LW Lawson Crouse - Kingston Frontenacs, OHL (2015 Draft)

[sniper81]

I didn't say he doesn't have those attributes. I said relative to Marner, Strome, Rantanen, Barzal, etc. he is inferior in those areas.

I'm involved in multiple discussions on here right now, and in each thread I am constantly met with straw man arguments. Please, please, please be aware of arguing against ghosts. Crouse is a fantastic prospect and stating that he is inferior in terms of vision and creativity to the forwards whom he is rated alongside is NOT the same as saying he does not have these qualities at all.

Many disputes on here could easily be avoided if people weren't so keen on responding to points that have not been implied.

Okay

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

The majority of posters I've seen have him somewhere between 7 and 15.

You haven't been looking too closely to this and many draft ranking threads then. There's been quite a few posts about his supposed upside of that of a 3rd liner, as well as him being the type of player that shouldn't be taken in the top 10 (I know you listed 7 to 15, but there's a massive shift in idea between what a top 10 player is and what a 11 to 15 player is).

Regardless, the poster I quoted seemed to imply that the ONLY issue was Crouse being ranked ahead of Marner, Strome, or Hanifin. That's not quite accurate because a lot of posters have him (as you say) ranked as low as mid teens, which is seeing an issue with him being ranked ahead of even more guys than was listed above.

 

[sabrebuild]

You haven't been looking too closely to this and many draft ranking threads then. There's been quite a few posts about his supposed upside of that of a 3rd liner, as well as him being the type of player that shouldn't be taken in the top 10 (I know you listed 7 to 15, but there's a massive shift in idea between what a top 10 player is and what a 11 to 15 player is).

Regardless, the poster I quoted seemed to imply that the ONLY issue was Crouse being ranked ahead of Marner, Strome, or Hanifin. That's not quite accurate because a lot of posters have him (as you say) ranked as low as mid teens, which is seeing an issue with him being ranked ahead of even more guys than was listed above.

Ya I suppose you can find some people who are way out there, but the majority of people who have complained about Crouse have been directly related to some scouting services putting him in the top 5. Just my take. If you look at the Eichel thread, some random posters think he is way overrated by playing in the inferior ncaa league... Others have said Hanifin looks like nothing special... You can't take the nuts seriously.

I will give you this, which might put me on your list of haters. I think of all the guys who have often been put in the top 6 by scouts, I think he has the lowest likelihood of hitting his ceiling and the highest chance of being a good second liner, who can play the first and not suck or be a monster against weaker competition on a third line.

 

[McDNicks17]

I don't think saying he's behind McDavid/Eichel/Hanifin/Strome/Marner should be taken as a sleight.

Those are five players that would be in the conversation for 1st overall(or top 3 at the minimum) in a lot of drafts.

Crouse is probably a top 5 prospect in most drafts. Just not this one, IMO.

 

[arsmaster*]

I didn't say he doesn't have those attributes. I said relative to Marner, Strome, Rantanen, Barzal, etc. he is inferior in those areas.

I'm involved in multiple discussions on here right now, and in each thread I am constantly met with straw man arguments. Please, please, please be aware of arguing against ghosts. Crouse is a fantastic prospect and stating that he is inferior in terms of vision and creativity to the forwards whom he is rated alongside is NOT the same as saying he does not have these qualities at all.

Many disputes on here could easily be avoided if people weren't so keen on responding to points that have not been implied.

What is the straw man?

That you can't be just as effective as another player whilst being less productive. That isn't a straw man.

Toews is less productive than Mike Ribeiro. Does that mean Ribeiro is more effective?

You were talking about effectiveness on the last page and now you're talking about attributes. I'm getting lost.

 

[sabrebuild]

What is the straw man?

That you can't be just as effective as another player whilst being less productive. That isn't a straw man.

Toews is less productive than Mike Ribeiro. Does that mean Ribeiro is more effective?

You were talking about effectiveness on the last page and now you're talking about attributes. I'm getting lost.

Based on what? Toews is .9 a game for his career, Ribeiro is .76, your losing me too.

I asked this earlier and I don't know if someone answered it already, but what is the biggest difference between Crouse and Bittner? I don't watch the WHL enough to know his game well. I never saw a ton of Fehr both in the pros or junior, but one guy that is close that we have talked about on Buffalo's board for worrying about Crouse is that he reminds us of Taylor Pyatt.

 

[Random Forest]

What is the straw man?

That you can't be just as effective as another player whilst being less productive. That isn't a straw man.

No, that's not it. The straw man was that I said Crouse isn't as creative or dynamic as Marner, Strome, Rantanen, Barzal, and the poster interpreted that as me saying Crouse isn't creative or dynamic.

Not difficult to spot that one.

Toews is less productive than Mike Ribeiro. Does that mean Ribeiro is more effective?

You were talking about effectiveness on the last page and now you're talking about attributes. I'm getting lost.

You're the one bringing production into this. I value the attributes I mentioned, and it just so happens that the attributes are also what leads to the production.

In terms of overall effectiveness and on-ice value, I see more from the above players than Crouse. Eric Fehr brings more tools to the table than Jiri Hudler, but at the end of the day, Hudler is clearly the better player. Not just for the production, but because of the effect his game has on generating opportunities and controlling the play. I see a similar disparity between Crouse and the guys we are comparing him to.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

You're the one bringing production into this. I value the attributes I mentioned, and it just so happens that the attributes are also what leads to the production.

In terms of overall effectiveness and on-ice value, I see more from the above players than Crouse. Eric Fehr brings more tools to the table than Jiri Hudler, but at the end of the day, Hudler is clearly the better player. Not just for the production, but because of the effect his game has on generating opportunities and controlling the play. I see a similar disparity between Crouse and the guys we are comparing him to.

The flaw or problem with this is you're comparing Crouse's "attributes" to a guy who clearly didn't pan out as a top six forward in the NHL, despite projecting to that as a junior. In other words, your basing your entire argument about Crouse's ultimate upside over a comparison that you see but that isn't necessarily there.

It would be like me arguing against Marner and constantly saying "I see his attributes similar to Kyle Wellwood. Creative, great playmaker, on the small side, etc." and then coming to conclusions about Marner's NHL potential based on that comparison to Wellwood and talking about how it's silly to take a guy like Kyle Wellwood in the top 5 of the draft.

In a general sense (and before you start throwing around straw man again because you seem to love that phrase, I'm talking about the general commentary on Crouse), Crouse's detractors seem to compare him to guys who generally busted or were disappointments in order to compare his NHL potential. Whereas guys like Marner, the comparisons are always to guys who turned into stars.

In other words, when people argue for who should be ranked where, the discussion always paints Crouse as the next Taylor Pyatt/Manny Malhotra and Marner as the next Claude Giroux, which will obviously make ranking Crouse higher look silly since no one would take Malhotra over Giroux. There's never even the possibility raised that Marner will be the next Kyle Wellwood and Crouse will be the next David Backes.

 

[sniper81]

No, that's not it. The straw man was that I said Crouse isn't as creative or dynamic as Marner, Strome, Rantanen, Barzal, and the poster interpreted that as me saying Crouse isn't creative or dynamic.

Not difficult to spot that one.



You're the one bringing production into this. I value the attributes I mentioned, and it just so happens that the attributes are also what leads to the production.

In terms of overall effectiveness and on-ice value, I see more from the above players than Crouse. Eric Fehr brings more tools to the table than Jiri Hudler, but at the end of the day, Hudler is clearly the better player. Not just for the production, but because of the effect his game has on generating opportunities and controlling the play. I see a similar disparity between Crouse and the guys we are comparing him to.

Crouse isn't Fehr. What it comes down to is his point totals, that's what you are looking at. Crouse may not be as dynamic in the categories that you rank higher, but is a more complete Hockey player than anyone you compared him too. Some people value you that.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

As good as Crouse's toolset might be, I don't see how one can justify taking a guy with 0.78ppg in his draft year in the top five. He might reach his potential and become a Todd Bertuzzi in his prime type guy, but I'd let another team take that chance that early.

I'd feel more comfortable taking him in the 15-20 range.

