental curve? Bs. It's arguable but Larsson had better WJC in his draft year IMO.And I like Hedman, but I must admit, Larsson was more dominant at U18 WJC. Then Larsson had better pre draft season in SEL and in his draft year he was a premier shutdown guy for a 2nd place team while Hedman and MODO weren't in playoffs in 2009.
4.Much better size? Yeah 6'6 225 is better than 6'3 220. Is 6'3 220 small?
 

BluechipBulletin

Registered User
Mar 22, 2011
345
0
www.bluechipbulletin.com
Stuff like this really shows that you have probably seen only SEL finals.
With all his bad play and defensive weaknesses he managed to finish the regular season with just 14 goals scored when he was on the ice.

I saw two games in the finals and several in the regular season as well as the two WJC games live this past season, and then a few games last year. When I say it was a bad decision to play him in a shutdown role, I'm saying that from a standpoint of having watched him play a lot and having seen him have the same weaknesses and make the same mistakes over and over.

That he was only on the ice for 14 goals against (assuming you're right) is irrelevant. +/- isn't an individual stat, and neither is goals against. And Hadelov had a hell of a year.
 

SurMartin

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
1,462
0
København/Skellefteå
And just how is a third place team supposed to be "dominant"? If they were "dominant", then how come they were dominated by Farjestads in the final? How does a "dominant" team not finish at the top of the table?
I don't know; how come HV71, the team that finished at the top of the table, were beaten in the quarterfinals by the SEL-newcomers? :facepalm:
I just noticed your location, which explains your zeal.
Well you're very welcome to play the "you're just a homer"-card, or you could also consider the fact that I've watched almost every single game Larsson has played for the last 3 years and that I'm only telling you what I know. Yes, if you had read what I had written you'd also notice than I'm no more biased than the next guy, but I guess that's up to you. :nod:
Given Larsson's weaknesses defensively and how he played, it wasn't a great decision to put him in a shutdown role.
Well if you're of that opinion I guess you'll just have to take that up with the coach then. :sarcasm:
So someone that you admit was ineffective at even strength is the best D prospect in the draft, is NHL-ready and is comparable to Victor Hedman, a guy who plays a different style, was much more effective his draft year, showed a far superior developmental curve, and has much better size?
Wait, did you not read anything of what I wrote?
I've never claimed that Larsson is the best D prospect in the draft. Why? Because I haven't seen the other D's enough to make that assessment. But apparently you have.. Like i've said, I'm only telling you what I know about Larsson.
I haven't mentioned anything about Hedman either, but yes I agree that they don't have the exact same style and Hedman has the better size. Larsson is still considered by most to be better than Hedman was at his age, why? I guess not everyone look at their offensive production and base their potential on that.
And If you really want to compare them based on that, what does Larssons WJC-numbers tell you compared to Hedmans?
Like I said, I think he'd probably benefit from a different coach.
If he wants to up his defence then you might be right, if he wants to develop his offence; no. But that's a different discussion we could have about Forsbergs method of coaching. Like I said, the main reason for him to stay in Sweden another year would be so he can develop as a human-being to be able to take the step from a northern town in Sweden to a big city in another country.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->