Midterm Grades per Mlive article

[krsmith17 7,191]

43 minutes ago, mackel said:

PPG:

Staal  0.57

Larkin 0.67

Bergeron  0.79

Closer to Staal than Bergeron.  Staal is a responsible 2C, Bergeron is an elite defensive 1C, Larkin is again closer to Staal.

So do you want to continue looking like an idiot or are you ready to go sulk in the corner.

Again, Larkin proved last season that he is capable of 70+ points (73 to be exact, in just 76 games). Staal on the other hand, had a career year of 50 points (in 62 games), and another couple where he was on pace for 55-60. Bergeron had a couple 70+ point seasons in his early 20's, and then really started to develop and work hard on his defensive game (which is what Larkin is doing now). Since then, he's been a 55-65 point shutdown 1C. It's only the past three seasons that he's actually put up monster points again. Probably not a coincidence that since then, he's had one of the best young goal scorers on his wing. Imagine what Larkin could do with a Pastrnak (or Lafreniere) on his wing. Instead he's currently playing with a mishmash of middle six, complimentary wingers...

Staal is a very good 3C / mediocre 2C.

Bergeron is an elite shutdown 1C.

Larkin is a 1C, that can possibly develop into a very good, maybe even elite shutdown 1C, given the right linemates. I really suggest you dig into Larkin's defensive numbers. They're quite impressive.

I know you don't want to look like an idiot... but you keep doing it to yourself...

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

That "bust" Zadina with another goal tonight.

[nyqvististhefuture 1,002]

12 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Again, Larkin proved last season that he is capable of 70+ points (73 to be exact, in just 76 games). Staal on the other hand, had a career year of 50 points (in 62 games), and another couple where he was on pace for 55-60. Bergeron had a couple 70+ point seasons in his early 20's, and then really started to develop and work hard on his defensive game (which is what Larkin is doing now). Since then, he's been a 55-65 point shutdown 1C. It's only the past three seasons that he's actually put up monster points again. Probably not a coincidence that since then, he's had one of the best young goal scorers on his wing. Imagine what Larkin could do with a Pastrnak (or Lafreniere) on his wing. Instead he's currently playing with a mishmash of middle six, complimentary wingers...

Staal is a very good 3C / mediocre 2C.

Bergeron is an elite shutdown 1C.

Larkin is a 1C, that can possibly develop into a very good, maybe even elite shutdown 1C, given the right linemates. I really suggest you dig into Larkin's defensive numbers. They're quite impressive.

I know you don't want to look like an idiot... but you keep doing it to yourself...

He’d better hope larkin doesnt go on a little point streak or else that 0.67 will be 0.69 and he’ll be forced to say hes closer to bergeron lmao

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

15 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Coming from the guy that keeps asking the same questions over and over again, expecting a different answer... and then says I'm "high" because you don't get the answer you want...

Yeah it toughs when u constantly weasel around the actual argument

15 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I was wrong on the development of players in the past? No way! How can that be... You have obviously never been wrong... Zadina is definitely a "bust" though...

Ur wrong A LOT about players you swear are gonna be awesome. Ur credibility in terms of player evaluation has been in the crapper for a number of years as far I and others are concerned.

U may not like my Zadina take, but u have basically not one example of a past player I've wrongly evaluated to the degree u consistently do. 

15 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

For the 50th time, I'm not predicting anything on Comrie, just that he should have been given a shot. Hell, my biggest beef isn't even that he was waived in favor of Howard, it's that he wasn't claimed to be sent directly to Grand Rapids. Keep pretending that Yzerman has never and will never make a mistake. Who are we to question the moves of a general manager? We're mere fans...

We've gone over this. I literally view the Comrie trade as a mistake. Ur coping is becoming wildly desperate and sad at this point.

15 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

No matter how Comrie pans out, letting a free asset go was a mistake. Our goaltending depth is amongst the worst in the league, and Grand Rapids are massively underperforming. Comrie should be in Grand Rapids right now, rather than Manitoba.

Comire DOESNT MATTER. He's LITERALLY worthless. Pickard is fine. Poulin is fine. Nagle is fine. Breath out. Let him go.

15 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Where'd you find this pic of a crack riddled larkin???

 

Edited January 8, 2020 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Again, Larkin proved last season that he is capable of 70+ points (73 to be exact, in just 76 games). Staal on the other hand, had a career year of 50 points (in 62 games), and another couple where he was on pace for 55-60. Bergeron had a couple 70+ point seasons in his early 20's, and then really started to develop and work hard on his defensive game (which is what Larkin is doing now). Since then, he's been a 55-65 point shutdown 1C. It's only the past three seasons that he's actually put up monster points again. Probably not a coincidence that since then, he's had one of the best young goal scorers on his wing. Imagine what Larkin could do with a Pastrnak (or Lafreniere) on his wing. Instead he's currently playing with a mishmash of middle six, complimentary wingers...

Staal is a very good 3C / mediocre 2C.

Bergeron is an elite shutdown 1C.

Larkin is a 1C, that can possibly develop into a very good, maybe even elite shutdown 1C, given the right linemates. I really suggest you dig into Larkin's defensive numbers. They're quite impressive.

I know you don't want to look like an idiot... but you keep doing it to yourself...

Larkin is on pace to have less points than Quinn Hughes right now

Zadina was totally the right choice thou

[The 91 of Ryans 3,019]

38 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Larkin is on pace to have less points than Quinn Hughes right now

Zadina was totally the right choice thou

"Too small sample size! " @mackel TM

Edit: tried to make TM look cooler. Failed. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by The 91 of Ryans

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

3 minutes ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

"Too small sample size! " @mackel TM

Everyone attacks @mackel cause u view him as an easy target

u all avoid me because u know ill clap back, and ur cowards.

In that sense i applaud @krsmith17 for engaging with me. He has a position and defends it. I applaud that even if I disagree. The rest of you have no real position, ur fly by night *******.

Start it up *****

[marcaractac 3,963]

7 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Everyone attacks @mackel cause u view him as an easy target

u all avoid me because u know ill clap back, and ur cowards.

In that sense i applaud @krsmith17 for engaging with me. He has a position and defends it. I applaud that even if I disagree. The rest of you have no real position, ur fly by night *******.

Start it up *****

[The 91 of Ryans 3,019]

8 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Everyone attacks @mackel cause u view him as an easy target

u all avoid me because u know ill clap back, and ur cowards.

In that sense i applaud @krsmith17 for engaging with me. He has a position and defends it. I applaud that even if I disagree. The rest of you have no real position, ur fly by night *******.

Start it up *****

Because you are a Zadina hater poser. At least @mackel has convictions. 

Also, bold is U

[krsmith17 7,191]

11 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Yeah it toughs when u constantly weasel around the actual argument

Ur wrong A LOT about players you swear are gonna be awesome. Ur credibility in terms of player evaluation has been in the crapper for a number of years as far I and others are concerned.

U may not like my Zadina take, but u have basically not one example of a past player I've wrongly evaluated to the degree u consistently do. 

We've gone over this. I literally view the Comrie trade as a mistake. Ur coping is becoming wildly desperate and sad at this point.

Comire DOESNT MATTER. He's LITERALLY worthless. Pickard is fine. Poulin is fine. Nagle is fine. Breath out. Let him go.

Where'd you find this pic of a crack riddled larkin???

I don't "weasel" around any arguments. You just keep asking the same dumb questions, and misinterpret a lot of what I'm saying. When Comrie was originally waived and shortly after not re-claimed, I didn't make a big deal out of it. I said it was a dumb move, but it is what it is. Comrie has sucked, but he at least has the potential to get much better. Hopefully it doesn't bite us in the ass. All you take from that is, "dumb move". Disregard everything else I said, and assume I think Comrie is the next big thing. You do it all the time...

So you think Pickard, Poulin and Nagle are all better than Comrie? This proves the lengths you'll go to in attempt to prove a point. Comrie is as good or better than all of those guys, but more importantly, is still young enough that he can potentially get much better. You can say all you want that not claiming Comrie was the right move, but you're dead wrong. Even if all he ever becomes is a solid AHL starter, it was still a bad non-move.

I'm wrong on a lot of players, am I? I've admitted several times that I was dead wrong on a few, namely Smith and Jurco. It's cute though that every time we have a debate, you bring up "remember that time you were wrong on Brendan Smith?... durr". I've been right on a lot projections, and you've been wrong on quite a few projections. Neither, I care to point out on a regular basis though. The difference is, when I believe in a player, I take a stance. Your opinion changes like the wind. You've even admitted as much...

[mackel 766]

13 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Again, Larkin proved last season that he is capable of 70+ points (73 to be exact, in just 76 games). Staal on the other hand, had a career year of 50 points (in 62 games), and another couple where he was on pace for 55-60. Bergeron had a couple 70+ point seasons in his early 20's, and then really started to develop and work hard on his defensive game (which is what Larkin is doing now). Since then, he's been a 55-65 point shutdown 1C. It's only the past three seasons that he's actually put up monster points again. Probably not a coincidence that since then, he's had one of the best young goal scorers on his wing. Imagine what Larkin could do with a Pastrnak (or Lafreniere) on his wing. Instead he's currently playing with a mishmash of middle six, complimentary wingers...

Staal is a very good 3C / mediocre 2C.

Bergeron is an elite shutdown 1C.

Larkin is a 1C, that can possibly develop into a very good, maybe even elite shutdown 1C, given the right linemates. I really suggest you dig into Larkin's defensive numbers. They're quite impressive.

I know you don't want to look like an idiot... but you keep doing it to yourself...

Funny that's what you're doing with this Bergeron comparison... but it's easier to throw shade when you're clearly wrong than admit it... Larkin is a very good 2C thrust into a 1C role... end of story. 

11 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Everyone attacks @mackel cause u view him as an easy target

u all avoid me because u know ill clap back, and ur cowards.

In that sense i applaud @krsmith17 for engaging with me. He has a position and defends it. I applaud that even if I disagree. The rest of you have no real position, ur fly by night *******.

Start it up *****

They can't tolerate having their hype train positions challenged... and any conformation of their bias is celebrated. 

It's a wonder after last night's game some of these goofs aren't expecting Neilson to have a resurgence and be a legit 2C again... he did afterall have 2 goals.

[krsmith17 7,191]

3 minutes ago, mackel said:

Funny that's what you're doing with this Bergeron comparison... but it's easier to throw shade when you're clearly wrong than admit it... Larkin is a very good 2C thrust into a 1C role... end of story. 

Funny how you can't refute a single one of my points. All you can come back with is "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story"... 

Forget all the numbers I threw at you. They don't matter. All that matters is that Larkin is a 1C.

[marcaractac 3,963]

54 minutes ago, mackel said:

Funny that's what you're doing with this Bergeron comparison... but it's easier to throw shade when you're clearly wrong than admit it... Larkin is a very good 2C thrust into a 1C role... end of story. 

They can't tolerate having their hype train positions challenged... and any conformation of their bias is celebrated. 

It's a wonder after last night's game some of these goofs aren't expecting Neilson to have a resurgence and be a legit 2C again... he did afterall have 2 goals.

Ideally at this point in his career, he would be playing center on the second line. Despite some struggles this season, he has handled being thrust into the 1C role fairly decent. Having said that, at his age, there is no reason he can't further grow and become a legitimate #1 center. I'm not saying he'll be the next Bergeron, as Bergeron is the best two-way center in the game. Getting 75% of the way there would be lovely.

As for this whole Nielsen/Zadina thing, Nielsen is in his mid-30s. He is what he is, and will only further decline at this point. Nobody is going to expect any sort of resurgence. Zadina is 20 years old with ~half an NHL season under his belt, and is consistently showing improvement. It's okay for people to be excited about that. Nothing about his current play suggests bust, at this point. 

