Why do people keep downplaying Landeskog's offensive potential?

[YNWA14]

I'm genuinely curious about this. If nothing else, as he's been compared to Mike Richards, he should be projected to be about a PPG player with the majority of his points being goals (more valuable than assists) and at his pace he was on was projected to do better than Richards in his draft year. On top of that he has the same PPG pace as RNH when he got hurt, but with more than 50% of those points as goals (his pace had him at 94 points in 67 games with 52 goals.)

I know minor league scoring isn't the end all be all. But when you have a guy with that offensive output, and then take into account he's pretty much better at every other aspect of the game (defence, phyiscality, leadership) and he has great hockey sense and skating. I don't see why he wouldn't be your first pick if you're looking for a forward. Not to mention he could probably step in next year.

Click to read more...

 

[TheBradyBunch]

I'm genuinely curious about this. If nothing else, as he's been compared to Mike Richards, he should be projected to be about a PPG player with the majority of his points being goals (more valuable than assists) and at his pace he was on was projected to do better than Richards in his draft year. On top of that he has the same PPG pace as RNH when he got hurt, but with more than 50% of those points as goals (his pace had him at 94 points in 67 games with 52 goals.)

I know minor league scoring isn't the end all be all. But when you have a guy with that offensive output, and then take into account he's pretty much better at every other aspect of the game (defence, phyiscality, leadership) and he has great hockey sense and skating. I don't see why he wouldn't be your first pick if you're looking for a forward. Not to mention he could probably step in next year.

Have you seen enough of him to compare to RNH/Couturier? I haven't at all but from what I see RNH gets his points through insane puck skill whereas Landeskog is more positioning and getting to the net and getting a quick shot off. While Landeskog is more physically transferable to the NHL, RNH's skill is something that is above that of most NHLers already. He doesn't have the size, but if he hits 6'1, 180, I can't see him having trouble. Landeskog would be more valuable now, but RNH seems like a guy who has more potential just because the only thing about him that isn't NHL is his size (not sure about D). I really don't know much about them, but thats what I get from the little I've seen of them. Its entirely possible I have no clue what I'm talking about here.

 

[1912]

I dont think people are really downgrading it. He just has so many up sides that i think its easy to forget.

 

[BondraTime]

There are three players who are really pushing to be the first forward chosen, RNH, Couturier, and Landeskog. (And just for this one topic dont start an arguement about how Strome is included, it is irrelevant). All three have different packages that could entice different teams in different ways. All three play in different leagues, it is not very sensible to compare stats, and then other "intangibles" that one may have compared to the other.

RNH is the player whom it seems scouts think could be a home-run, put up a ppg pace in the NHL with stellar defence and take-away ability.

Couturier is the Big 2-way pivot who can play in the bottom 6 shutdown role, or if he reaches his full potential, a 1st line center with stellar point totals.

Landeskog is a player with captain written all over him. Like you said, Mike Richards lite. Will hit, fight, and do anything to help his team win. He is putting up points now, ansd is expected to put points up in the show, but not expected to be a ppg player like the other two can be.

Of course he could be the first chosen, it would not surprise me at all, but to think that he should be the clear cut favorite by every team is silly. Just because it is your opinion, it is not that of every other teams.

 

[YNWA14]

There are three players who are really pushing to be the first forward chosen, RNH, Couturier, and Landeskog. (And just for this one topic dont start an arguement about how Strome is included, it is irrelevant). All three have different packages that could entice different teams in different ways. All three play in different leagues, it is not very sensible to compare stats, and then other "intangibles" that one may have compared to the other.

RNH is the player whom it seems scouts think could be a home-run, put up a ppg pace in the NHL with stellar defence and take-away ability.

Couturier is the Big 2-way pivot who can play in the bottom 6 shutdown role, or if he reaches his full potential, a 1st line center with stellar point totals.

Landeskog is a player with captain written all over him. Like you said, Mike Richards lite. Will hit, fight, and do anything to help his team win. He is putting up points now, ansd is expected to put points up in the show, but not expected to be a ppg player like the other two can be.

Of course he could be the first chosen, it would not surprise me at all, but to think that he should be the clear cut favorite by every team is silly. Just because it is your opinion, it is not that of every other teams.

I'm just wondering why he's considered Mike Richards lite when he's putting up better numbers and is more physical? Like I'm trying to understand why people don't see him producing at a PPG pace in the NHL considering his offensive talents that he's already showcased. Positioning and a quick release are huge in the NHL and he's great with both, and he can plan himself in front of the net (he also has a pretty nice shot.)

Again, this is obviously my opinion. I was asking a question. I said 'I don't see why...' not 'Landeskog should be the #1 pick in everyone's mind...period.'

 

[CharlieGirl]

Landeskog is a player with captain written all over him. Like you said, Mike Richards lite. Will hit, fight, and do anything to help his team win. He is putting up points now, ansd is expected to put points up in the show, but not expected to be a ppg player like the other two can be.

The interesting thing is that this was pretty much the scouting report on Richards during his draft year. No one (except those who watched him a lot in junior) expected him to be a ppg player in the NHL. He was considered a defensive specialist who would get points, but he was never thought to lead his team in points.

Landeskog could very well turn out the same.

 

[ORYX]

I don't think people are downgrading his offensive output, but simply not classifying him as a pure goal scorer.

Couturier and RNH as examples have more of an offensive ability in their stick handling, and shooting, where as Landeskog uses the body, drives the net and will also get the dirty goals.

There is a difference between a guy who can score 50 without entering the blue paint and a guy who scores 50 by driving into the bluepaint like he owns it.

Landeskog is that guy who owns the paint.

It makes sense that NHL teams value the Couturier/RNH offensive skill more then the Landeskog offensive skill because anyone can drive the net, but not everyone can pick the top corner from 50 feet. Not that Landeskog can't score nice goals, but he mixes it up.

 

[BondraTime]

I'm just wondering why he's considered Mike Richards lite when he's putting up better numbers and is more physical? Like I'm trying to understand why people don't see him producing at a PPG pace in the NHL considering his offensive talents that he's already showcased. Positioning and a quick release are huge in the NHL and he's great with both, and he can plan himself in front of the net (he also has a pretty nice shot.)

Again, this is obviously my opinion. I was asking a question. I said 'I don't see why...' not 'Landeskog should be the #1 pick in everyone's mind...period.'

Again, you are just looking at stats, comparing Richards and Landeskogs draft years. Richards took huge steps in his 2nd, 3rd year pro in which he became the player he is today. He was never projected to put the points he is. And you saying I don't see why...you do this countless times in your arguements, telling other posters to give you reasons why, and when someone comes in and gives their opinion, whether it be about Strome, or Landeskog, you point to how much better they are doing this year.
It just seems to me you are trying to convince others that your way of viewing things is the only way.

 

[YNWA14]

I don't think people are downgrading his offensive output, but simply not classifying him as a pure goal scorer.

Couturier and RNH as examples have more of an offensive ability in their stick handling, and shooting, where as Landeskog uses the body, drives the net and will also get the dirty goals.

There is a difference between a guy who can score 50 without entering the blue paint and a guy who scores 50 by driving into the bluepaint like he owns it.

Landeskog is that guy who owns the paint.

It makes sense that NHL teams value the Couturier/RNH offensive skill more then the Landeskog offensive skill because anyone can drive the net, but not everyone can pick the top corner from 50 feet. Not that Landeskog can't score nice goals, but he mixes it up.

That's cool. I see what you're saying I guess, but I am still curious as to why that type of offensive skill (Lando's) wouldn't have more value? I mean, there are probably just as many if not more dirty goals scored in the NHL than pretty ones. If he can mix it up (which he can) that should be pretty valuable. Anyway, thanks.

Again, you are just looking at stats, comparing Richards and Landeskogs draft years. Richards took huge steps in his 2nd, 3rd year pro in which he became the player he is today. He was never projected to put the points he is. And you saying I don't see why...you do this countless times in your arguements, telling other posters to give you reasons why, and when someone comes in and gives their opinion, whether it be about Strome, or Landeskog, you point to how much better they are doing this year.
It just seems to me you are trying to convince others that your way of viewing things is the only way.

I really appreciate your strawman, but you haven't really added anything of substance to this discussion and you keep bringing up Strome as though it's relevant. If you don't have anything to say why are you posting here? If you could read you'd see that in any topic that involves people actually answering my question I usually thank them and move on. When has someone given me a reason why and I have pointed out how much better they are doing?

 

[BondraTime]

I really appreciate your strawman, but you haven't really added anything of substance to this discussion and you keep bringing up Strome as though it's relevant. If you don't have anything to say why are you posting here? If you could read you'd see that in any topic that involves people actually answering my question I usually thank them and move on. When has someone given me a reason why and I have pointed out how much better they are doing?

I already added to the discussion by telling you why some teams would consider the other two as the better forward choice, which answers your question as to why Landeskog is not the clear-cut favorite, which was the point of this topic I believe.

 

[YNWA14]

I already added to the discussion by telling you why some teams would consider the other two as the better forward choice, which answers your question as to why Landeskog is not the clear-cut favorite, which was the point of this topic I believe.

The point of this topic was asking why his offensive capabilities are in question considering his production and skill, hence the topic title.

 

[BondraTime]

I said in my post that he is seen as what Mike Richards was in junior, before his offensive upswing he experienced in the NHL, which is a solid 2-way, captain type player who will put up 60ish points, a Toews or Morrow type.

I don't see why he wouldn't be your first pick if you're looking for a forward. Not to mention he could probably step in next year.

This wasnt a question you wanted answered?

 

[CharlieGirl]

I said in my post that he is seen as what Mike Richards was in junior, before his offensive upswing he experienced in the NHL, which is a solid 2-way, captain type player who will put up 60ish points, a Toews type.

You clearly never saw Richards play junior, nor have you looked at his stats.

 

[YNWA14]

You clearly never saw Richards play junior, nor have you looked at his stats.

Yeah I'm not really understanding. Mike Richards has produced at a PPG pace since his third season in the NHL and put up some very good numbers in the OHL.

