LW Patrik Laine - Tappara, Liiga (2016 Draft) V

[behemolari]

How can Laine be so dominant in those games? I mean it's easier to expect Laine dominating QMJHL games, no doubt but he can dominate FEL games easily which is shocking and interesting at the same time. I have never seen that young and dominant rookie in FEL playoffs.

I have changed my mind about this player. He can play defensively and make dream passes to other players. He didn't play that well in his first liiga games, he didn't play it for the team,only himself.

That's exactly the reason for the hype, no one has ever done that when 17 years draft eligible, and those who did they were many years older; Selänne, Saku Koivu comes to mind. Is been almost 20 years since someone was dominant as he is now.

 

[paragon]

He will have to cut it. Nylander had similar hair with the Marlies but was forced to cut it when Lou came on board. Also, see Bozak.

Hate Lamoriello's "no long hair"/"no facial hair" rule. Kill's player identities.

He could just tell Lou at Combine interviews that if he asks him to cut his hair he's going to play two more years at Tappara and then re-enter the draft.

 

[QnebO]

He could just tell Lou at Combine interviews that if he asks him to cut his hair he's going to play two more years at Tappara and then re-enter the draft.

Like Eric Lindross.

This kid is unreal. Un-****ing-real. Watched those playoff highlights again. That was never before seen kind of junior domination, and likely that will not happen again any time soon.

 

[WhoseLainesItAnyway]

Like Eric Lindross.

This kid is unreal. Un-****ing-real. Watched those playoff highlights again. That was never before seen kind of junior domination, and likely that will not happen again any time soon.

I think you're really underrating Laine here. IMO Eric Lindros is closer to Tanner Glass than Patrik Laine. Laine is a bigger, stronger, better shooting, better looking, clutchier McDavid with sisu on the wing.

 

[QnebO]

I think you're really underrating Laine here. IMO Eric Lindros is closer to Tanner Glass than Patrik Laine. Laine is a bigger, stronger, better shooting, better looking, clutchier McDavid with sisu on the wing.

I think you didin't read what I quoted. Eric Lindross declined to play in the team that drafted him, if you weren't aware. He said already before draft, that he will not play in Quebec.

 

[Booster*]

Just put him with a top C and he can score 40 goals on average over 15 seasons in the NHL.

Now, there´s expectations for you.

 

[HockeyHistorian]

I think he is going to break Selänne's rookie records next season. Then Gretzky's goal scoring record in 2017-18. All the while looking like Mario on shrooms.

 

[armyjoe]

Not playing with kuusela and lajunen might have been a blessing in disguise. Although it did drop his ppg he had to learn how to carry a own line.

Thanks for those highlights JA and ItV.

 

[613Leafer]

That's exactly the reason for the hype, no one has ever done that when 17 years draft eligible, and those who did they were many years older; Selänne, Saku Koivu comes to mind. Is been almost 20 years since someone was dominant as he is now.

Barkov had a better PPG than Laine in the same league in his draft year, and that was as a strong two-way centre.

 

[fr9dd9]

Barkov had a better PPG than Laine in the same league in his draft year, and that was as a strong two-way centre.

And it was NHL lockout that year to BUT he did not manage to do what Laine did in this playoff. I hope he can carry Finland to GOLD in WC to, would that make him generational?

 

[teravaineSAROS]

Barkov had a better PPG than Laine in the same league in his draft year, and that was as a strong two-way centre.

there's a lot more factors to point producing than just stat-watching. Barkov had a great season I'm not arguing that, but using PPG as an argument is ehh

 

[Plural]

Barkov had a better PPG than Laine in the same league in his draft year, and that was as a strong two-way centre.

Yeah, that's true. Having watched both, I think Barkov was more mature and was overall better. He was steady throughout the year. Laine on the other hand, improved as the season went on and exploded in the playoffs. I think Laine at PO's played better than Barkov at any point during his draft season.

I have no idea which one of them is going to end up being better player. Barkov is already on track to becoming one of the premiere centers in the game. Laine has the potential to be one of the premiere offensive wingers in the game.

I could see good arguments for both. Personally, I'm a sucker for a big time goal-scorers, so I prefer Laine. But most hockey experts probably are picking Barkov.

 

[Marre]

Barkov had a better PPG than Laine in the same league in his draft year, and that was as a strong two-way centre.

Barkov, at the start of that season, was also extremely mature, complete and polished player for a 17 year old. You literally couldn't believe he was just 17. Laine, at the start of the season, looked vastly improved from year before and extremely talented. And still very raw and very 17. Laine at the end of season was a different beast.

Barkov was much more ready for Liiga and carried that first line and had great chemistry with Nieminen. Laine had moments of wow during the fall, was able to improve his overall performance so much he was moved from 3rd line to 2nd and tried to learn to carry his line instead on being just a sniper. He did learn.

With Barkov it was so impressive how polished and ready he was. With Laine what impressed us who watched him through the season, was how much and how quickly he learned and how impressive he could be first at times and in the end all the time. He could absolutely wow you in the way even Barkov actually didn't. Laine's play-off performance was something even Barkov didn't show us during his draft year. I'm not saying Laine will come better player than Barkov, because Barkov seems to pan out awesome and better than expected, but comparing just ppg between the two is not fair for Laine nor gives you a right understanding of Laine's potential.

 

[snipes]

And it was NHL lockout that year to BUT he did not manage to do what Laine did in this playoff. I hope he can carry Finland to GOLD in WC to, would that make him generational?

No, it wouldn't.

Look, I'm as high on Laine as anyone, but he's not generational. Overusing the word diminishes its meaning. Generational = Orr, Gretzky, Lemeiux, Crosby, McDavid.

It would help confirm that Laine is elite and an absolute sure fire future superstar in the NHL. That's no insult at all.

 

[kelsier]

Barkov had a better PPG than Laine in the same league in his draft year, and that was as a strong two-way centre.

For this you'd have to understand the background. Barkov was surrounded by better team mates and was the leading center man in the team.
This season Tappara lacked depth in a serious way, resulting in the management having to play Laine in the 2nd and 3rd units with average line mates instead of the first line (where he should have been). This in turn naturally dropped his PPG. Only at the end of the playoffs was he lifted to the first line to turn the tide so to speak, and we all know how that ended up.

Had Laine been playing with Kuusela and Lajunen from the get go, he'd have been a PPG player without much doubt. He was Tappara's best player in the playoffs overshadowing Kuusela (who had 59 points in regular season in 56 games). Hope that gives you a better perspective.

Still, having to work his way up the roster was probably the best thing for Laine since that forced him to adapt in a situation where he had to carry the line, of which value in experience is enormous.

 

[fr9dd9]

No, it wouldn't.

Look, I'm as high on Laine as anyone, but he's not generational. Overusing the word diminishes its meaning. Generational = Orr, Gretzky, Lemeiux, Crosby, McDavid.

It would help confirm that Laine is elite and an absolute sure fire future superstar in the NHL. That's no insult at all.

IF he would CARRY finland to WC Gold as an undrafted player he would be generational. May you explain to me what he would have to do to be generation if thats not enough?

 

[Gabranth]

No, it wouldn't.

Look, I'm as high on Laine as anyone, but he's not generational. Overusing the word diminishes its meaning. Generational = Orr, Gretzky, Lemeiux, Crosby, McDavid.

It would help confirm that Laine is elite and an absolute sure fire future superstar in the NHL. That's no insult at all.

I don't think Laine is generational (most Finns tend to overrated their prospects) I see him as Rick Nash type of player. You just don't compare someone to Lindros or Lemieux....

But you didn't mention Ovechkin? He still has a chance to break Gretzky's goal record and already has calder, art ross, 3 harts and 6 rocket richard trophies.... sure he has slowed down but so has Crosby.

 

[Plural]

And it was NHL lockout that year to BUT he did not manage to do what Laine did in this playoff. I hope he can carry Finland to GOLD in WC to, would that make him generational?

I really hate these buzzwords. They tend to mean so different things to different people.

But to answer you: No. Laine is elite-level prospect, but he's not generational prospect.


The way I see it, is that there are two different ways to use the term generational when it comes to hockey players.

-Generational prospect. A hockey marvel who set's the world on fire at young age and come draft time, every hockey person on the planet knows who he is. See: Lindros, Crosby, Lemieux, etc.

-Generational player. Veteran/retired player who might or might have not been called a generational prospect. What actually happened during said players career was so special that the label generational can be attached. This player might have been a generational prospect, see: Lemieux, Crosby or this player might have been touted as a high end prospect, but not generational, see: Jagr or just a promising young prospect, see Lidstrom.

Note: Not all generational prospect become generational players, see: Eric Lindros.

 

[Marre]

But you didn't mention Ovechkin? He still has a chance to break Gretzky's goal record and already has calder, art ross, 3 harts and 6 rocket richard trophies.... sure he has slowed down but so has Crosby.

Ovechkin can break Gretzky's goal record all he wants, but he will never be generational. It is too late for him. First requirement for generational is to break some record in CHL and Ovechkin missed that chance. He wasn't smart enough to be born a Canadian either, and that is also needed to become generational.

 

[snipes]

I don't think Laine is generational (most Finns tend to overrated their prospects) I see him as Rick Nash type of player. You just don't compare someone to Lindros or Lemieux....

But you didn't mention Ovechkin? He still has a chance to break Gretzky's goal record and already has calder, art ross, 3 harts and 6 rocket richard trophies.... sure he has slowed down but so has Crosby.

Yeah there's only one Mario.

When it's all said and done, Ovi will likely be in that list too. He's a first ballot hall of famer.

 

[fr9dd9]

Lemieux, Gretzky, orr or mcdavid did not even participate in WC when they where undrafted. I know its not the same to crack in to canada or usas roster, But still I just dont understand how he would not be generational if he would carry Finland to a gold? Jagr played when undrafted and managed 5 points in 10 games! the Guy who has the record for most points by an undrafted player (u18) is Jaroslav Drobny with 6 points 1938-1939. SO tell me anyone if Laine would not count as generational if that would happen? what the f would he have to do?

 

[Plural]

Ovechkin can break Grezky's goal record all he wants, but he will never be generational. It is too late for him. First requirement for generational is to break some record in CHL and Ovechkin missed that chance. He wasn't smart enough to be born a Canadian either, and that is also needed to become generational.

I appreciate the sarcasm. But it's bit misguided, since I bet the vast majority considers Ovechkin as generational talent. He was super hyped #1 pick, started with a bang and is cementing his legacy as one of, if not the best goal-scorers the game has ever seen. He's about as generational player as they come.

Considering the common definition for the word on this forum, it's debatable if he was a generational prospect. But he's a generational player.

 

[Plural]

Lemieux, Gretzky, orr or mcdavid did not even participate in WC when they where undrafted. I know its not the same to crack in to canada or usas roster, But still I just dont understand how he would not be generational if he would carry Finland to a gold? Jagr played when undrafted and managed 5 points in 10 games! the Guy who has the record for most points by an undrafted player (u18) is Jaroslav Drobny with 6 points 1938-1939. SO tell me anyone if Laine would not count as generational if that would happen? what the f would he have to do?

As I said earlier, people have very specific determinations for those buzzwords. Often times the arguments over them are bit silly, since people have different criteria for the same word.

Regarding Laine, I think the term generational prospect is not suitable even after that, simply because he wasn't regarded one as a young kid. Most people consider generational prospect to be the likes of Lemieux, Lindros and Crosby. Those child prodigies are the one's who get the label. Laine, while always immensely talented was never that kind of child prodigy. I'd say that his play in the Liiga PO's was on the level that could warrant that label. But the sample size is small and it comes very late. Even if Laine goes and sets the WC on fire, most people probably won't change him to "generational prospect" since his prospect days are basically over.

But nevertheless, it's stupid to argue about this, since people tend to have vastly different meanings for words like "generational".

 

[Gabranth]

As I said earlier, people have very specific determinations for those buzzwords. Often times the arguments over them are bit silly, since people have different criteria for the same word.

Regarding Laine, I think the term generational prospect is not suitable even after that, simply because he wasn't regarded one as a young kid. Most people consider generational prospect to be the likes of Lemieux, Lindros and Crosby. Those child prodigies are the one's who get the label. Laine, while always immensely talented was never that kind of child prodigy. I'd say that his play in the Liiga PO's was on the level that could warrant that label. But the sample size is small and it comes very late. Even if Laine goes and sets the WC on fire, most people probably won't change him to "generational prospect" since his prospect days are basically over.

But nevertheless, it's stupid to argue about this, since people tend to have vastly different meanings for words like "generational".

If he was generational we wouldn't be here debating Matthews vs Laine. He would be locked #1 pick just like McDavid. Heck, even a year ago he was about to drop to later rounds because of his attitude and poor performance in Mestis.

 

[HockeyHistorian]

I'll only say that if Laine manages to become fast and explosive by NHL standards, he will be close to Ovechkin-level player. But that's a big if.