For the record, I wish we had Hughes. But we don't. So now I'm just gonna hope for the best with what we have, instead of being insufferable about it. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by marcaractac

[mackel 766]

29 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Funny how you can't refute a single one of my points. All you can come back with is "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story"... 

Forget all the numbers I threw at you. They don't matter. All that matters is that Larkin is a 1C.

You didn't make any points you continued with your incorrect comparison by cherry picking a few stats here and there and presenting them as a complete picture...  its nonsense that didn't rise to the level of a reply.

Larkin is a 2C, I've gone team by team and made my assessment... he's a 1C on teams as thin as ours at center and on really good teams he slides to 3C.  I'll concede a few spelling errors right off the bat to save you from pointing them out and thinking you're making some sort of point.

By Team:

ANA
1. Getzlaf/Larkin (Leaning Getzlaf for now... age advantage Larkin)

ARI
Platoon (w/ Schmaltz)

BOS
1. Bergeron
2. Krejci
3. Larkin (May move up due to age)

BUF
1. Eichel
2. Larkin

CAL
Platoon (w/ Monahan)

CAR
1. Aho
2. Larkin

CHI
1. Larkin
2. Towes

COL
1. MacKinnon
2. Kadri/Larkin (Coaches Decision)

CLB
Platoon (w/ PL Dubois)

DAL
1. Seguin
2. Hintz/Larkin (Coaches Decision)

DET
1. Larkin
2. Warm Body

EDM
1. McDavid
2. Nugent-Hopkins
3. Larkin

FLA
1. Barkov
2. Trocheck/Larkin (Coaches Decision)

LA
1. Kopitar
2. Larkin

MIN
Platoon (w/ Staal)

MON
Platoon (w/ Domi)

NASH
1. Duchene
2. Johansen/Larkin (Leaning Larkin)

NJ
1. Larkin
Soon to be replaced by both Hischier & Hughes

NYI
1. Barzal
2. Nelson/Larkin (Leaning Larkin)

NYR
Platoon (w/ Zabanejad)

OTT
1. Larkin
2. Warm Body

PHI
1. Couturier/Larkin (Leaning Couturier)

PIT
1. Crosby
2. Malkin
3. Larkin

SJ
1. Platoon (w/ Couture and Hertl)

STL
1. O'Reilly
2. Larkin

TB
1. Point 
2. Stamkos
3. Larkin

TOR
1. Matthews
2. Tavares
3. Larkin

Van
1. Petterson
2. Horvat/Larkin (Leaning Larkin)

VGK
Platoon (w/ Karlsson)

WAS
1. Kusnetsov
2. Backstrom
3. Larkin

WIN
1. Scheifele
2. Larkin

[The 91 of Ryans 3,019]

2 hours ago, mackel said:

Funny that's what you're doing with this Bergeron comparison... but it's easier to throw shade when you're clearly wrong than admit it... Larkin is a very good 2C thrust into a 1C role... end of story. 

They can't tolerate having their hype train positions challenged... and any conformation of their bias is celebrated. 

It's a wonder after last night's game some of these goofs aren't expecting Neilson to have a resurgence and be a legit 2C again... he did afterall have 2 goals.

This team is so bad right now that I refuse to hang my hopes and dreams on any one player because it will take several. So I'm not hyping Zadina. He's been pretty good. I think he'll get better. He's part of the solution. Not a bust.

Your stance on Zadina is quickly becoming legendary LGWs buffoonery. Like Leftwinger/Franzen obsession-level idiocy. 

Also the only person that you think agrees with you is @ChristopherReevesLegs and he actually doesn't. He's not that stupid. He's just trolling. 

[krsmith17 7,191]

21 minutes ago, mackel said:

You didn't make any points you continued with your incorrect comparison by cherry picking a few stats here and there and presenting them as a complete picture...  its nonsense that didn't rise to the level of a reply.