Now, to be fair, 21 goals in 41 games on an offensively starved team is pretty good for a 17-year old. I'm interested to see where his production goes when Kingston gets healthy.

 

[Random Forest]

The flaw or problem with this is you're comparing Crouse's "attributes" to a guy who clearly didn't pan out as a top six forward in the NHL, despite projecting to that as a junior. In other words, your basing your entire argument about Crouse's ultimate upside over a comparison that you see but that isn't necessarily there.

It would be like me arguing against Marner and constantly saying "I see his attributes similar to Kyle Wellwood. Creative, great playmaker, on the small side, etc." and then coming to conclusions about Marner's NHL potential based on that comparison to Wellwood and talking about how it's silly to take a guy like Kyle Wellwood in the top 5 of the draft.

In a general sense (and before you start throwing around straw man again because you seem to love that phrase, I'm talking about the general commentary on Crouse), Crouse's detractors seem to compare him to guys who generally busted or were disappointments in order to compare his NHL potential. Whereas guys like Marner, the comparisons are always to guys who turned into stars.

In other words, when people argue for who should be ranked where, the discussion always paints Crouse as the next Taylor Pyatt/Manny Malhotra and Marner as the next Claude Giroux, which will obviously make ranking Crouse higher look silly since no one would take Malhotra over Giroux. There's never even the possibility raised that Marner will be the next Kyle Wellwood and Crouse will be the next David Backes.

I have never said he is limited to being an Eric Fehr type player. In fact, I've explicitly acknowledged the possibility that he could be more (or less).

I'm not comparing Crouse to 18 year old Eric Fehr, either. I don't know why that's been implied multiple times. I'm saying that the player Crouse most resembles to me is a current day Eric Fehr. A very complete, strong-skating, goal scoring winger. That's all.

Yes, he could be Andrew Ladd. I've never implied that this is not a possibility.

My point is that I constantly see people suggest that Crouse is ranked where he is because it is so difficult to find a player with that skill set. I'm saying that it's nice to have such a complete skill set, but that in itself does not make one a more valuable hockey player. That is my point. Thus far, the responses I've seen haven't substantively addressed this point.

There is no doubt Marner could be Giroux, Hudler, or a bust. That's beyond the point, and I don't understand why you're bringing that up.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I have never said he is limited to being an Eric Fehr type player. In fact, I've explicitly acknowledged the possibility that he could be more (or less).

I'm not comparing Crouse to 18 year old Eric Fehr, either. I don't know why that's been implied multiple times. I'm saying that the player Crouse most resembles to me is a current day Eric Fehr. A very complete, strong-skating, goal scoring winger. That's all.

I never said you compared him to an 18 year old Fehr. I know which "version" of Fehr you're comparing him to. I simply think it's a really, really bad comparison. It's about as accurate as comparing Marner to a 29 year old Kyle Wellwood.

My point is that I constantly see people suggest that Crouse is ranked where he is because it is so difficult to find a player with that skill set. I'm saying that it's nice to have such a complete skill set, but that in itself does not make one a more valuable hockey player. That is my point. Thus far, the responses I've seen haven't substantively addressed this point.

Because it is? Why do you think a guy like Milan Lucic or David Backes or Wayne Simmonds is constantly talked about in the "every team would love a guy like that"? Because big guys who can actually contribute on the scoreboard are worth their weight in gold. Because they're rare.

It's the same reason why big defensemen get hyped so much at draft time in hopes of them being the next Chara. Guys like Keith, Subban, Doughty, Karlsson are just as talented, if not more so, than Chara. But whenever a defenseman with Chara's size is up for a draft, he's usually rated a few spots above where his talent level would have him if he was 6'1 or below.

That's why a guy like Crouse, who may not be as skilled as guys like Marner, Strome, Barzal, etc., gets hyped so much. He's one of those unique guys that's very difficult to find.

There is no doubt Marner could be Giroux, Hudler, or a bust. That's beyond the point, and I don't understand why you're bringing that up.

First, I thought I made it clear it wasn't directly addressed to you.

Secondly, I was clear why I brought it up. Because in a lot of threads that compare Crouse with those other guys, too often the assumption is Crouse is the next Pyatt/Malhotra/Fehr and those other guys are the next Giroux/Kane.

