It is also reasonable for you to be able to explain to what is going on with Kakko and how his development in his second year fits into your narrative?
Player Discussion Alexis Lafrenière: Part II
- Thread starter aufheben
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
And I am still waiting for you to evidence that the Rangers have a problem developing forwards. Citing 1993 seems a bit disingenuous. Unless you think that the issue is an existential one for the franchise and go back to the Cook brothers.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
Yeah, what he's doing now, he should have done last year. And he's still not scoring. Development is often slower or faster than you would expect. It's not a bust/superstar dichotomy.
I'm not even responding to this. It's bad faith.
JCProdigy
Registered User
This the same stifling system that allowed Panarin, Strome, Krieder, Buchnevich, ZBad & DeAngelo to put up career numbers last year. The same stifling system that has the team outshooting and put chancing their opponents on most nights. The same stifling system that actually has Lafreiere and his line mates ranked pretty well in expected goals and high opportunity chances. Or is the system stifling because their on ice shooting percentage is so low that it is actually comical?
Only a person who is deaf, dumb and blind could look at how Kakko has been playing on the ice and still beat their chance at him not being developed. That is just being willfully blind.
I showed you the drafting records for the last decade. That you can look at it and think that my post is bad faith is fairly pathetic.
BTW, you know what is also bad faith? To beat your chest about the fancy stats, but then only cling to counting stats to boost your argument.
- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,839
- 12,976
Some serious semantical twisting going on here.
Citing JT Miller, Kreider, and Buchnevich as evidence that the Rangers "can," develop forwards is fine, but it's not really the point Machinehead is making.
But let's set aside the claim that there is historical precedent to how the Rangers "develop," their forwards. Perhaps there's just as much to the fact that they don't draft players with high offensive impact potential frequently enough, and instead end up with mid-to-low end "first liners," like Kreider and Buch who are really second liners on top teams. Whether that be due to extended success leaving them picking late in the first or whether due to the fact that they have so often elected to trade away their first round picks or whether it be because they seem to select defensemen more than the average franchise with their high picks.
It's still worth noting that both Lafreniere and Kakko underachieved based on expectations.
"Whose expectations?"
Everyone's.
The intellectually honest obligation here isn't to find a source who projected high Kakko/Lafreniere point totals. How about finding a single resource who projected Kakko to have abysmal metrics and only score 23 points? Or that Lafreniere would have 2 points through 15 games? Anyone have those links on hand?
No?
They are underperforming relative to expectations. There is no more evidence of that needed other than to point to their stat sheets and compare them to other recent high picks.
You can come up with all the reasons in the world why that might be: Covid, lack of practice, lack of team cohesion, etc.
One of the other reasons also MIGHT BE that the Rangers are doing something wrong.
And if you aren't here to be a team apologist, that concept should probably be acknowledged and explored just to make sure you aren't risking the development of these priceless assets.
Citing JT Miller, Kreider, and Buchnevich as evidence that the Rangers "can," develop forwards is fine, but it's not really the point Machinehead is making.
But let's set aside the claim that there is historical precedent to how the Rangers "develop," their forwards. Perhaps there's just as much to the fact that they don't draft players with high offensive impact potential frequently enough, and instead end up with mid-to-low end "first liners," like Kreider and Buch who are really second liners on top teams. Whether that be due to extended success leaving them picking late in the first or whether due to the fact that they have so often elected to trade away their first round picks or whether it be because they seem to select defensemen more than the average franchise with their high picks.
It's still worth noting that both Lafreniere and Kakko underachieved based on expectations.
"Whose expectations?"
Everyone's.
The intellectually honest obligation here isn't to find a source who projected high Kakko/Lafreniere point totals. How about finding a single resource who projected Kakko to have abysmal metrics and only score 23 points? Or that Lafreniere would have 2 points through 15 games? Anyone have those links on hand?
No?
They are underperforming relative to expectations. There is no more evidence of that needed other than to point to their stat sheets and compare them to other recent high picks.
