Toggle sidebar

C Auston Matthews (2016, 1st, TOR) VII

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
This is a funny thread. Its like asking "Who's better, Kopitar or Kane"

How do you compare two players who play different roles and positions that are both highly touted??
 
varano said:
This is a funny thread. Its like asking "Who's better, Kopitar or Kane"

How do you compare two players who play different roles and positions that are both highly touted??
Click to expand...

agreed, just dont spark the topic again since it just ended :laugh:
 
teravaineSAROS said:
for a rookie that's fairly decent isn't it? Any stats on his faceoffs against NHL-calibre players?
Click to expand...

I can't speak to the #s vs NHL players but typically young guys get schooled on faceoffs for a few years before they learn some of the tricks of the trade etc.
 
The Winter Soldier said:
You've reposted this a few times on various different threads to try to make the point it isn't close between Laine and Matthews when we know Bob Mckenzie also said scouts suggested they had to think long and hard about their decision to keep Matthews at No. 1 in his draft rankings.

So while no one will argue that Matthews was the consensus #1 pick this draft, it does not guarantee he will be ultimately the better player.
Click to expand...

First--my research and compilation in that comment was originally meant to be proof of an 85% preference by 40 pro scouts since there were many posters in various threads that didn't believe such a large consensus existed in Matthews being considered the BPA. I initially quoted that figure (85%) as a ballpark estimate based on anecdotal recollection and people kept challenging me on backing that up with proof which is when I eventually put the work in to compile the aforementioned list.

Second--in reality this is actually only the 2nd time (out of 2 times) that I've personally posted this work. Other people have reposted it, which they are more than welcome to do, but please don't confuse that with me reposting this repeatedly.

Third--like others have mentioned, you are one of the most guilty users of reposting the same content repeatedly which is usually a screenshot or list of a prospect's accomplishments via eliteprospect.com so I'm not sure why you feel the need to criticize a "repost" when a) I've only ever posted this original research twice [which means I've only reposted it once] & b) you repost [unoriginal] stuff constantly and far more than just once or twice.

Fourth--What this research shows is that Matthews is considered the BPA by an overwhelming majority AINEC. He could be considered 1% better or 10% or 100% better than his 2016 competition, but at the end of the day 85% of pro scouts preferred Matthews as the BPA of 2016. If you look at scouts' rankings for the last several drafts, such a large consensus is actually fairly uncommon (outside of the McDavid draft). Of course it doesn't "guarantee Matthews will ultimately be the best player", but it does mean that a massive majority of professional scouts (who have watched and tracked thousands of prospects during their careers) are currently betting Matthews will be the best player from the 2016 draft--which is infinitely more meaningful than what most HF users offer in the weekly "Matthews vs other-2016-draftees" threads.

Fifth--I tried to scrub my original post (about the 85%) for this thread specifically to keep it about Matthews being the BPA in 2016 so that this wouldn't devolve into another "Matthews vs ..." thread so I'm not sure why you had to drag Laine into this and derail the topic.
 
Last edited:
LeafsRockForBabcock said:
So can someone explain why Matthews is looked at as less offensively gifted than Laine? I even believe Matthews has just as good of a shot. I feel like Laine is so good that some people try and prop him up so he doesn't get under rated, and therefore people will say "His shot is the best".

Look at these highlights from the two. While Laine seems to be more inclined to find open ice in the slot and shoot (He'll need a setup guy with him and I'm not sure how well this will work in the NHL), Matthews is hounding the puck, making the plays himself.

One seems to be a complimentary piece, the other a driving player.





Their shots are really really similar, and Matthews brings so much more. I don't understand how there has been such a debate.
Click to expand...


You derive this from highlites? Its a debate because of how unbelievable Laine played on a big stage over and over again. Both are great, Matthews went first be happy you got a great prospect who has a higher potential to be the superior player.

I dont see why posts like this are made, other than being insecure, can you not evaluate another player and recognize that they might have one or two strengths better than your teams player?
 
bert said:
You derive this from highlites? Its a debate because of how unbelievable Laine played on a big stage over and over again. Both are great, Matthews went first be happy you got a great prospect who has a higher potential to be the superior player.

I dont see why posts like this are made, other than being insecure, can you not evaluate another player and recognize that they might have one or two strengths better than your teams player?
Click to expand...

You derive this from one post? It's a debate because their shots appear to be incredibly close, and Matthews himself is a goal scorer. Both are great, and Matthews went first for a reason.

I don't get why people can't accept a player might be better than theirs, other than being insecure. Can you not evaluate another player may have just as good of a shot as another?

As far as I am concerned, their shots are incredibly close. The fact that you had to take personal insult to someone claiming Laine is not the jesus of shooting shows the true insecurity.
 
TDK88 said:
First--my research and compilation in that comment was originally meant to be proof of an 85% preference by 40 pro scouts since there were many posters in various threads that didn't believe such a large consensus existed in Matthews being considered the BPA. I initially quoted that figure (85%) as a ballpark estimate based on anecdotal recollection and people kept challenging me on backing that up with proof which is when I eventually put the work in to compile the aforementioned list.

Second--in reality this is actually only the 2nd time (out of 2 times) that I've personally posted this work. Other people have reposted it, which they are more than welcome to do, but please don't confuse that with me reposting this repeatedly.

Third--like others have mentioned, you are one of the most guilty users of reposting the same content repeatedly which is usually a screenshot or list of a prospect's accomplishments via eliteprospect.com so I'm not sure why you feel the need to criticize a "repost" when a) I've only ever posted this original research twice [which means I've only reposted it once] & b) you repost [unoriginal] stuff constantly and far more than just once or twice.

Fourth--What this research shows is that Matthews is considered the BPA by an overwhelming majority AINEC. He could be considered 1% better or 10% or 100% better than his 2016 competition, but at the end of the day 85% of pro scouts preferred Matthews as the BPA of 2016. If you look at scouts' rankings for the last several drafts, such a large consensus is actually fairly uncommon (outside of the McDavid draft). Of course it doesn't "guarantee Matthews will ultimately be the best player", but it does mean that a massive majority of professional scouts (who have watched and tracked thousands of prospects during their careers) are currently betting Matthews will be the best player from the 2016 draft--which is infinitely more meaningful than what most HF users offer in the weekly "Matthews vs other-2016-draftees" threads.

Fifth--I tried to scrub my original post (about the 85%) for this thread specifically to keep it about Matthews being the BPA in 2016 so that this wouldn't devolve into another "Matthews vs ..." thread so I'm not sure why you had to drag Laine into this and derail the topic.
Click to expand...

This is fine. But it has nothing to do with my assertion of you constantly reposting that 85% to pass on a narrative that Matthews is that much better than the rest of the 2016 draft class or precisely Laine when most of us know Bob Mckenzie said scouts had to think long and hard on keeping Matthews at #1 in his 2nd last draft ranking.

No one rational on this forum would debate Matthews was the consensus unanimous #1 pick this draft before the year began and still the majority(non unanimous) #1 pick at the end of the year when Laine made it interesting. This was my only point in my reply to you. If you want to clarify your position of that reposting of that 85% number, I am listening. But I would hope you would be upfront enough to atleast recognize Bob Mckenzie's comments in the TSN Laine closes gap draft ranking when you make that statement next time.

Finally you will also admit that by posting that 85% number, you are either intentionally or unintentionally trying to draw posters to comment on this for reasons ironically you say you want to avoid. If this is not the case, then I will say I am sorry. But what is your point when most again already agree Matthews was the consensus #1 OA pick this year.
 
Last edited:
LeafsRockForBabcock said:
You derive this from one post? It's a debate because their shots appear to be incredibly close, and Matthews himself is a goal scorer. Both are great, and Matthews went first for a reason.

I don't get why people can't accept a player might be better than theirs, other than being insecure. Can you not evaluate another player may have just as good of a shot as another?

As far as I am concerned, their shots are incredibly close. The fact that you had to take personal insult to someone claiming Laine is not the jesus of shooting shows the true insecurity.
Click to expand...

The problem was you going by highlight video and trying to be an expert, these are franchise prospects and you need to watch them play so you can value what they bring to the table.