 

[BondraTime]

Actually I was a season ticket holder in Kitchener for 2 years while I was there for work. Richards was our leading scorer his draft year, finished close to top 10 in OHL scoring if memory serves me, but I didn't see the offence translating to the NHL. Roy was the main offensive threat, and lead to many of Richards points. Richards wasn't expected to be a ppg player in the NHL, there is no point denying that, he exceeded expectations in that department.

Landeskog I see as similar, and I do not see his offensive game reaching the heights of Richards, but of course I am not a pro scout so what do I know

 

[BondraTime]

Yeah I'm not really understanding. Mike Richards has produced at a PPG pace since his third season in the NHL and put up some very good numbers in the OHL.

Which he was not projected as doing, which is my point, Landeskog is not "expected to do that, not saying he won't. This is why the other offensive forwards could be viewed as more highly, and why his numbers are being overlooked

 

[YNWA14]

Which he was not projected as doing, which is my point, Landeskog is not "expected to do that, not saying he won't. This is why the other offensive forwards could be viewed as more highly, and why his numbers are being overlooked

Right, but my question is why are his offensive numbers and accomplishments being overlooked? What about his skills imply that they won't extend to the NHL?

 

[BondraTime]

I am not a scout, but if I were to take a guess as to why most scouts do not believe he has that capability it is that once he gets to the NHL he will have to use his intangible skills, forcheck, leadership, hitting, as well as scoring ability. Most scouts, in my opinion of course, see him as a seondary scoring threat, while being the leader on the team. Think Morrow.

 

[TheRocketFlash]

This years draft doesnt have a Crosby, Ovechkin, Stamkos etc...Lando's #'s aren't being overlooked, there just isnt a consensus #1 overall pick so whichever team has the first selection will have to make the decision of what type of player best fits their system (assuming they draft a forward)....'strawman' outlined some aspects of each players style and why a certian team may lean towards one guy over another (Nugent Hopkins over Lando for example)

 

[YNWA14]

I am not a scout, but if I were to take a guess as to why most scouts do not believe he has that capability it is that once he gets to the NHL he will have to use his intangible skills, forcheck, leadership, hitting, as well as scoring ability. Most scouts, in my opinion of course, see him as a seondary scoring threat, while being the leader on the team. Think Morrow.

So what you're saying is that right now he doesn't have to use his forecheck, leadership and hitting to go with his scoring? I'm a bit confused by this post.

This years draft doesnt have a Crosby, Ovechkin, Stamkos etc...Lando's #'s aren't being overlooked, there just isnt a consensus #1 overall pick so whichever team has the first selection will have to make the decision of what type of player best fits their system (assuming they draft a forward)....'strawman' outlined some aspects of each players style and why a certian team may lean towards one guy over another (Nugent Hopkins over Lando for example)

This topic isn't about who will go #1...I just voiced my opinion about it at the end. I really just want to know why he isn't expected to have a high offensive output in the NHL?

Also do you know what a strawman is?

 

[mattihp]

where as Landeskog uses the body, drives the net and will also get the dirty goals.

Ryan Smyth?

 

[Form and Substance]

Jesus why are people having such a hard time understanding what Officer Farva is saying? Landeskog doesn't have as high an offensive potential (the key word is potential) because his pure offensive skills aren't on the same level of guys like RNH, Couturier and Huberdeau. That doesn't mean he's plateaud in his development or that his actual skills won't translate better in the NHL.

 

[BondraTime]

So what you're saying is that right now he doesn't have to use his forecheck, leadership and hitting to go with his scoring? I'm a bit confused by this post.


Also do you know what a strawman is?

What I am saying is it is easier to do both now in Junior, but when it comes to translating all in the same package to the NHL it will be much harder. Its not hard to understand that.

And I fail to see how I distorted your posistion? Enlighten me, seeing your the only "smart" enough poster to use the strawman fallacy.

 

[YNWA14]

Jesus why are people having such a hard time understanding what Officer Farva is saying? Landeskog doesn't have as high an offensive potential (the key word is potential) because his pure offensive skills aren't on the same level of guys like RNH, Couturier and Huberdeau. That doesn't mean he's plateaud in his development or that his actual skills won't translate better in the NHL.

Where is this part of the argument? I don't think anyone is comparing his potential to theirs. The question was 'why is his offensive potential being overlooked?' There's no higher level of understanding that you're imparting on us with this post.

What I am saying is it is easier to do both now in Junior, but when it comes to translating all in the same package to the NHL it will be much harder. Its not hard to understand that.

And I fail to see how I distorted your posistion? Enlighten me, seeing your the only "smart" enough poster to use the strawman fallacy.

Ok, I understand that, but you just didn't make that very clear with your post. I never said that you distorted my position? I also don't know what you mean by 'strawman fallacy'; you were bringing up something irrelivant to this discussion and attacking it while not addressing what the actual discussion was about. That's pretty much the definition of a strawman argument.

 

[H2O]

What I am saying is it is easier to do both now in Junior, but when it comes to translating all in the same package to the NHL it will be much harder. Its not hard to understand that.

And I fail to see how I distorted your posistion? Enlighten me, seeing your the only "smart" enough poster to use the strawman fallacy.

I applaud your patience.