Larkin is a 2C, I've gone team by team and made my assessment... he's a 1C on teams as thin as ours at center and on really good teams he slides to 3C.  I'll concede a few spelling errors right off the bat to save you from pointing them out and thinking you're making some sort of point.

By Team:

....

A lot of opinion again with nothing really to back it up...

I did notice though that there was no mention of Jordan Staal...

Last season Larkin ranked 20th in points amongst all centers. Everyone was saying he's a legit number one center. This season Larkin is one of the better defensive centers in the league, and because of this, as well as not having consistent capable wingers, his points have suffered. Now all of a sudden he's a number two center?...

Larkin would obviously be a 2C on a lot of teams. That doesn't make him a 2C though. Is Malkin a 2C because he's playing behind Crosby? No. Is Tavares a 2C because he's playing behind Matthews? No. Larkin is a top 30 (20ish) center in the league. He's a 1C.

[TLGTrico 663]

I'll just say that if Larkin doesn't bounce back with another 30 goal, 70 point season next year, I'll be convinced he really is just a 2C

[mackel 766]

53 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

A lot of opinion again with nothing really to back it up...

I did notice though that there was no mention of Jordan Staal...

Last season Larkin ranked 20th in points amongst all centers. Everyone was saying he's a legit number one center. This season Larkin is one of the better defensive centers in the league, and because of this, as well as not having consistent capable wingers, his points have suffered. Now all of a sudden he's a number two center?...

Larkin would obviously be a 2C on a lot of teams. That doesn't make him a 2C though. Is Malkin a 2C because he's playing behind Crosby? No. Is Tavares a 2C because he's playing behind Matthews? No. Larkin is a top 30 (20ish) center in the league. He's a 1C.

Dude he's a 2C on most teams, a toss up 1C on a few and a 1C on teams that don't actually have a 1C. He'd be 3rd on the depth chart at center on a handful of teams...  the only teams where he'd be in the role of 1C are teams as thin at center as we are.

If at the end of our rebuild Larkin is our clear cut 1C, ie we don't have another player essentially the same where we platoon two very good 2Cs on the top two lines or we have a true 1C and he's able to fill the 2C role we're pretenders not contenders.**

**this is assuming he doesn't have another layer of development  and we're essentially seeing more/less prime Larkin.

------

EDIT:  Of course this is my opinion guided by statistics of course BUT unless Larkin was actually on each roster it's impossible to factually where each coach would place him.

Edited January 8, 2020 by mackel

[mackel 766]

1 hour ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

This team is so bad right now that I refuse to hang my hopes and dreams on any one player because it will take several. So I'm not hyping Zadina. He's been pretty good. I think he'll get better. He's part of the solution. Not a bust.

Your stance on Zadina is quickly becoming legendary LGWs buffoonery. Like Leftwinger/Franzen obsession-level idiocy. 

Also the only person that you think agrees with you is @ChristopherReevesLegs and he actually doesn't. He's not that stupid. He's just trolling. 

I'm don't know what CRL thinks and I wouldn't be so ignorant as to assume I do.

As for this stretch of play... I have to say Zadina looks not bad... but let's not celebrate too early.  Lots of players have looked good for periods of time too... 

As for the term "bust" it seems to mean different things to different people.  To be crystal clear I'm predicting Zadina is/will be a bust.  Ie that we picked the "potential 3rd over all guy" who wont live up to that hype.  He might be, maybe possibly if @krsmith17 says his prayers and eats his vitamins be a Vanek type player in his prime... still if he does manage that it's still far short of the hype.

I'm done talking Zadina... my position is clear. He'll live up to one of our respective opinions in due time but to make that call we're looking 2 seasons down the road... between now and then short stints of good or bad play is just that.

Edited January 8, 2020 by mackel

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, mackel said:

Dude he's a 2C on most teams, a toss up 1C on a few and a 1C on teams that don't actually have a 1C. He'd be 3rd on the depth chart at center on a handful of teams...  the only teams where he'd be in the role of 1C are teams as thin at center as we are.

If at the end of our rebuild Larkin is our clear cut 1C, ie we don't have another player essentially the same where we platoon two very good 2Cs on the top two lines or we have a true 1C and he's able to fill the 2C role we're pretenders not contenders.**

**this is assuming he doesn't have another layer of development  and we're essentially seeing more/less prime Larkin.

------

EDIT:  Of course this is my opinion guided by statistics of course BUT unless Larkin was actually on each roster it's impossible to factually where each coach would place him.

Assuming a 23 year old player with the drive and determination that Larkin has, doesn't have another layer of development is where you're whole theory is flawed. Then again, you're the same guy that doesn't believe a 20 year old Zadina will improve either...

Larkin will get better. He's already proven that he can produce offensively, and now he's proving that he can shut-down defensively. To think that adding better linemates won't help him improve in all areas as well, is just dumb. Bergeron would still be a damn good player without Pastrnak and Marchand, but would he be over a point per game center with Bertuzzi and Mantha / Fabbri? Not a chance...

Situation and circumstances matter.

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, mackel said:

As for the term "bust" it seems to mean different things to different people.  To be crystal clear I'm predicting Zadina is/will be a bust.  Ie that we picked the "potential 3rd over all guy" who wont live up to that hype. 

Give up with the "potential 3rd overall" bulls***. He was drafted 6th overall. Treat him as such. He's going to be a damn good player. It's just too bad you're rooting against him, and you'll be upset when he proves you wrong...

1 hour ago, mackel said:

I'm done talking Zadina... 

Well, no s***. He's playing well. It's no fun talking about our highly skilled young winger when he's doing well. When he has an inevitable dry spell, that's when you'll start up with your bulls*** again... 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

If Larkin is a 2C, then there must be 31 centers in the NHL better than him. I don't know enough about other teams center to attempt to guess, but I will say this: if Larkin can be a consistent 70 point producer, than he would be a 1C. No real argument there.

[mackel 766]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Give up with the "potential 3rd overall" bulls***. He was drafted 6th overall. Treat him as such. He's going to be a damn good player. It's just too bad you're rooting against him, and you'll be upset when he proves you wrong...

Well, no s***. He's playing well. It's no fun talking about our highly skilled young winger when he's doing well. When he has an inevitable dry spell, that's when you'll start up with your bulls*** again... 

I think that's exactly what I said I wouldn't do considering the unseemly gloating that's resulted from this "moist spell".

[mackel 766]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Assuming a 23 year old player with the drive and determination that Larkin has, doesn't have another layer of development is where you're whole theory is flawed. Then again, you're the same guy that doesn't believe a 20 year old Zadina will improve either...

Larkin will get better. He's already proven that he can produce offensively, and now he's proving that he can shut-down defensively. To think that adding better linemates won't help him improve in all areas as well, is just dumb. Bergeron would still be a damn good player without Pastrnak and Marchand, but would he be over a point per game center with Bertuzzi and Mantha / Fabbri? Not a chance...

Situation and circumstances matter.

It's not a given that he will continue to improve.

Larkin has the best linemates available to him and the ice time of a 1C since he's the best we've got... you can't have it both ways here, he gets the opportunity because of the crap team he's on it's not the crap team that's inhibiting him.

[krsmith17 7,191]

21 minutes ago, mackel said:

I think that's exactly what I said I wouldn't do considering the unseemly gloating that's resulted from this "moist spell".

So you say...

19 minutes ago, mackel said:

It's not a given that he will continue to improve.

No, it's not, but it's likely...

45 minutes ago, mackel said:

Larkin has the best linemates available to him and the ice time of a 1C since he's the best we've got... you can't have it both ways here, he gets the opportunity because of the crap team he's on it's not the crap team that's inhibiting him.

WTF?!?!?

This may be the dumbest thing you've said yet...