You can come up with all the reasons in the world why that might be: Covid, lack of practice, lack of team cohesion, etc.
One of the other reasons also MIGHT BE that the Rangers are doing something wrong.
And if you aren't here to be a team apologist, that concept should probably be acknowledged and explored just to make sure you aren't risking the development of these priceless assets.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
Look at all the teams that don't change across numerous regimes. Especially teams that struggle. Arizona, Columbus, Minnesota, Buffalo, Edmonton. It's a real thing and obviously you want your rebuild to avoid that.
Also, it's not like Gorton is this revolution compared to the Sather years. He was handpicked by Sather and worked with Sather. Sather was never fired, he just got old. He only stepped down two years ago. So I would argue it's the same regime it has been for, what, 21 years? That's not an indictment on Gorton in any way, but I just never saw him as this turning point that some people do.
And regardless, that's a larger issue and we won't know if it is an issue until we're post-Quinn. I'm fine just pinning it on Quinn and I really hope it is that simple. But there's one person in this thread -the same person claiming we've never had an issue with forward development- who will never let you question the coaching staff. And then we're back to "there is no problem, just don't have an opinion on it and go on about your day."
- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,839
- 12,976
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,070
- 40,920
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
"Give me an example of poor forward development"
"We haven't drafted a 70-point forward in 28 years"
"I don't like 1993. Give me another example and your choices are Miller, Kreider, or Callahan."
Man alive...
"We haven't drafted a 70-point forward in 28 years"
"I don't like 1993. Give me another example and your choices are Miller, Kreider, or Callahan."
Man alive...
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,070
- 40,920
You cannot really compare someone at age 21 or 22 playing as a rookie after several years in EU/NCAA to a guy who plays at age 18/19 straight from juniors. That's all I'm saying
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,070
- 40,920
FireGerardGallant
The Artist Formerly known as FireDavidQuinn
- Mar 19, 2016
- 6,656
- 7,576
Tbf Stepan scores 60 in 14-15 if he stayed healthy60-point forward
But yes. Agreed.
I’m staying out of this, because I’ve argued this topic to death.
But I find it ironic that this board clings so hard to data, unless the data speaks to the Rangers being *awful* (not bad, not below average - awful) at developing players.
Then we start handpicking examples for each year of what went right. And if something went wrong, we try to justify why.
But I find it ironic that this board clings so hard to data, unless the data speaks to the Rangers being *awful* (not bad, not below average - awful) at developing players.
Then we start handpicking examples for each year of what went right. And if something went wrong, we try to justify why.
Not all teams did not have their top prospects not get play at all in 2020 prior to camp and only skate in the backyard. If you think that Stutzle was not assisted by playing in December and January, then you are not being realistic.
Everyone is you and MH and all those that want to claim that the Rangers hurt players development?
Are you going to deny the assets in the franchise pre-Gorton being GM and post?
GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
Because I don't think he's been invisible at all, which has been said in this thread, I think he's played well, in fact I think he's been one of the better forwards on the team this year (probably not saying much with how bad or inconsistent a lot of the forwards have been, but that probably also contributes to his lack of points) would I like to see more points from him? Sure, but I think with the counting stats he's largely been incredibly unlucky (and the advanced stats seem to point in this direction too), I get it's an incredibly unsatisfying reason, but sometimes that's life. I think the people who think he's been invisible might not have understood the style of game that Lafreniere plays and just saw 1OA must mean the flashy Patrick Kane style of player where Lafreniere is more in the elite grinder Crosby type of player.
I thought he and Chytil played really well to start the season, then he gets moved to play his off wing with Panarin and Strome while they were struggling at ES, then he gets moved to played with Zibanejad who was struggling even worse, then Chytil who was probably the best forward on the team gets hurt and Laf gets moved back down to the third line to play with Howden and DiGuiseppe and sets up guys like Bitetto for chances between the circles with literately no close to them that they don't end up scoring on.
