Toggle sidebar

Is Erik Karlsson in fact the best Swedish player still?

  • 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

Is Erik Karlsson in fact the best Swedish player still?

  • Yes

  • Borderline

  • He’s the most talented but not the best anymore

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
saska sault said:
Im a little bias but I thought Raymond was Swedens best player, Karlsson was just as good. Hes dynamic on the back end, especially when you have a Hedman on your team to take the toughest assignments.

Off topic, Arvidsson was a treat to watch. He plays with great speed and energy, would love him on Detroit.
Click to expand...
Karlsson had much better advanced stats than Raymond.
 
ijuka said:
Karlsson had much better advanced stats than Raymond.
Click to expand...
Where did you see those stats ? (I haven't got access to any paid site)

Opinions are very divided about EK65 but he is a fantastic addition to the toolbox of any team.

From what I have seen he is fantastic offensively but can become too static in the defensive play where he doesn't engage.

Overall he is still an superb player that brings some things to the table that very few defensemen can.

Sweden played team Canada (arguably the toughest opponents in the world) and he looked great.

I noticed him more than Makar in this particular game (but maybe I am biased as a swede) and of course you notice your own players more.
 
Sasha Orlov said:
He was always putrid defensively actually
Click to expand...
Yup. He’s always been soft on pucks. EK is great with the puck attacking the o-zone with space. He looks great watching on TV.
Watching EK for all the minutes he’s on ice without the puck on attack and his obvious defensive liabilities are very noticeable.
And how many of his minutes are without the puck? 95%.
 
Yet, when you look at moneypuck he was by far Sweden's best player against Canada in 5 vs 5.

Considering the combination of offense and defense ! xG%

As long as he is much better offensively than he is bad defensively it's OK
 
Last edited:
"Defense" is still not understood by everybody but recovering the puck, gaining control and exiting cleanly is also part of it. For example, Karlsson is elite at "exit possession rate" (skating, vision and smarts) but sucks at "possession entry prevention" (pivot, size, etc)

1739546154300.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: eXile3, Crow, Seanaconda and 2 others
Voight said:
He was never that good at defence.
Click to expand...

Sasha Orlov said:
He was always putrid defensively actually
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight, a mediocre team like the Ottawa Senators across multiple NHL coaches would play a putrid defensive player for 27-30 minutes a night including even more in the playoffs and somehow still find success?

Seems more like you guys have no conception of what actual defense is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheStatican, Crow, KevinRedkey and 3 others
Ben White said:
Despite two career threatening injuries and being 35 years old, it looks like Erik Karlsson has another lever of talent in him than the other Swedish players. What’s your opinion?
Click to expand...
He is at best, the 3rd best defenseman on the team. yeah, he has good possession numbers, but he sucks defensively. Hedman is better. Dahlin is the best player on the team. Massively disrespected by everyone. Didn't get PP or overtime shifts.
 
Agent Zuuuub said:
So let me get this straight, a mediocre team like the Ottawa Senators across multiple NHL coaches would play a putrid defensive player for 27-30 minutes a night including even more in the playoffs and somehow still find success?

Seems more like you guys have no conception of what actual defense is.
Click to expand...
considering the high point of that success was a team with a negative goal differential both in the regular season and the playoffs going to a conference final I think it’s fair to question their star defenseman’s ability to prevent goals. A sublime talent in two phases of the game can still be a liability in the third

E: rather, I suppose it’s more fitting to question whether that success stemmed from proper coaching judgment and keying on that
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Voight
Agent Zuuuub said:
So let me get this straight, a mediocre team like the Ottawa Senators across multiple NHL coaches would play a putrid defensive player for 27-30 minutes a night including even more in the playoffs and somehow still find success?

Seems more like you guys have no conception of what actual defense is.
Click to expand...
Yes because he is insane offensively

Is that actually difficult to understand for you lmao
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight
zenthusiast said:
considering the high point of that success was a team with a negative goal differential both in the regular season and the playoffs going to a conference final I think it’s fair to question their star defenseman’s ability to prevent goals. A sublime talent in two phases of the game can still be a liability in the third
Click to expand...
But Erik had positive numbers in +/- in both the series and in the stanley cup finals that year. (even though the team had minuses) Do you somehow mean that Erik was responsible for what happened when he was off the ice too ? He should have prevented goals then too ? How could he have done that ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom