Prospect Info: 6th Overall Pick Moritz Seider, Defence, DEL
- Thread starter LastWordArmy
- Start date
- Status
waltdetroit
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2010
- 2,649
- 526
Pavels Dog
Registered User
Projections, if you try to do them seriously, have a lot more to do with perceived floor than ceiling. D-men that seem to have a floor of top-pair go #1/#2 (and fail half te time).
Top 4 projection is awesome. That we’re dealing with a D prospect that doesn’t have a bunch of things in need of fixing before even being able to reach the NHL is exciting.
Syckle78
Registered User
Lil Sebastian Cossa
Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
- Jul 6, 2012
- 11,436
- 7,449
I mean, if we want to take this projection stuff to mean anything, Seider's comparable is Zach Werenski. Who is undoubtedly a top pairing D. If teams knew how projections would fall, drafting would be more of a science than it is.
haulinbass
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2014
- 1,425
- 1,089
Well for starters... Kuznetsov and ROR are the only players on that list who won a cup. Ovechkin is kind of a super star, Backstrom is elite, Carlson is a #1, Tarasenko is elite, Pietrangelo is elite. Those are pretty big factors of why those two teams had success. You have to have players of that caliber to be a real threat. Larkin cannot be the best player on your team if u hope to be a top playoff contender. Not sure how you think you discredited that point here. Do you really think the Wings are going to have any real chance to win a cup if Larkin is the #1 player on our roster?
Nobody here said Larkin isn't good. He is very good. I love Larkin.
Monahan isn't good enough to be the best player on a team and he is not the best player on his team, hes maybe the 3rd. Same can be said for the rest of those players with the exception of debatably Aho. Barzal I think could end up being elite. He currently has a lot of developing left to do though.
Sure, you could win a cup with Larkin as your best. Its technically possible, but are you really? Do you really want to see us move forward with our best player being Larkin? Do you really want to be mediocre? I would rather take the extra time and get the guys we need an do it right.
Shaman464
No u
Plenty of those teams also have much more talented forward groups that can make up for less than stellar backends, or vice versa.
ricky0034
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2010
- 15,557
- 8,041
honestly I wasn't even arguing that the Wings can't be good if Larkin is the best player,I said the Wings couldn't have Larkin be the best player and also have a committee on defense
there's a subtle but important difference in there,I think the Wings could potentially be fine if Larkin was the best player and they had someone slightly worse than him on defense and enough good lesser players around them but that guy would be like the ~15th-20th best defenseman in the league and a #1 and I wouldn't call that a committee
the point is you need to make up for these things in some way
there's a subtle but important difference in there,I think the Wings could potentially be fine if Larkin was the best player and they had someone slightly worse than him on defense and enough good lesser players around them but that guy would be like the ~15th-20th best defenseman in the league and a #1 and I wouldn't call that a committee
the point is you need to make up for these things in some way
Shaman464
No u
And up until last season he had major flaws in his game that deserved to be hammered. Its not like I was making things up. But when he finally gave a consistent effort on long term basis, the talent we all knew was there lead to a 30 goal season.
NotLeddy
Trust the Yzerscam
- Oct 23, 2018
- 733
- 672
We're agreeing that the team needs more high-end talent around Larkin to even have a chance at a hypothetical Cup run, I alluded to that earlier. My main criticism was the restrictions you're putting on Larkin that wouldn't be put on a lot of similar centers, despite Larkin almost being a PPG on a terrible team. The team isn't going to be good for at least another two seasons probably and hopefully we'll draft and/or develop wingers and defensemen that can be seen as stars, so that takes a lot less pressure off of Larkin as seen universally as the #1 player on the roster.
Kuznetsov had 32 pts in 24 games in the playoffs last year, 5 more points than Ovi's 27 pts in the same timeframe. You can reasonably conclude was their best player in the Cup run, despite being snubbed from the Conn Smythe. ROR had 23 pts in 26 games this year and had the best point-per-game out of any of their forwards, and I guess that's more so what I mean. There's no reason Larkin can't go well over a PPG in the playoffs and be "the best player on the team" if they win a Cup, when there is obviously much more talent around him than there is right now.
haulinbass
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2014
- 1,425
- 1,089
I don't really care if a player puts up good stats or has a productive playoff run. It doesn't make them the best player on the team. Any of the better players on any roster could end up putting up a ton of points any given season or playoffs (Larkin is certainly good enough to be considered as a "better player" on any roster). Kuznetsov did not lead the caps in reg or playoff points this year. Backstrom is their workhorse and Ovie is one of the best goalscorers of all time. He also scored more goals than Kuz in the cup run. Kuznetsov is the 4th most important player on that Caps regardless of his offensive ability to produce the best at times.
Nyquist had .79 ppg on the Wings last season, he then went to a better team in SJ and had .57 ppg. Is going to the Sharks a bad example? Probably, but you could find many examples that work both ways. Larkins points could go up with better players but they could also stay similar to what they are now or even go down. It just all depends on what kind of players and team we end up with. Larkin gets every key situation in Detroit right now, he literally is the team. If we had an elite playmaking center who played half-wall do you think Larkin is going to get as many touches on the puck on the PP? No. He will probably get more of a shutdown role at 2C and less key role on the PP. If the Wings end up with an elite goal scoring winger like Ovechkin and no elite playmakers, Larkin probably retains his role on PP and gets to play 1st line with this said winger, his point totals likely flourish. Outside of the PP Larkin currently gets all the puck time he wants, with elite players around he has to share the puck more. You want the puck on the stick of your best player as much as possible. Does that impact Larkins production negatively? Does having better players and less puck time balance it out to breaking even? Does Larkin find a way having the puck less to produce more points by using his elite players? Hard to say man. A lot of factors here that currently don't yet exist that neither of us can predict.
So regardless, Larkins a good player and due to not being any better players on the team he gets the role of being the best player on the team. He is doing a fine job and his point totals are flourishing with all the opportunity. But we still certainly do need a better player than him and ideally two. If Larkin was our 3rd best player I think we have a phenomenal core. That could be anywhere from 1 elite winger, 1 elite D and using Larkin as our 1C. In a perfect world we want an elite C but other combos with other positions work too. Bottom line is we need someone better than him on the roster. All these cup winning teams have superstars. Larkin is not, will not be a superstar just a star if you will. This doesn't mean at times Larkin still wouldn't be our best player. He is capable of playing some great hockey. He is a high end enough player that he would likely have the ability to outperform or keep up with hypothetical said superstars on the team. But the reality is, he still isn't quite the guy you want to be your most important player. But then again, Larkin has done nothing but overachieve so I guess I can't rule him out. Even so, we still need an elite player or two.
I mean I think we are pretty much on the same page here, just seeing things from a different vanish point.
Last edited:
I'm reading all of this Larkin stuff like has peaked already. The kid is 22, and is still improving massively with each and every season. In addition, if he's like the mass majority of the star NHLer's that have played the game (not counting the .05%, the Crosby's, McDavid's, Greztky's of hockey), he'll peak in about 3 seasons, age 24/25, just in time to see his have a long prime of his career. I see a consistent 80-85pt (sprinkle a few 90's in there?) center who can put up 30-35 goals, with a star level 2 way game. When did that not become a player who you build around?
The kids legit, and I do not think we have seen the best of him.
The kids legit, and I do not think we have seen the best of him.
ricky0034
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2010
- 15,557
- 8,041
you know why those guys peak at a young age? because they start getting scoring roles and powerplay time from a young age
Larkin has been getting top 6 minutes and powerplay time since the moment he stepped into the league a few months after he turned 19 and now has 4 full NHL seasons under his belt,if you're expecting much of a difference going forward you're probably gonna be disappointed
Gniwder
IN TODD WE TRUST
He's also sandwiched between two second line players. His point totals will go up if the team ever gets an elite goal scorer.
turkleton85
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2017
- 1,019
- 534
Cyborg Yzerberg
Registered User
God. How'd this turn into a Larkin thread?
Seider looks really fluid in his skating. I'm relieved to hear that it sounds like we had the same top 5 as the order that went in the draft. If we took Seider over Hughes, Kakko, Byram, Turcotte, or Dach I would have been very pissed. As it is, I am very optimistic with how optimistic our staff seems to be over this kid.
Very weird experience coming out of the last three drafts for me.
2017 was utter disappointment, 2018 I was over the moon, and 2019 I was baffled and unsure how to feel. Who knows what 2020 will bring.
Seider looks really fluid in his skating. I'm relieved to hear that it sounds like we had the same top 5 as the order that went in the draft. If we took Seider over Hughes, Kakko, Byram, Turcotte, or Dach I would have been very pissed. As it is, I am very optimistic with how optimistic our staff seems to be over this kid.
Very weird experience coming out of the last three drafts for me.
2017 was utter disappointment, 2018 I was over the moon, and 2019 I was baffled and unsure how to feel. Who knows what 2020 will bring.
Please stop talking about Larkin on a Seider page or you’re going to get the old REPORT.
deca guard
far right
- Jun 22, 2019
- 6,494
- 4,541
exactly . theres been so much non sense spoke in this thread disrespecting how good larkin is its ridiculous
obey86
Registered User
- Jun 9, 2009
- 8,013
- 1,274
This would maybe make sense if Larkin was getting a lot of production on the power play but he's not because our PP stinks. Some of that is him not being a great PP guy at this time, but that doesn't mean he can't improve moving forward - and therefore increasing his point totals a bit. Just getting better power play teammates moving forward will probably increase his points by virtue of secondary assists due to a more productive PP.
Last edited:
Lampedampe
Registered User
- Feb 26, 2015
- 2,747
- 1,422
Wings are taking Lafreniere 1oa obviously and then some dumb team who'll just about miss the play-offs will trade their 1st rounder for Green, like a 12-14th oa, with that pick Stevie's picking the teams future 1#D. Man 2020 will be great.
As for Seider, I usually judge prospects by their interviews, he's got solid English and does keep his composure. I just don't really see anything elite, but I am optimistic.
(I'm bored at work)
Last edited:
I wonder when it will be acceptable to start saying somebody is just an elite hockey player among their peers. It was a consistent knock against Podkolzin and Krebs, even Turcotte (though he was given more benefit of the doubt), in the draft season about how they were lacking an elite quality. It started being thrown out as "compete level" or "hockey sense" as a way to warrant them being mentioned with other players with elite qualities. This has started to emerge as the talking point for Seider now that he was selected as high as he was. They don't have the skating of Hughes, or the shot or Caufield, or the playmaking of Zegras, or the size of Rasmussen (branching out to make a point). Because they don't have an elite quality, they must not be a great player.
Podkolzin, Turcotte, Krebs, and even Seider just feel like elite prospects among their peers because they have the abilities and tools that play well in all situations. Specifically for Seider, he isn't going to skate like Quinn Hughes, but he's very mobile and smooth for his size. He might not be a battering ram like Dustin Byfuglien, but he's big enough that he should be able to use his size physically to limit the opponent in the offensive zone. He might not have a booming slap shot like Weber or the scoring touch of Burns, but he should be capable of chipping in offensively from the blue line. He doesn't need to really be elite in any particular area, because he appears to be competent in all the areas. If he can work on and improve some of those areas, then you are looking at someone with the potential to be a dynamic top pairing defenseman, but as it stands right now, he still has the tools that should allow him to be a chameleon of sorts and play in any situation, log big minutes, and line up against the other team's best.
First question: who is the best defensemen in the league not known for their offense? I was trying to think of guys who were good but not brilliant offensive players. Suter , Josi and Chara came to mind at first, but then I realized that even though I don't think of them as creative, flashy offensive players, they still put up a lot of points.
Second question: can you be a true number one defensemen without being a PP QB? Can you be a good number two defensemen without being a PP QB?
Second question: can you be a true number one defensemen without being a PP QB? Can you be a good number two defensemen without being a PP QB?
NickH8
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2015
- 3,756
- 3,968
Jaccob Slavin, Jake Muzzin, Anton Stralman in his prime, Johnny Boychuk in his prime, Marc-Edouard Vlasic in his prime, Colton Parayko, Brian Dumoulin, Mattias Ekholm, Josh Morrissey, Niklas Hjalmarsson, I'd argue for Brandon Carlo.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 37,171
- 16,285
Suter is the best example for me.
The reason I feel good about Seider (and why I liked Dobson), is if you sort the leaders in top 20 TOI you get a different set of players than just sorting by points. This is the type of guy I am most interested in adding to our group of defenseman.
Suter, Jones, Provorov, Pieterangelo, Chabot, ... I don't think any of those guys really have plus puck skills. But all log a ton of minutes and are tremendously valuable defenseman to their teams.
Parayko is a good one.
Couple of players that I really like that I consider top pairing level defenders are Mattias Ekholm who has scored 30 of his career 163 points on the powerplay, but he generally plays second fiddle to Josi, Ellis, Subban. Jaccob Slavin I would say is every bit of Carolina's best defenseman and he's scored 17 of his career 115 points on the powerplay.
With those names being said, I think generally speaking your #1 or #2 guy gets the powerplay in this iteration of the NHL. Suter is a defensive defenseman in my eyes, but he's still gifted enough offensively to play on the powerplay. Josi is a bit more of a two way guy, but in a way kind of demonstrates the same point. Being the best on your team generally gets you some powerplay looks.
- Status
