What's the beef with Gabriel Landeskog?

[Stawks]

Ill take either. Ricci was a pretty good player when he was healthy. He had 20 plus goals in his first 4 years in the league, hopefully Lando can be more consistent over the course of his career than MR. But Ricci also had alot of intangibles that allowed to stay in the NHL despite lack of scoring ability. Gahh this season needs to start already, so many question marks for the Avs.

Ricci scored twenty goals in his first four seasons, true, but he played big minutes on some very bad Flyers teams in his first two, and then was a complimentary piece on some Quebec teams that were stacked offensively, all during one of the highest scoring periods in the sport. My point isn't that Ricci is a bad player by any stretch, but can you honestly tell me there was any point in his career where he wasn't a complimentary player?

All this, and he put up far greater numbers during his junior career. (I understand the OHL was a much higher scoring league at the time, but Ricci was 3rd in league scoring during his draft year, and had 41 points more than the second leading scorer on his team, while Landeskog didn't even scratch Top 10 and was 42 points back from the leading scorer on his team.) I understand that Lando had injuries, but even so, the guy put up 1.2 ppg against Junior competition, and he's supposed to put up 60 points in a league where his greatest attribute (his physique) is largely nullified by playing people just as well built as he is? I don't buy it.

I haven't seen him play as much as some, I'm sure. I saw him briefly at the WJC and I watched a few Kitchener games. He's a good skater, better than Ricci for sure. But what I see when I watch him, and when I watch highlights of his goals, is him beating people up physically, and taking advantage of bad defensive coverage. We'll see how far that gets him.

 

[Helmethead]

I think he is underrated due to his high ankle sprain he suffered just before the WJC's. That's a type of injury you can play on, and it just slows you down all year. Before that injury he was on pace for around 100 points. 45 points in 32 games if i am not mistaken.

I fully expect him to be a 80 point prime player, and i predict 50 points this season.

 

[topshelf15]

I think he is underrated due to his high ankle sprain he suffered just before the WJC's. That's a type of injury you can play on, and it just slows you down all year. Before that injury he was on pace for around 100 points. 45 points in 32 games if i am not mistaken.

I fully expect him to be a 80 point prime player, and i predict 50 points this season.

He will be a great two way winger ,they seldom get huge points but a 70 point selke trophy type forward is a great thing to have in your top 6

 

[puckfan13]

Uh.. didn't you sort of answer your own question. If you're calling him a Toews/Richards type player but on the wing... Richards and Toews both regularly score point totals in the 60's and that's the beef you have with Landeskog projections? I'd say those are pretty accurate if you ask me. Those players bring much more to the table than a stat line consisting of 3 numbers and that's what makes them all such valuable hockey players.

 

[Rhaego]

Obviously he shouldn't have been picked 2nd. I've heard from just about anyone with an opinion that Mika Z, Larsson, Strome, Huberdeau will be better than him.... So why argue

 

[Christian Litscher]

Could he become close to a Zetterberg?

 

[Bjorn Le]

Could he become close to a Zetterberg?

Upside wise certainly IMO.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

49 players scored 60 or more points last year. If his ceiling is 60 points while bringing leadership and physical presence, that's totally worth a 2nd overall pick. Only 9 players scored 80 or more points. Those who say that his potential is 80+ points or that the scouts wouldn't rank him 2nd overall if his potential was 60 points clearly have no understanding of how few players score more than 80 points.

I think this is an excellent post but... I also think if he just hits 60 he'll be considered a disappointment for the #2 overall. I think, however, that he'll be a 65-70 kind of guy, which pushes him a bit higher in the ranking and justifies the pick easily, given his intangibles and physical game. I think in his best season or two he may be able to post 80ish, but he'll be around a 65-70 for most of his prime. And if he's not, he'll still be a damn good player.

 

[AvsFan7*]

Could he become close to a Zetterberg?

Probably as a Top out, but I dont think he reaches that level!

I see him entering this year with a 20/25 season, and a canidate for Calder, in his prime I see him hitting 35/35 and a great overall player!

 

[Wheatking]

This.

60 points per year is a damn fine player.

That's why I don't get bent out of shape when people say Eberle will ONLY be a 60 point player. Do I think he's capable of more? Yes...but I'll take a 60 point player. Especially if Hemsky is still on the team. A 60 point player on your second line is a luxury not many teams have.

Edit: Linden was "just" a 70 point player and he went 2nd overall. I don't think Canucks fans were complaining about that. Sometimes intangibles actually do meet the hype.

 

[avsfan9]

i think he was the bpa left in the draft and we baddly needed a winger. from last year he was the #1 ranked na player going in to the draft and he fell to #2. a lot of players came out of nowhere to climb into the top rankings because of exceptional seasons. but there was no doubt in any of the scouts minds that landeskog was going to be a top pick. players make the nhl because of hard work and determination and not always on their skillsets. no doubt landeskog can put the puck in the net as well. who cares if huberdeau or hopkins puts up 15-20 more points a year. he is in every way comparible to iginla with a hard accurate shot and not afraid to go into the corners and take punishment in front of the net to get the dirty goals. imo we have a player that every coach and team dreams of having, a player that leaves it all out on the ice and lets his playing speak for itself, and if i was gm would definatly make that pick time and time again. he is going to be huge for the avs organization and a fan favorite for years to come. go avs!!!