I think as a board this year there's justifiable anger and frustration with the way this season has gone so far, but I think posters are just going with their guts and posting where their feelings are with placing their anger and frustrations lay and since it's the internet they can't change their opinions after it and it makes HF as a whole miserable to read because it's either that or people just hopping in and being irreverent memers who just want to hop in and throw a grenade into a thread and leave (which I've definitely been guilty of this year) and every issue is two brick walls talking at each other which makes it feel pointless to even come in here and spend the time to be sincere and take the time to hash things out with people.
And by the way I copied this sentence from this very thread:
Based on his 1OA pick, and points to date, despite the goal today, he’s been a bust so far.
Last edited:
- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,839
- 12,976
To be fair to his point, we haven't drafted many forwards that would have had a reasonable expectation of ever reaching 70 points. Let's say starting in 2001, so we can leave off Malhotra and Brendl for ease's sake.
Who are the "realistic," candidates to become that high-octane first line forward? Setting aside that you'd think in 20 years you might have found a 70 point forward after the first round...
But...
Jessiman
Korpikoski
Cherepanov
Kreider
Miller
Andersson
Chytil
Kravtsov
8 names. Pretty short list for comprising 2000-2018 drafts. That's a testament to how friggin' often we draft defense with our high picks (hint: too often).
Still, 3 outright busts (Jessiman, Korpikoski, Andersson), 2 jury still out but also underachieving relative to what we expected (Kravstov and Chytil, though there is some positive developments for Chytil once he gets healthy), one who we cannot judge due to unfortunate circumstances (Cherepanov, who died). That leaves 2 out of 8 who have come close to meeting or exceeding expectations.
And frankly I'd say that what Kreider became is still less than what was once hoped of him (more of a 60-80 point player rather than a 40-50 point player I believe was the consensus hope around him). And Miller didn't truly blossom till he left here.
The track record is not stellar. It's maybe "mixed."
But even if you cannot look at this and conclude that it's the Rangers fault they haven't drafted a 70 point forward in two plus decades, it's all irrelevant to what is happening now.
If you shorten that window to post-rebuild, you are left with
Andersson
Chytil
Kravtsov
Kakko
Lafreniere
It's early, but it's not encouraging so far based on pure results.
Maybe there's an explanation that has nothing to do with the team. But maybe there is something the team could be doing better, no?
Two of the players on that list have bolted. One criticized Quinn's system in the offseason apparently (Kakko).
This isn't 20th century NHL. Teams get kids to excel early. We are 0-for-5 with highly drafted forwards panning out quickly.
It's fair to ask why.
- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,839
- 12,976
No, everyone is everone.
Find me a source that called for stats this low from Kakko or Lafreniere if you think otherwise.
Otherwise, everyone.
Also I am not claiming that the Rangers hurt player development.
I am saying there is a reason why these kids aren't performing to expectations, though, and it's more than just "This is how it works and you need patience." The mirror needs to be looked into to find all possible culprits. It is eminently possible that it's the team.
Maybe it's covid. Maybe it's not.
Last edited:
This is so stupid. Are you intentionally being obtuse?
I gave you the last 10 years. But sure, let's go back the previous 10. In the preceding 10 years to the decade I already covered with you, there were three forwards drafted in the first round. One (Jessiman) was a bust. One (Cherepanov) died. And one (Kreider) became a legit top line forward. What are you friggin' arguing? That they need to stop drafting defensemen and start drafting more forwards? That they should not have traded away first round picks and therefore had more draft equity? Because given the fact pattern, not sure how you can continue down this path in an honest debate.
romba
Registered User
JCProdigy
Registered User
That's true but the answer to the question the way it was posed is zero if you don't include Kakko or Laf but what does that really tell us?
GlassesJacketShirt
Registered User
Both can be true at once. Rangers don't give up a lot of excellent scoring chances, that's a credit to how they've done a good job committing to defense. If it weren't for that one bad goal by Shesterkin, Capitals would have been shutout, they weren't generating much of anything. The Jacques Martin influence is strong with this team, I'll leave it at that.
- Status
