Why do people keep downplaying Landeskog's offensive potential?

[BondraTime]

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.

This is exactly what I am saying

 

[BondraTime]

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.



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.

Hs offensive potential isn't being overlooked. You are using his current accomplishments and confusing them with his potential. He is producing very well right now, but scouts do not see this kind of "potential" production in the NHL.

And distorting your position is almost the main part of a "strawman" arguement/fallacy. You should be smart enough to know that.

 

[YNWA14]

Hs offensive potential isn't being overlooked. You are using his current accomplishments and confusing them with his potential. He is producing very well right now, but scouts do not see this kind of "potential" production in the NHL.

And distorting your position is almost the main part of a "strawman" arguement/fallacy. You should be smart enough to know that.

Ok, but the idea with his current accomplishments is that he's only 18 and should continue to grow. I'm not confusing them with his potential since we're talking about two different leagues his 'potential' here can be regarded in two ways 1) his ability to improve a 2) his ability to translate what he's doing in the OHL to the NHL. I was referring more to a combination of the two rather than just the first. My stance is that he has the potential to be a PPG player due to his shot, his ability to 'own the paint' and his hockey sense as well as his hard forechecking and positioning. I brought up Mike Richards because he wasn't projected to be prolific, but they are in the same mold so perhaps he could offer credibility to the idea of Landeskog flourishing in the NHL.

I'm not going to argue about what makes a strawman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

While 'distorting' a position can be part of a strawman, the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[BondraTime]

If you still cannot understand, there is no point trying to explain anything further.

I bid you adieu.

 

[Manny*]

Ryan Smyth?

No.

All scouting reports aside, the reason I would take Landeskog over Nugent-Hopkins is every time I've seen Landeskog play, I came away really impressed whereas every time I've watched Nugent-Hopkins play, I was utterly disappointed. I haven't yet seen with my own two eyes anything that justifies all the hype surrounding him. I think Toews is a really good comparison for Landeskog, the next Mr. Intangibles.

 

[TheBradyBunch]

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.

I dunno if I'd agree with this totally, I think teams are just worried that Landeskogs ability (physicality and quick release) is not one that can be dominant in the NHL to the point of scoring 50, or 40, and his skill is that of a 35-30 guy, whereas RNH has abilities that CAN be dominant in the NHL. Like Landeskogs physical tools are good enough to dominate the OHL, but at 6'0 210 in the NHL he won't be head and shoulders above everyone else. RNH has the skill to dominate the CHL, but his skill is also unmatched by most NHLers. RNH can continue to dominate, whereas Landeskog may just settle in and be good at all the things he's currently dominant in. It could be totally wrong, but that would be a concern to me.

 

[kolider]

I think what is happening is that many Sens fans (including myself) have fully accepted the fact that we will be a lottery pick team this season. That's all fine and good but considering the fact that our most glaring weakness is a clear lack of forward scoring depth that we hope to hit a home run this entry draft in the forward department.

Ultimatley, Officer Farva has hit the nail on the head with Landeskog and nobody will truly know how he ends up when he hits the NHL.

All 3 forwards provide different skillsets and as a Sens fan I really think the best option for us is Landeskog. He brings elements that may translate best when Alfie retires. Couturier would be my 2nd pick as he can centre the 2nd line most likely. RNH would be the 3rd pick and could be a player that could play with Spezza on his wing.

I sort of hope Ottawa picks 3rd so it makes the forward pick that much easier to swallow so we aren't forced to make that tough choice between Landeskog and Couturier...

 

[periferal]

Nice.

No.

All scouting reports aside, the reason I would take Landeskog over Nugent-Hopkins is every time I've seen Landeskog play, I came away really impressed whereas every time I've watched Nugent-Hopkins play, I was utterly disappointed. I haven't yet seen with my own two eyes anything that justifies all the hype surrounding him. I think Toews is a really good comparison for Landeskog, the next Mr. Intangibles.

Hi Manny. How are you?

 

[Minister of Offence]

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

The one thing I think is really getting scouts excited about Landeskog IS the intangibles that surround him. And I know the intangibles word has become a joke around here because of Toews....but Toews is my favourite player, at this point easily, because he does everything as right as possible. It seems like those "future captain" types often figure it out. Toews dominated the WCHA in his draft year and scouts said they didn't see a game breaker in him, at this point, I think plenty of GMs would take him 1st overall in that draft. And people were saying Toews would be a captain. Richards? Same deal.

If the 1993 draft class were being drafted today, Daigle may have slid out of the top 5, despite his numbers and ability. Don't believe me? In 2005 half of NHL GMs said they would have taken Kessel over Crosby. By 2006 questions of character became the focus of Kessel's year and his inability to convince NHL teams it was water under the bridge forced the "American Crosby" down to 5. He's into his 4th year in the league and has already been traded away to a team that forgave his lack of character and is paying for it... to say the least. So whether his character alone would hurt Daigle, or whether the questions of his character that never came up in 1993 would hurt his play, I don't know. What is evident though, and explained by scout types anyways, is that character is climbing the charts of the most desirable attributes sought in a prospect.

Landeskog's a great prospect but you get the sense that scouts and GMs are starting to gain more confidence in these 17-18 year old "future captain" types to just find a way to lead the teams they play on. In the past, when a young player takes the captaincy....it can mean the franchise is heading on the upswing....the youngest captains in history? Guys like Yzerman, Sakic, Crosby, Toews...nuff said. Sure, he's Swedish, but you wouldn't know that unless someone told you. How much more Canadian does it get then captaining the Kitchener Rangers anyways? Not trying to take the Swede out of him either just addressing that argument.

If he were drafted to Ottawa, he'd be coming into a franchise that could use a "future captain" and has all types of letters coming available as we approach Alfie's retirement which could be at the end of next season. There's a decent chance this guy becomes a just-less-than mirror image of what he is in Kitchener right now. I think that's why he's as high as 2 and maybe even 1 on some teams boards.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I think it is a fair question, but I think there are some solid reasons why Landeskog is being rated lower offensively, at least compared to Couturier and RNH specifically.

What differentiates Couturier and RNH is they make their linemakes much better and are both elite playmakers. They are two of the only players in the CHL averaging better than an assist per game (let alone ppg) and overall, a skilled center who can make your top line click is generally scene as the be-all and end-all of adding a kick to your offence. There are elite snipers (Heatley, Kovalchuk) who come along similar value attached to them as prospects, but they are generally the exceptions are fewer and farther between.

Now Mike Richards is actually this kind of player too (elite playmaker), although as discussed, his offensive upside was under-estimated at draft time. But given Lando doesn't play that type of game (even though he has other similarities to Richards, mostly intangible), that doesn't mean Lando is going to project as a similar playmaker or offensive catalyst.

As an example, both Couturier and RNH are clearly the best offensive players on their team and most would aknowledge both of these players linemates benefit a lot from this - at least more than Couturier and RNH do from their mates.

Meanwhile, Lando is more of a goal scorer, he's a winger, and he is arguably not the most gifted offensive player on his team, at least at this level and stage. Of course, he has produced at a similar ppg pace to RNH with more goals, so one could make a statistical argument, but I'd counter by saying Kitchener is a pretty loaded offensive team that Lando benefits from (although his mates benefit from him too, of course!)

All that being said, Lando might be geting underestimated at the same time and I'm sure some scouts don't see the offensive potential gap as that big. It is certainly possible Lando turns into 40-40 guy, who is captain of his team and one of the more valuable guys in the league. I would even go so far as to say he could end up as an Iginla type if he over-achieves beyond his projected potential. He plays a similar style to Jerome, and has similar intangibles. If he does, then his offensive production could certainly rival or surpass all other forwards in this draft.

But based on what we've seen so far, it is more probable (perhaps only by a small degree) that his pure offensive impact will be a bit less than RNH and Couturier.

 

[bottomofthefoodchain]

Apparently some people just "know" what some players potential is...

 

[Manny*]

Hi Manny. How are you?

There can only be one...

 

[joe89]

I think the answer is not harder than scouts think his game will translate. Most teams want to get their hands on guys that are versatile, especially with an offensive ceiling that high. Landeskog can skate, makes plays, snipe, hit, fight, even do some dangling, and play both wings. He just got a lot of things going for him.

 

[periferal]

There can only be one...

You and me. Parking lot. 500pm.

 

[Bjorn Le]

Not sure if anyone brought it up, but just incase someone did, Landeskog creates most of his offense himself, driving to the net, winning battles on the boards, Kitchener hasn't been the same team offensively without him. Akeson's production has dropped a bit since Landeskog has been out.

People need to watch him quite a bit to see he does have that offensive potential.

 

[member 30781]

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.

Since his 3rd season in the NHL Mike Richards has played 286 games and scored 265. I don't know what your definition of PPG player is, but it must be a VERY loose term.

As for the question at hand. I see Landeskog more as a Brendan Morrow than a Mike Richards, probably because Morrow is a wing and Richards isn't. At the NHL level, the game is more fast paced and more difficult to score in than juniors. Landeskog will be VERY productive, but probably not as good as you see him in juniors. I think he can definitely be a consistent 70-75 point guy in his prime but he will be better on the defensive side of the puck.

 

[Ishdul]

In 2005 half of NHL GMs said they would have taken Kessel over Crosby. By 2006 questions of character became the focus of Kessel's year and his inability to convince NHL teams it was water under the bridge forced the "American Crosby" down to 5.

I still very much doubt this actually happened and isn't just some absurd exaggeration from McGuire, the same way people thought Brule might go ahead of Crosby or that Darko or Carmelo should have been picked ahead of LeBron. People were as high on Crosby as they have been on any prospect since at least Lindros while Kessel was more just the clear favourite for the #1 spot in 2006, and it really doesn't make any sense that someone would make that comparison across draft years. Even if Kessel actually did turn into Pavel Bure no team would've taken that over Crosby. And there were more issues than just character with Kessel, people were questioning his conditioning, his playmaking, his physicality and his defensive skills and there were also concerns and a bunch of other guys emerged to be seen as top flight prospects.