 

[Wheatking]

i think he was the bpa left in the draft and we baddly needed a winger. from last year he was the #1 ranked na player going in to the draft and he fell to #2. a lot of players came out of nowhere to climb into the top rankings because of exceptional seasons. but there was no doubt in any of the scouts minds that landeskog was going to be a top pick. players make the nhl because of hard work and determination and not always on their skillsets. no doubt landeskog can put the puck in the net as well. who cares if huberdeau or hopkins puts up 15-20 more points a year. he is in every way comparible to iginla with a hard accurate shot and not afraid to go into the corners and take punishment in front of the net to get the dirty goals. imo we have a player that every coach and team dreams of having, a player that leaves it all out on the ice and lets his playing speak for itself, and if i was gm would definatly make that pick time and time again. he is going to be huge for the avs organization and a fan favorite for years to come. go avs!!!

In September 2010 Mckenzie had Couturier and Larsson tied for 1st, RNH was 3rd while Landeskog and Saad were tied at 4th.

 

[Freudian]

In September 2010 Mckenzie had Couturier and Larsson tied for 1st, RNH was 3rd while Landeskog and Saad were tied at 4th.

And Landeskog was first in Central Scoutings midterm NA rankings while RNH was third. Then in the final one RNH was first and Landeskog second. Couturier dropped from second to sixth.

Rankings are just a bunch more or less well informed opinions. They change all the time. They have no real value other than as a snapshot of when they were made, if that. I wish they would stop to be waved around like they are some absolute truth.

How the players will do from now on in NHL/AHL/CHL/SEL etc from now on will tell you much about the players than what a few scouts told Bob McKenzie.

 

[Mc5RingsAndABeer]

Rankings are just a bunch more or less well informed opinions. They change all the time. They have no real value other than as a snapshot of when they were made, if that. I wish they would stop to be waved around like they are some absolute truth.

How the players will do from now on in NHL/AHL/CHL/SEL etc from now on will tell you much about the players than what a few scouts told Bob McKenzie.

Agreed, but that's the best we have to go off of. I'll take a snapshot of right before the draft from professional scouts over random HF posters who probably haven't seen more than a youtube video of most prospects.

 

[oilsands]

60 points

ohhhhh noes

 

[zeus3007*]

Most reports I've heard have his predictions being as a 60-70 point winger, with leadership and defensive qualities ahead of his competition. The player comparison most used for him before the draft was Mike Richards. Now, don't you think most teams would be pretty happy if their second overall pick turned into a Richards clone?

 

[FrozenJagrt]

I have been calling Landeskog a Mike Richards clone for two years (yeah, I beat Bobby Mack on that call, that`s how we Kitchener folks roll). And I stick to that comparison. I expect similar production, and a 60-70 point two way player who plays nasty and can truly lead is not a bad thing at all. And it would not completely surprise if he broke 80 once or twice. Calling him a .9 PPG player is not an insult at all. I would take a player with that package over any forward the Leafs have had the last decade (minus Sundin). Landeskog is as complete a prospect as I have seen in years. Not a thing he doesn`t do well.

Note: As a lifelong Kitchener Rangers fan who is a huge fan of Mike Richards, my opinion is 100% biased, based on exposure to the Rangers and love of the playing style that Richards and Landeskog play.

 

[Circulartheory]

Most reports I've heard have his predictions being as a 60-70 point winger, with leadership and defensive qualities ahead of his competition. The player comparison most used for him before the draft was Mike Richards. Now, don't you think most teams would be pretty happy if their second overall pick turned into a Richards clone?

Apparently, that isn't good enough...

 

[Bender]

Could he become close to a Zetterberg?

I don't see him as the same type of player. The Brendan Morrow comparison is a good one. He doesn't seem to be the type of player that will dominate a game with the puck on his stick. He'll dominate a game by being a physical presence and being in the right spot at the right time. Think Shane Doan, Rick Tocchet or Wendel Clark. Lando's game reminds me of a combination of these 3 players.

 

[FrozenJagrt]

Could he become close to a Zetterberg?

No. He doesn`t have the offensive upside of Zetterberg, and while he is a very good positional defender, he isn`t on Zetterberg`s level and I don`t expect he will be. And the playing styles are so very different.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Give me a 90-100 point player over a 60 point guy that is also defensive.

You can't get players extreme offensive talent very easily. Guys that check? Anyone can learn to do that.

 

[Rhaego]

Give me a 90-100 point player over a 60 point guy that is also defensive.

You can't get players extreme offensive talent very easily. Guys that check? Anyone can learn to do that.

Landeskog ceiling isn't a 60 point player. Its an 80 point player with selke qualities. Though he will likely be a 60 point player with great defense as well.

Can't pull that fast one here

 

[Mc5RingsAndABeer]

Give me a 90-100 point player over a 60 point guy that is also defensive.

You can't get players extreme offensive talent very easily. Guys that check? Anyone can learn to do that.

Anyone can check but defensive positioning and anticipating the play aren't always easy things to learn.

Teams that win championships are littered with 2-way players.

 

[Gobo]

Loui Eriksson but more physical?

 

[Coco the Monkey*]

Corey Pronman ranked Landeskog 39 amongst all prospects. The beef lingers on, brothas.