I've yet to see a single discussion comparing Crouse with those guys where someone mentioned Crouse as turning into someone actually good, and those guys being busts. It's always the assumption that "you don't draft a guy who projects to a 3rd line checker in the top 5", and from that point on Crouse's ranking gets derided because no one would take Pyatt over Giroux.

 

[arsmaster*]

In terms of overall effectiveness and on-ice value, I see more from the above players than Crouse. Eric Fehr brings more tools to the table than Jiri Hudler, but at the end of the day, Hudler is clearly the better player. Not just for the production, but because of the effect his game has on generating opportunities and controlling the play. I see a similar disparity between Crouse and the guys we are comparing him to.

Fair enough. I already stated I don't care for that player comp. Just wondered if you were directing a strawman complaint my way.

Just to add, I really don't think Crouse projects to be anything like Fehr. Fehr has clear weaknesses that date back to his draft year that Crouse doesn't have.

I mean, the Capitals have a better comp in Troy Brouwer.... and even then I don't like it.

I think people just hate the comp because it's a garbage player, that isn't remotely similar other than their size and possibly draft year scoring exploits.

Crouse is an elite 200ft player, PK's (on our u20 team in his draft year no less). He's an excellent PP presence. Fehr at this stage is #8 on his team in PP minutes, and is 6th in SH toi/g.

I think most people who would rank Crouse highly would expect him to be a lot more important to a team than Eric Fehr is. It's why you've been met with opposition on this imo "lazy" comparison.

 

[Random Forest]

Because it is? Why do you think a guy like Milan Lucic or David Backes or Wayne Simmonds is constantly talked about in the "every team would love a guy like that"? Because big guys who can actually contribute on the scoreboard are worth their weight in gold. Because they're rare.

It's the same reason why big defensemen get hyped so much at draft time in hopes of them being the next Chara. Guys like Keith, Subban, Doughty, Karlsson are just as talented, if not more so, than Chara. But whenever a defenseman with Chara's size is up for a draft, he's usually rated a few spots above where his talent level would have him if he was 6'1 or below.

That's why a guy like Crouse, who may not be as skilled as guys like Marner, Strome, Barzal, etc., gets hyped so much. He's one of those unique guys that's very difficult to find.

Even if I did agree that those types are "worth their weight in gold", there is no more guarantee that Crouse becomes Lucic than there is of Marner becoming Giroux. Is Giroux not "worth his weight in gold"?

You're doing exactly what you complain about below:

Secondly, I was clear why I brought it up. Because in a lot of threads that compare Crouse with those other guys, too often the assumption is Crouse is the next Pyatt/Malhotra/Fehr and those other guys are the next Giroux/Kane.

I've yet to see a single discussion comparing Crouse with those guys where someone mentioned Crouse as turning into someone actually good, and those guys being busts. It's always the assumption that "you don't draft a guy who projects to a 3rd line checker in the top 5", and from that point on Crouse's ranking gets derided because no one would take Pyatt over Giroux.

Okay, let's have that discussion, then. Best case scenario for Crouse, imo, is a Lucic/Ladd/Landeskog type. Best case for Marner, imo, is a Giroux type. Worst case for both is total busting.

You (and many hockey folks) are far too concerned with the "complete package". You can be an "incomplete" package (whatever that means) and still be a phenomenal hockey player that is worth his weight in gold.

 

[arsmaster*]

As good as Crouse's toolset might be, I don't see how one can justify taking a guy with 0.78ppg in his draft year in the top five. He might reach his potential and become a Todd Bertuzzi in his prime type guy, but I'd let another team take that chance that early.

I'd feel more comfortable taking him in the 15-20 range.

Now, to be fair, 21 goals in 41 games on an offensively starved team is pretty good for a 17-year old. I'm interested to see where his production goes when Kingston gets healthy.

It comes down to projecting skill sets, not junior PPG numbers.

Strome is also a player I like a lot, but there are certainly parts of his game that I don't, and I don't think it's unreasonable for people to have him behind Crouse.

Marner on the other hand, I freakin' love that kid. Competiveness, skating, skill, he's got it all. I don't even get the knocks on his size, won't shock me when he's playing in the NHL at 6' 185lbs and lighting it up.

 

[West]

Secondly, I was clear why I brought it up. Because in a lot of threads that compare Crouse with those other guys, too often the assumption is Crouse is the next Pyatt/Malhotra/Fehr and those other guys are the next Giroux/Kane.

People bring these comparisons up because they are similar size, point totals and draft ranking. Could Crouse be the next Jordan Staal and Marner the next Sam Gagner? Yes it could happen (obviously talking about impact and not playing style).

Again nobody is calling Crouse a 5th rounder like say Kyle Wellwood. Some people are just playing the odds and saying they would wait for the mid first round. I don't think I've seen anyone who say's he's outside the first round like just about every big player you listed.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Even if I did agree that those types are "worth their weight in gold", there is no more guarantee that Crouse becomes Lucic than there is of Marner becoming Giroux. Is Giroux not "worth his weight in gold"?

It's the rarity of it that entices teams/scouts, though. Sure, Giroux is a fantastic player. But is his "type" rare? Kane, Crosby, Seguin, Tavares, Hall, etc. are all similar players. How many legitimate powerforwards are there?

And keep in mind you're going back to the whole Crouse versus Marner discussion above, when I was answering your question as a whole as to why a guy like Crouse is rated highly.

You're doing exactly what you complain about below:

No, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of it. I know Crouse could bust, just like Marner could bust. My whole point though is that a lot of HF seems convinced Crouse *will* bust, but don't even contemplate the chance Marner could bust.

Okay, let's have that discussion, then. Best case scenario for Crouse, imo, is a Lucic/Ladd/Landeskog type. Best case for Marner, imo, is a Giroux type. Worst case for both is total busting.

You (and many hockey folks) are far too concerned with the "complete package". You can be an "incomplete" package (whatever that means) and still be a phenomenal hockey player that is worth his weight in gold.

Why do you assume I'd take Crouse over Marner? I've stated in numerous threads I wouldn't. My argument has always been about the downplaying of Crouse's upside, and the ridicule he gets when he's talked about as a top 10 pick (and utter scorn if he's listed in the top 5).

Also, I think it's closer to think of Marner/Crouse in terms of RNH/Huberdeau/Strome versus Landeskog. It's a more fair comparison to then ask which you'd rather have: a player like RNH/Huberdeau/Strome or a player like Landeskog.

 

[Random Forest]

It's the rarity of it that entices teams/scouts, though. Sure, Giroux is a fantastic player. But is his "type" rare? Kane, Crosby, Seguin, Tavares, Hall, etc. are all similar players. How many legitimate powerforwards are there?

And keep in mind you're going back to the whole Crouse versus Marner discussion above, when I was answering your question as a whole as to why a guy like Crouse is rated highly.

Again, and this is my point, the rarity of the skill set has no inherent value by itself.

Again, Eric Fehr has some really awesome tools. A very rare skill set. But he's a third liner. This is why you shouldn't rank players simply because of how rare it is to find a player of that skill set.

You're absolutely right that Lucic has a more rare skill set than Giroux, but you'd be a fool to even have those two in the same discussion.

No, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of it. I know Crouse could bust, just like Marner could bust. My whole point though is that a lot of HF seems convinced Crouse *will* bust, but don't even contemplate the chance Marner could bust.

Well have that discussion with them, not me.

Why do you assume I'd take Crouse over Marner? I've stated in numerous threads I wouldn't. My argument has always been about the downplaying of Crouse's upside, and the ridicule he gets when he's talked about as a top 10 pick (and utter scorn if he's listed in the top 5).

I assumed since you engaged in this discussion and chose to hone in on Marner that you felt this way. You certainly did not make that opinion clear.

Regardless, it's not about downplaying Crouse's upside. It's about comparing his upside relative to the upside of his peers. Like the poster at the top of this page, you are assuming Crouse's "critics" are putting him down. In reality, we're only saying that if each player were to hit his respective ceiling, there are a handful of players who should go ahead of Crouse.

Also, I think it's closer to think of Marner/Crouse in terms of RNH/Huberdeau/Strome versus Landeskog. It's a more fair comparison to then ask which you'd rather have: a player like RNH/Huberdeau/Strome or a player like Landeskog.

Perhaps. Lumping RNH with Huberdeau and Strome is not exactly fair, though. And it's not unreasonable to suggest Marner is better at his age than all three of those prospects were.

 

[bert]

He's a late first round prospect at best. If you're picking at the early end of the first round, you want to see high end/top line potential. Nick Ritchie displayed more of that before the draft than Crouse has ever shown.

Zero scouts agree with you.

 

[benjiv1]

He's a late first round prospect at best. If you're picking at the early end of the first round, you want to see high end/top line potential. Nick Ritchie displayed more of that before the draft than Crouse has ever shown.

Who looked better at the World Juniors?

 

[West]

Also, I think it's closer to think of Marner/Crouse in terms of RNH/Huberdeau/Strome versus Landeskog. It's a more fair comparison to then ask which you'd rather have: a player like RNH/Huberdeau/Strome or a player like Landeskog.

Landeskog was 1.25 pts/gm his draft year, Crouse is 0.78 pts/gm so this isn't really an apples to apples comparison for stat watchers.

Did some hunting around and Jordan Staal is probably best match of a player who did well and matches Crouse's position. Honestly Staal was younger, about 0.2 pts/gm better. Outside of Staal I didn't notice any comparisons that you'd like.

Long story short sometimes things are obvious (criteria was ranked top 20, forward, similar pts/gm, size and in second year, someone you'd be happy you drafted top 10).

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Landeskog was 1.25 pts/gm his draft year, Crouse is 0.78 pts/gm so this isn't really an apples to apples comparison for stat watchers.

The comparison was due to the fact in Landeskog's draft year, he was the one among the top picks who was seen as having the most limited offensive upside. A great 200 ft. player who might never put up huge offensive totals, in a draft that featured 3 skilled guys who put up over 100 points.

Did some hunting around and Jordan Staal is probably best match of a player who did well and matches Crouse's position. Honestly Staal was younger, about 0.2 pts/gm better. Outside of Staal I didn't notice any comparisons that you'd like.

Nino Niederreiter. In his draft year, he put up very similar goal totals to what Crouse is on pace for. His overall points weren't exactly huge by top five standards either (60 points that year). And he had more offensive support around him than Crouse currently does.

 

[Wintersun]

The comparison was due to the fact in Landeskog's draft year, he was the one among the top picks who was seen as having the most limited offensive upside. A great 200 ft. player who might never put up huge offensive totals, in a draft that featured 3 skilled guys who put up over 100 points.



Nino Niederreiter. In his draft year, he put up very similar goal totals to what Crouse is on pace for. His overall points weren't exactly huge by top five standards either (60 points that year). And he had more offensive support around him than Crouse currently does.

To be fair, at the end of the day he isn't a top 10 player in his draft either (Nino).

As for Landeskog, I can definetly see the comparison and that's the reason why I wouldn't pick Crouse in the top 5. Landeskog pisses me off haha

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

There are still plenty of power forwards in the game. Many have been relegated to 3rd / 4th line duties though, but may have originally been drafted to become a top 6 guy, much like Crouse.

Lucic
Downie
Kassian
Clarkson
Landeskog
Hanzal
King
Brown
Foligno
Backes
Fehr
Ladd
Simmonds

There are more of them than I think people are considering. Just not a lot of them can stay productive.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

There are still plenty of power forwards in the game. Many have been relegated to 3rd / 4th line duties though, but may have originally been drafted to become a top 6 guy, much like Crouse.

Lucic
Downie
Kassian
Clarkson
Landeskog
Hanzal
King
Brown
Foligno
Backes
Fehr
Ladd
Simmonds

There are more of them than I think people are considering. Just not a lot of them can stay productive.

You listed a bunch of guys who aren't even top six forwards in order to prove that top six powerforwards aren't that rare?

That's kind of what makes them rare. Because only a select few players in the league can play an effective powerforward game while at the same time being good enough offensively to be played in a top six role.