Teeder9 said:
Not sure how this is still going on. One is a franchise player and the other went 2nd
Click to expand...

Like this.
 
The Winter Soldier said:
This is fine. But it has nothing to do with my assertion of you constantly reposting that 85% to pass on a narrative that Matthews is that much better than the rest of the 2016 draft class or precisely Laine when most of us know Bob Mckenzie said scouts had to think long and hard on keeping Matthews at #1 in his 2nd last draft ranking.

No one rational on this forum would debate Matthews was the consensus unanimous #1 pick this draft before the year began and still the majority(non unanimous) #1 pick at the end of the year when Laine made it interesting. This was my only point in my reply to you. If you want to clarify your position of that reposting of that 85% number, I am listening. But I would hope you would be upfront enough to atleast recognize Bob Mckenzie's comments in the TSN Laine closes gap draft ranking when you make that statement next time.

Finally you will also admit that by posting that 85% number, you are either intentionally or unintentionally trying to draw posters to comment on this for reasons ironically you say you want to avoid. If this is not the case, then I will say I am sorry. But what is your point when most again already agree Matthews was the consensus #1 OA pick this year.
Click to expand...

For your first paragraph, reread everything I wrote under the sections titled "First" and "Fourth". I don't know if you ignored it or missed it but it covers exactly what you're trying to allege in your first paragraph.

For your second paragraph, reread everything I wrote under the section titled "First". Also, did you ever consider that the facts I provided were meant for the "irrational" people on these forums who seem to think there was a close contest for BPA and who flat out repeatedly denied an 85/15 split? Maybe I got tired of simply trying to ignore them while they laughed and dismissed everything anyone said about Matthews.

For your third paragraph, reread everything I wrote under the section titled "Fourth" and what I just said above about "irrational" people. I don't really care who feels offended by my "85%" facts because that's their own prerogative to get offended. I personally did the research and posted it because I got tired of the "irrational" people that consistently try to discredit exactly how much of a BPA Matthews was considered at the time of the draft. Maybe that's a waste of time and energy on my part, but that's my call.

Your call is whether you want to act like an "irrational" person and get really offended by simple facts or just accept this stuff for what it is and not write essays to me complaining about 85/15 splits being backed up by evidence and used as facts.
 
TDK88 said:
For your first paragraph, reread everything I wrote under the sections titled "First" and "Fourth". I don't know if you ignored it or missed it but it covers exactly what you're trying to allege in your first paragraph.

For your second paragraph, reread everything I wrote under the section titled "First". Also, did you ever consider that the facts I provided were meant for the "irrational" people on these forums who seem to think there was a close contest for BPA and who flat out repeatedly denied an 85/15 split? Maybe I got tired of simply trying to ignore them while they laughed and dismissed everything anyone said about Matthews.

For your third paragraph, reread everything I wrote under the section titled "Fourth" and what I just said above about "irrational" people. I don't really care who feels offended by my "85%" facts because that's their own prerogative to get offended. I personally did the research and posted it because I got tired of the "irrational" people that consistently try to discredit exactly how much of a BPA Matthews was considered at the time of the draft. Maybe that's a waste of time and energy on my part, but that's my call.

Your call is whether you want to act like an "irrational" person and get really offended by simple facts or just accept this stuff for what it is and not write essays to me complaining about 85/15 splits being backed up by evidence and used as facts.
Click to expand...

It would help the conversation if you actually replied to what I posted to you. You posted the 85%, I just wanted a clarification why? Since no one here would argue Matthews was the consensus the #1 pick this draft despite what Mckenzie reported what some scouts told him that they had to think long and hard on keeping him there.
 
The Winter Soldier said:
It would help the conversation if you actually replied to what I posted to you. You posted the 85%, I just wanted a clarification why? Since no one here would argue Matthews was a consensus the #1 pick this draft despite what Mckenzie reported what scouts told him.
Click to expand...

If by "here" you mean the Matthews thread, then that's debateable. Non-Matthews fans troll this thread every once in a while and try to diminish his status/ability/potential as a #1 OA. And if you read through the first post of mine that you quoted with all of those links, you'd see that I explained that I was dumping the data in here for posterity and because it's a Matthews thread and I wanted to share some original research that I generated. Am I not allowed to discuss Matthews' with regards to his #1 status in the Matthews thread? I even modified the post to be Matthews-centric despite the fact that it originated in a more pointed thread and debate elsewhere.

If by "here" you mean HF Boards in general, then come on man. There are plenty of people in plenty of threads that argue what the consensus was around Matthews as the BPA ALL the time. Like I said, I got tired of that and compiled information to dispute those unsubstantiated claims. Maybe those are only the "irrational" people like you said, but I got sick of the irrationality and decided to address it.

Does that satisfy your inquisition? I'm honestly a little irritated that I have to sit here and justify why I'm discussing Matthews in a Matthews thread just because you took umbrage with some simple facts. My OP about the "85%" in this thread was literally all about Matthews and you've decided to infer all kinds of stuff that wasn't said at all.
 
TDK88 said:
If by "here" you mean the Matthews thread, then that's debateable. Non-Matthews fans troll this thread every once in a while and try to diminish his status/ability/potential as a #1 OA. And if you read through the first post of mine that you quoted with all of those links, you'd see that I explained that I was dumping the data in here for posterity and because it's a Matthews thread and I wanted to share some original research that I generated. Am I not allowed to discuss Matthews' with regards to his #1 status in the Matthews thread? I even modified the post to be Matthews-centric despite the fact that it originated in a more pointed thread and debate elsewhere.

If by "here" you mean HF Boards in general, then come on man. There are plenty of people in plenty of threads that argue what the consensus was around Matthews as the BPA ALL the time. Like I said, I got tired of that and compiled information to dispute those unsubstantiated claims. Maybe those are only the "irrational" people like you said, but I got sick of the irrationality and decided to address it.

Does that satisfy your inquisition? I'm honestly a little irritated that I have to sit here and justify why I'm discussing Matthews in a Matthews thread just because you took umbrage with some simple facts. My OP about the "85%" in this thread was literally all about Matthews and you've decided to infer all kinds of stuff that wasn't said at all.
Click to expand...

I think most posters reasonable and unreasonable on both sides mind you will not dispute the fact Matthews was the consensus #1 pick before the season started and he would end up as the #1 consensus pick when the year ended. They may dispute who the best player is? But debating that Matthews was not the consensus #1 I didn't see this and this is why I asked you why you posted it again. I will accept your reasoning. There is enough from both sides, I can agree on this. But certainly you can see why I replied to you, given the discussions of either player crossing over to each others thread has been near impossible to avoid.
 
The Winter Soldier said:
I think most posters reasonable and unreasonable on both sides mind you will not dispute the fact Matthews was the consensus #1 pick before the season started and he would end up as the #1 consensus pick when the year ended. They may dispute who the best player is? But debating that Matthews was not the consensus #1 I didn't see this and this is why I asked you why you posted it again. I will accept your reasoning. There is enough from both sides, I can agree on this. But certainly you can see why I replied to you, given the discussions of either player crossing over to each others thread has been near impossible to avoid.
Click to expand...

No problem. I wanted to keep the whole thing in here about Matthews which is why I had edited my post to reflect that and make no mention of other 2016 draftees.
 
Gavy said:
Can we stop arguing and talk about Matthews?
How the ***** do we keep going back to the same crap over and over again? Talk about the prospectin the subject title, not Laine

Does anybody else see a centre version of Rick Nash in Matthews?
Click to expand...

Matthews looks nothing even close to Rick Nash.

Not saying Nash is a bad player (I think he's had some pretty damn good seasons) but I think Matthews has far more potential.
 
Roy Baby said:
Matthews will be the best out of this draft hands down....what is there to debate? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Click to expand...

You're gonna make this thread look bad by being provocative without really providing. Same could've been said during the 2013 draft when MacKinnon was picked ahead of Barkov (Barkov who was said to be picked too high at no 2), and today Barkov's way ahead. Same could be said about a lot of drafts...

For all we know some 4th rounder could end up being the best.
 
Last edited:
It would be hilarious if Matthews and Laine both became 60-point players and some 5th rounder drafted by New Jersey became a top-5 player in the NHL.
 

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom