Player Discussion Leo Carlsson

[70sSanO]

People want to compare Leo to Fantilli, which is normal based on the draft sequence.

My question are we/will we be better with Carlsson and Gauthier or Fantilli and Gauthier?

John

 

[Reveille1984]

People want to compare Leo to Fantilli, which is normal based on the draft sequence.

My question are we/will we be better with Carlsson and Gauthier or Fantilli and Gauthier?

John

The biggest arguments for drafting Carlsson were that he'd be more likely to stick at C which is a more valuable position, and his vision/game sense is very high. I think overall both will be very good players, just of very different types.

My original opinion was that Fantilli fit a bigger need since we were stacked at center, and having a top-line player that is actually a pure shooter would be a better fit overall. Since that draft, I've grown a lot more tepid on our center depth. Neither Zegras nor McTavish have really separated themselves, and as more time goes on I'd peg them more as 2C/3C tweeners than truly elite talent. So having Carlsson with 1C potential is now pretty important for the future of our franchise.

 

[Mr Rogers]

The biggest arguments for drafting Carlsson were that he'd be more likely to stick at C which is a more valuable position, and his vision/game sense is very high. I think overall both will be very good players, just of very different types.

My original opinion was that Fantilli fit a bigger need since we were stacked at center, and having a top-line player that is actually a pure shooter would be a better fit overall. Since that draft, I've grown a lot more tepid on our center depth. Neither Zegras nor McTavish have really separated themselves, and as more time goes on I'd peg them more as 2C/3C tweeners than truly elite talent. So having Carlsson with 1C potential is now pretty important for the future of our franchise.

Well said

 

[JAHV]

Leo (year 2): 62 Games, 16G, 17A, 33P, +2, 10PIM, 15:51 TOI
Barkov (yr 2): 71 Games, 16G, 20A, 36P, -4, 16PIM, 17:30 TOI

Just saying.

 

[Mr Rogers]

I prefer Leo to Fantilli by quite a bit and maybe even more than at the draft. that type of player is better to have if you are building out a forward corps from scratch than a finisher/shooter like Fantilli.

Mctavish's progression has been a steady burn but still not clear just how good he's gonna be. and Zegras has taken step backward since the 2023 draft - whose fault that is a different debate. So i think it's even more important that we got Leo.

Bedard would be interesting to see on our team, he'd definitely have fewer points than with Chicago, despite how bad they are. Would be in the 40-50 pt range with us rn for sure.

 

[Leonardo87]

I prefer Leo to Fantilli by quite a bit and maybe even more than at the draft. that type of player is better to have if you are building out a forward corps from scratch than a finisher/shooter like Fantilli.

Mctavish's progression has been a steady burn but still not clear just how good he's gonna be. and Zegras has taken step backward since the 2023 draft - whose fault that is a different debate. So i think it's even more important that we got Leo.

Bedard would be interesting to see on our team, he'd definitely have fewer points than with Chicago, despite how bad they are. Would be in the 40-50 pt range with us rn for sure.

I know this is bold but think both Leo and Fantilli have been better overall than Bedard this season. They don't have the points but they are playing better at ES by a mile. Take out Bedard's PP stats.....woof.

 

[Mr Rogers]

I know this is bold but think both Leo and Fantilli have been better overall than Bedard this season. They don't have the points but they are playing better at ES by a mile. Take out Bedard's PP stats.....woof.

Yeah i agree. I think Bedard would have fewer points with us just by virtue of playing less, Fantilli probably would as well. If you cut Bedard's 20:14 ATOI by just 15% that puts him at 45 points and that's without factoring in the Cronin effect.

 

[zegrassyknoll]

14 points in 14 games since Four Nations... 11 of which have been at even strength

 

[Reveille1984]

I know this is bold but think both Leo and Fantilli have been better overall than Bedard this season. They don't have the points but they are playing better at ES by a mile. Take out Bedard's PP stats.....woof.

Not to derail the convo from Carlsson too much, but the more time goes on it's kind of crazy that Bedard was lumped in with players like McDavid/Crosby before the draft. Those guys both led the league in points in their sophomore seasons and were pretty much immediately the de facto best forwards in the NHL after their rookie campaigns.

Bedard is obviously a phenomenally skilled player and a tier (or two) above Leo/Fantilli, but it seems like the fanfare has definitely died down a bit.

 

[Gliff]

Not to derail the convo from Carlsson too much, but the more time goes on it's kind of crazy that Bedard was lumped in with players like McDavid/Crosby before the draft. Those guys both led the league in points in their sophomore seasons and were pretty much immediately the de facto best forwards in the NHL after their rookie campaigns.

Bedard is obviously a phenomenally skilled player and a tier (or two) above Leo/Fantilli, but it seems like the fanfare has definitely died down a bit.

His level of dominance at junior was at that level. He just hasn't turned that corner at the NHL lever.
Just a reminder, Mackinnon was a career high 64 points until his D+5.

 

[shach1]

from EP top 100 under 23 players list.

Leo at 10. Adam at 8.



Turning elite talent into elite players has been a struggle for the Anaheim Ducks, and Leo Carlsson’s sophomore slump is yet another example of the difficulty of developing a future star. His ice time’s been cut by over two minutes per game, he’s creating less, and his production would have faltered even more if it weren’t for 18 percent shooting efficiency. But back up and take the longer view, and there’s little reason to be concerned about the 2023 second overall pick. Despite his 6-foot-3, 203-pound frame he’s very much a skilled finesse player, using his frame more to protect pucks and get to the net than to engage physically or win faceoffs. He knows that the slot is where you need to go to get goals, and he’s got the hands and smarts to get there at the right moment. The assists haven’t come easy so far in his career but that’s not from a lack of skill in the playmaking department. His skating isn’t his greatest strength, but his feet take him where he needs to go in transition, and his puck management and defensive stick make him already a positive two-way contributor

 

[Hockey Duckie]

I think the consensus was always that Fantilli was more "NHL ready" just due to his build and natural goal scoring ability, where as Carlsson would be more of a project. So it's not really surprising that Fantilli is pulling away a bit this year (though not by a huge margin). Carlsson also has more special teams points than Fantilli, so that argument doesn't really make sense.

The biggest difference honestly is that Carlsson just doesn't shoot the puck enough and is naturally more of a distributor. He has almost 70 less SOG than Fantilli this season which is pretty insane. I think as he: 1.) works with better linemates 2.) gains strength and stamina and 3.) gains more confidence in his shot he'll naturally become a good if not elite 1C.

What you're saying is we have another Getz on our hands, but we haven't found his Perry.

Also, I think we're putting a lot of expectations on Carlsson far too early in his career. He's only in his D+2 season. Getz' NHL debut was in his D+3 season.

What I don't like is Verbeek overdoing the "get overbulk today!" mantra and prioritizing that over skill development. Why not both? I think Z got blitzed by this as well. It's a rebuild and this team is full of 24 year old and younger on the roster. There are 11 players 24 years or younger on the team today, which is almost half the roster. Verbeek is trying to rush the rebuild by rushing the development, with the priority of overbulking the youth. Get bigger and stronger faster, then you'll be more successful in the league. It feels cookie cutter what Verbeek is doing than identifying nuances, strengths, weaknesses, and balance.

 

[AngelDuck]

Leo (year 2): 62 Games, 16G, 17A, 33P, +2, 10PIM, 15:51 TOI
Barkov (yr 2): 71 Games, 16G, 20A, 36P, -4, 16PIM, 17:30 TOI

Just saying.

I mean sure, but Jamie Benn won the Art Ross trophy that year with 87 points in 2014-2015. How many players are going to score more than 87 points in 2024-2025?

For Some additional context..it was a different era than we’re currently in

(I’m not saying this as a criticism of Leo)

 

[JAHV]

I mean sure, but Jamie Benn won the Art Ross trophy that year with 87 points in 2014-2015. How many players are going to score more than 87 points in 2024-2025?

For Some additional context..it was a different era than we’re currently in

(I’m not saying this as a criticism of Leo)

Fair, although the difference in team context (the Ducks are on pace to score 9% more goals than that Panthers team) is offset by the difference in playing time (Barkov is playing 9% more minutes than Leo).

Leo has been compared to Barkov repeatedly. I really like the comparison - both are big centers who have great defensive instincts, are natural playmakers, and can also score. Your point is taken, but I don't think the context difference is severe enough to throw the comparison out the window. Leo's production in year 2 is similar to Barkov's, even down to the struggles at the beginning of the season followed by a much more productive second half.

 

[AngelDuck]

Fair, although the difference in team context (the Ducks are on pace to score 9% more goals than that Panthers team) is offset by the difference in playing time (Barkov is playing 9% more minutes than Leo).

Leo has been compared to Barkov repeatedly. I really like the comparison - both are big centers who have great defensive instincts, are natural playmakers, and can also score. Your point is taken, but I don't think the context difference is severe enough to throw the comparison out the window. Leo's production in year 2 is similar to Barkov's, even down to the struggles at the beginning of the season followed by a much more productive second half.

Totally agree. I actually think Leo has a little more raw offensive talent than Barkov does/did and maybe a little less natural defensive ability.

next year will be very interesting!

 

[HanSolo]

What you're saying is we have another Getz on our hands, but we haven't found his Perry.

Also, I think we're putting a lot of expectations on Carlsson far too early in his career. He's only in his D+2 season. Getz' NHL debut was in his D+3 season.

What I don't like is Verbeek overdoing the "get overbulk today!" mantra and prioritizing that over skill development. Why not both? I think Z got blitzed by this as well. It's a rebuild and this team is full of 24 year old and younger on the roster. There are 11 players 24 years or younger on the team today, which is almost half the roster. Verbeek is trying to rush the rebuild by rushing the development, with the priority of overbulking the youth. Get bigger and stronger faster, then you'll be more successful in the league. It feels cookie cutter what Verbeek is doing than identifying nuances, strengths, weaknesses, and balance.

I'd argue Cutter is that guy but I've been beating that drum since we got him. Not to say I'm right but more that I'm so intrigued by the potential pairing potentially working out that I have some inherent bias.

As for the overbulking I don't know that we have evidence that this has been happening mid-season. If it is that would be very concerning because asking a player to tack on an advanced strength training (bulking) program on top over everything else they have to do in the gym and in practice, that's a recipe for tanking a player's physical performance through exhaustion and increase the risk of injury. Players usually work on muscle gain in the offseason. The work in the weight room during the season is to maintain muscle growth and strength levels. But we don't have evidence that it's been happening since training camp.

The bigger concern, I mean I've done at least 3 long posts about it but it's the focus on defensive development (with dubious results) with the assumption that offensive development will just occur naturally on its own. If we're leaving Leo to figure out how to play the role of elite 1C on his own, then we're letting him down from a developmental perspective. It seems to cater to the culture Verbeek wants in this organization to that extent I'd say yeah, Pat is complicit in any developmental failings we've seen this year. And I worry that because Leo, Cutter, Mac are producing more on top of Lacombe playing well, it's going to lend to a stay the course mentality when it comes to making staffing decisions for next year.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

I'd argue Cutter is that guy but I've been beating that drum since we got him. Not to say I'm right but more that I'm so intrigued by the potential pairing potentially working out that I have some inherent bias.

As for the overbulking I don't know that we have evidence that this has been happening mid-season. If it is that would be very concerning because asking a player to tack on an advanced strength training (bulking) program on top over everything else they have to do in the gym and in practice, that's a recipe for tanking a player's physical performance through exhaustion and increase the risk of injury. Players usually work on muscle gain in the offseason. The work in the weight room during the season is to maintain muscle growth and strength levels. But we don't have evidence that it's been happening since training camp.

The bigger concern, I mean I've done at least 3 long posts about it but it's the focus on defensive development (with dubious results) with the assumption that offensive development will just occur naturally on its own. If we're leaving Leo to figure out how to play the role of elite 1C on his own, then we're letting him down from a developmental perspective. It seems to cater to the culture Verbeek wants in this organization to that extent I'd say yeah, Pat is complicit in any developmental failings we've seen this year. And I worry that because Leo, Cutter, Mac are producing more on top of Lacombe playing well, it's going to lend to a stay the course mentality when it comes to making staffing decisions for next year.

We already know there are bulking differences between Verbeek and Carlsson's camp over this past summer. It wasn't as if Carlsson wasn't working out this summer b/c we have videos of him doing specific workouts. Carlsson doesn't have the build as Mac has; Mac is one of your young outliers who looks more like a body builder than hockey player.

As for "letting Carlsson to figure out how to play 1C on his own" being a detrimental practice, then you're reiterating what I've been stating all along after we drafted him: Let Carlsson develop as a 1C with Orebro, a playoff SHL team, b/c Orebro developed Carlsson as a winger into the #2 OA pick. We didn't need to rush a center into a disastrous place to develop.

The complicit failings didn't start this year. It started last year. I railed on Verbeek stating he was happy with Cronin's work last year. It belied the metrics that we were better than Eakins' last season with the Ducks with the context that Cronin was gifted a far better roster. Poster kept saying the following thought to appease themselves with, "The injuries on the Cronin team mattered more than the injuries on the Eakins team." Then then the same results kept recurring this season is when everyone finally disliked Cronin.

As for keeping Cronin b/c these youths are playing better is odd considering how Verbeek essentially swapped Fowler for Trouba. If Verbeek can see that picture of swapping for something better with the Fowler-Trouba swap, then why can't Verbeek accept that he can do better than Cronin? Simple response is that Cronin is Verbeek's avatar.

 

[robbieboy3686]

What you're saying is we have another Getz on our hands, but we haven't found his Perry.

Also, I think we're putting a lot of expectations on Carlsson far too early in his career. He's only in his D+2 season. Getz' NHL debut was in his D+3 season.

What I don't like is Verbeek overdoing the "get overbulk today!" mantra and prioritizing that over skill development. Why not both? I think Z got blitzed by this as well. It's a rebuild and this team is full of 24 year old and younger on the roster. There are 11 players 24 years or younger on the team today, which is almost half the roster. Verbeek is trying to rush the rebuild by rushing the development, with the priority of overbulking the youth. Get bigger and stronger faster, then you'll be more successful in the league. It feels cookie cutter what Verbeek is doing than identifying nuances, strengths, weaknesses, and balance.

Sennecke is the real deal, he will become the franchises greatest player ever. He will be a staple on Leo’s wing for 15 years

 

[HanSolo]

We already know there are bulking differences between Verbeek and Carlsson's camp over this past summer. It wasn't as if Carlsson wasn't working out this summer b/c we have videos of him doing specific workouts. Carlsson doesn't have the build as Mac has; Mac is one of your young outliers who looks more like a body builder than hockey player.

As for "letting Carlsson to figure out how to play 1C on his own" being a detrimental practice, then you're reiterating what I've been stating all along after we drafted him: Let Carlsson develop as a 1C with Orebro, a playoff SHL team, b/c Orebro developed Carlsson as a winger into the #2 OA pick. We didn't need to rush a center into a disastrous place to develop.

The complicit failings didn't start this year. It started last year. I railed on Verbeek stating he was happy with Cronin's work last year. It belied the metrics that we were better than Eakins' last season with the Ducks with the context that Cronin was gifted a far better roster. Poster kept saying the following thought to appease themselves with, "The injuries on the Cronin team mattered more than the injuries on the Eakins team." Then then the same results kept recurring this season is when everyone finally disliked Cronin.

As for keeping Cronin b/c these youths are playing better is odd considering how Verbeek essentially swapped Fowler for Trouba. If Verbeek can see that picture of swapping for something better with the Fowler-Trouba swap, then why can't Verbeek accept that he can do better than Cronin? Simple response is that Cronin is Verbeek's avatar.

On the staying in the SHL thing, I mean, I don't necessarily disagree. I just don't know how much better the SHL would have been for his development but I don't really feel like thinking about it too much. It's in the past at this point. He's not going back and we can't turn back the clock. What matters now is how he's developed by this team.

Thankfully the team is not rushing Sennecke, Solberg, or Luneau but I'm not naive, I know there's really no more development spots.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

On the staying in the SHL thing, I mean, I don't necessarily disagree. I just don't know how much better the SHL would have been for his development but I don't really feel like thinking about it too much. It's in the past at this point. He's not going back and we can't turn back the clock. What matters now is how he's developed by this team.

Thankfully the team is not rushing Sennecke, Solberg, or Luneau but I'm not naive, I know there's really no more development spots.

Carlsson's SHL team developed him into the #2 OA pick in the draft and you question how much better he would have been? They were a playoff team and had brought over prospect Lekkerimaki to play on Carlsson's wing. And we all witnessed Carlsson's play improved just by playing with other Swedes.

The team did rush Luneau last year as he spent like 90% of his time with the Ducks just weight lifting. Fortunately for the Ducks, staph infection ruined Luneau's second half of the season and not develop much. Luneau did start with the Ducks to start this season and was sent down b/c his play wasn't warranted to stay with the NHL club.

 

[HanSolo]

Carlsson's SHL team developed him into the #2 OA pick in the draft and you question how much better he would have been? They were a playoff team and had brought over prospect Lekkerimaki to play on Carlsson's wing. And we all witnessed Carlsson's play improved just by playing with other Swedes.

The team did rush Luneau last year as he spent like 90% of his time with the Ducks just weight lifting. Fortunately for the Ducks, staph infection ruined Luneau's second half of the season and not develop much. Luneau did start with the Ducks to start this season and was sent down b/c his play wasn't warranted to stay with the NHL club.

I'm saying I don't know. Could it have been better for his development? Possibly. Or Leo could be the type that more time in Sweden means that much more time adapting to the NA game on top of his SHL loan years. My point is why spend more than a few minutes thinking about it? We're at a point now where we're in too deep to send Leo back to Sweden so it's just spilled milk at this point. Unless you're trying to suggest that Leo can't reach his top upside because he didn't spend more time in Sweden, there's really nothing productive that I can see from wringing our wrists over what could have been. The concern is how will this team develop him going forward. Going back to Orebro is not an option.

As for Luneau, the circumstances were what they were. As you said, his play warranted more development time which he has been getting and where he has been thriving of late.

 

[70sSanO]

Leo (year 2): 62 Games, 16G, 17A, 33P, +2, 10PIM, 15:51 TOI
Barkov (yr 2): 71 Games, 16G, 20A, 36P, -4, 16PIM, 17:30 TOI

Just saying.

So the SC finals in year 10 and the cup in year 11.

I hope we can move that up a bit.

John

 

[2faded]

I'm saying I don't know. Could it have been better for his development? Possibly. Or Leo could be the type that more time in Sweden means that much more time adapting to the NA game on top of his SHL loan years. My point is why spend more than a few minutes thinking about it? We're at a point now where we're in too deep to send Leo back to Sweden so it's just spilled milk at this point. Unless you're trying to suggest that Leo can't reach his top upside because he didn't spend more time in Sweden, there's really nothing productive that I can see from wringing our wrists over what could have been. The concern is how will this team develop him going forward. Going back to Orebro is not an option.

As for Luneau, the circumstances were what they were. As you said, his play warranted more development time which he has been getting and where he has been thriving of late.

These were my exact thoughts reading your guys' back and forth.

Would it have been better for his development? Maybe. But he was clearly good enough for the NHL. Was he good enough to be a 1C in the NHL? No, but who is. I would argue Bedard wasn't either and he was the next McDavid.

Also, I would bet money that after a couple more years in Sweden he still wouldn't be ready to play 1C. He could take even more time to adapt as you said.

I can't blame Verbeek for starting Leo in the NHL. I can blame him for the stupid load management though. That could have, and imo probably did affect his development in a negative way.