Toggle sidebar

Prospect Info: 9OA: Nate Danielson

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
jkutswings said:
So Aho (26) with 89 points is elite, but Raymond (22) with 72 points not only isn't, but doesn't look like he will get there. Uh huh.

It sounds more like you're fixated on stats and think that a 100-point player is mandatory to win a Cup. Which isn't the case.

Edit: FYI, when Aho was 22, he scored 66 points.
Click to expand...
FYI 66 points was almost a PPG in a season when the leading scorer in the NHL had 110 points and 66 points was good for 20th in points. Raymond was 49th. Aho was still around 20th in scoring this year. So he hasn’t progressed much compared to the rest of the NHL. Also playing center is much different than playing wing. So in his 22 year old season Aho was a significantly better scorer and played a harder position.
 
Last edited:
jkutswings said:
So Aho (26) with 89 points is elite, but Raymond (22) with 72 points not only isn't, but doesn't look like he will get there. Uh huh.

It sounds more like you're fixated on stats and think that a 100-point player is mandatory to win a Cup. Which isn't the case.

Edit: FYI, when Aho was 22, he scored 66 points.
Click to expand...
Aho is an all-around 1st line center that makes everyone around better. He proved that over the last few seasons. Raymond is a PPG winger in his contract year. There is a huge difference between these two. Still Raymond has time to prove that he is as good as Aho. I really hope he does.
 
DamonDRW said:
Aho is an all-around 1st line center that makes everyone around better. He proved that over the last few seasons. Raymond is a PPG winger in his contract year. There is a huge difference between these two. Still Raymond has time to prove that he is as good as Aho. I really hope he does.
Click to expand...
My point isn't that Raymond it's equivalent to Aho (or one day will be). It's that:

1) It's unreasonable to think that Raymond does not have room for further improvement.
2) If the criteria of a successful rebuild is to produce at least one 100-point player, then stop watching because it's not going to happen. Detroit is doing well with the awful lottery luck they were handed, and has a chance to further improve the team via prospects and trades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shultzyfeelinirie25
Danielson doesn't play a style that translates well to huge offensive numbers at the junior level. He doesn't cheat on offense. There are lots of guys that put up gaudy numbers in juniors but likely won't translate to the NHL (like Danielson's teammate, Gabe Klassen). Danielson plays a pro game and once he hits the NHL where has both pro wingers and pro defenseman to rely on his game is going to flourish.

Danielson has some similarities to Larkin and I can see why people like to compare them because they both play with a high-end motor, but IMO Danielson is more of a playmaker and has a better east-west aspect to his game than Larkin's almost straight up north-south game. IMO most of Larkin's success comes from his drive and superb fundamentals while Danielson occasionally makes some really, really impressive skill plays.

If you compare Danielson's pre-draft scouting report to Brayden Point's, they have a lot of similarities, and I'm like 99% sure that's why Yzerman took him.

Edit: People look at Danielson and see high floor, low ceiling player, but the fact is that Danielson is a high-floor, high ceiling player. Danielson is almost certainly going to end up at least as an elite 3c kind of guy but he also has a very good shot at being a better center than Larkin.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tetsuo, SirloinUB, JohanFranzenstein and 7 others
Roomba With a Bauer said:
Danielson doesn't play a style that translates well to huge offensive numbers at the junior level. He doesn't cheat on offense. There are lots of guys that put up gaudy numbers in juniors but likely won't translate to the NHL (like Danielson's teammate, Gabe Klassen). Danielson plays a pro game and once he hits the NHL where has both pro wingers and pro defenseman to rely on his game is going to flourish.

Danielson has some similarities to Larkin and I can see why people like to compare them because they both play with a high-end motor, but IMO Danielson is more of a playmaker and has a better east-west aspect to his game than Larkin's almost straight up north-south game. IMO most of Larkin's success comes from his drive and superb fundamentals while Danielson occasionally makes some really, really impressive skill plays.

If you compare Danielson's pre-draft scouting report to Brayden Point's, they have a lot of similarities, and I'm like 99% sure that's why Yzerman took him.

Edit: People look at Danielson and see high floor, low ceiling player, but the fact is that Danielson is a high-floor, high ceiling player. Danielson is almost certainly going to end up at least as an elite 3c kind of guy but he also has a very good shot at being a better center than Larkin.
Click to expand...
Where do you see him having a good shot to being a better center than Larkin? Larkin at his age was far superior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lilidk
Steve Yzerlland said:
Where do you see him having a good shot to being a better center than Larkin? Larkin at his age was far superior.
Click to expand...
That's debatable.

There's also the fact that Larkin hasn't really progressed as a player much since entering the league. His offensive numbers haven't really changed since 2017 and it could be argued that the changes in his scoring are more due to roster and systems changes than his own growth as a player. League scoring has also increased significantly over the same period.

That's not a put down on Larkin, but he's pretty much in his prime years right now and is barely a PPG player while playing 3:11 of PP time per game. 17 Cs have a higher P/GP.

So yeah, there's a lot of room for a very skilled C to be better than him. We're not talking about McDavid. If you think there is 0% chance for any forward prospect in our system to be better than Larkin then you may as well start watching another team because the Wings aren't competing in the next decade.
 
I don't disagree with shaman necessarily but using Reinhart specifically in that post is hilarious. At Raymond's age most people probably thought he'd wash out or become a role player and was heralded as a bust by 90% of hockey fans. The fact he scored 50+ goals in a contract year as a passenger on a stacked Florida team doesn't prove much of a point. If Raymond played exclusively with Barkov this season he might have hit 50 goals himself, especially because his shooting% was also unsustainably high
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrisnick
Roomba With a Bauer said:
Danielson doesn't play a style that translates well to huge offensive numbers at the junior level. He doesn't cheat on offense. There are lots of guys that put up gaudy numbers in juniors but likely won't translate to the NHL (like Danielson's teammate, Gabe Klassen). Danielson plays a pro game and once he hits the NHL where has both pro wingers and pro defenseman to rely on his game is going to flourish.

Danielson has some similarities to Larkin and I can see why people like to compare them because they both play with a high-end motor, but IMO Danielson is more of a playmaker and has a better east-west aspect to his game than Larkin's almost straight up north-south game. IMO most of Larkin's success comes from his drive and superb fundamentals while Danielson occasionally makes some really, really impressive skill plays.

If you compare Danielson's pre-draft scouting report to Brayden Point's, they have a lot of similarities, and I'm like 99% sure that's why Yzerman took him.

Edit: People look at Danielson and see high floor, low ceiling player, but the fact is that Danielson is a high-floor, high ceiling player. Danielson is almost certainly going to end up at least as an elite 3c kind of guy but he also has a very good shot at being a better center than Larkin.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but there is no such thing as elite 3C.
 
Oddbob said:
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but there is no such thing as elite 3C.
Click to expand...
I agree the term elite is used too frequently these days, as is generational, but I will counter with ideal 3 line center is an obtainable goal. Larionov was such for our team during our cup runs. And Bobby Holik was an ideal 3c, but of a different type, until the rangers decided to pay him like a 1c.
 
schuelma24 said:
Sorry to interrupt everyone .. 3 primary assists in the first 10 minutes tonight
Click to expand...
Wasn't a critique of his during his draft year that he wasn't a good playmaker? Cool to see him not only fix that but seemingly make it a strength
 
NickH8 said:
Wasn't a critique of his during his draft year that he wasn't a good playmaker? Cool to see him not only fix that but seemingly make it a strength
Click to expand...

You're not going to get any argument from me - I've said since January it was clear he was being held back to some extent by his teammates in Brandon. He's close to 1.5 PPG in Portland and doing it when it counts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Realgud
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom