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

[fr9dd9]

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".

Great answer, im satisfied with that

 

[Marre]

Generational really is a Canadian concept and most mean a generational Canadian player with it. Otherwise names like Tretiak and Fetisov would be mentioned just as often as Gretzky, Orr etc. when talked about generationals. Very seldomly that happens.

 

[Lepardi]

Laine and Barkov might be generational by Finnish standards, but they're not generational by global standards.

 

[Plural]

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.

Yup. Pretty much this. At this point, Laine just simply doesn't have enough time to raise his stocks to "generational prospect". That time passed long time a go.

 

[Plural]

Generational really is a Canadian concept and most mean a generational Canadian player with it. Otherwise names like Tretiak and Fetisov would be mentioned just as often as Gretzky, Orr etc. when talked about generationals. Very seldomly that happens.

To be fair, Fetisov and Tretiak are not on the same level as the big 4. But I often hear people saying Bourque, Lidstrom, Jagr, Hasek, Beliveau, Richard, etc. are generational. I would definitely add Fetisov to that group also.

 

[IFK]

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.

This.

Also he had shoulder injury in autumn. When you come back that kind of injury, it takes time and some games to be best condition. Also like "Marre" says, he played whole regular season 3rd and 2nd lines, where he hasn't player or centers who was more 4th line type of players and plays more in boards and don't haven't passing skills or IQ to make a play. Also he didn't get that much PP time in before WJC than what he get after that.

If he had played all year with Kuusela and Lajunen in first line and get first PP time and limitless ice time, he have got that PPG or at least very close. But actually it's more impressive that he have players with his side who has limited skills and still can get that much points, he have to carry that line almost own by him self. If i remember right, he has close PPG in regular season after WJC (and Puljujärvi too?).

 

[Ippenator]

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.

Come on, Lindros was not Gretzky or Lemieux kind of special. Not even close to that. Although he did become a very good player already at young age. But he was also way more overhyped than Laine is now. He was talked to be "The Next One", like to be in the class that Gretzky or Lemieux had been. He never definitely became that class of a player although I would say that he could be thought sure as a legendary and great player. But a tier lower than Gretzky and Lemieux. Players in the same legendary players class could include for example Yzerman, Sakic, Sundin Selänne, Bure, Mogilny, Fedorov, etc. Lindros was not clearly better player than any of these legends, although different than most with his physical presence.

Ovechkin has been a great regular season goal scorer, but his performance has so far dropped every single year in the NHL playoffs and in the international top level tournaments, that I find it disrespectful towards the already mentioned legends, to start putting him in the same class with them. He is also very very one sided player and not at all an inspiring locker room player. He lives and dies with his shot, and unfortunately collapses almost every single time when really big and meaningful games are played.

Honestly to me all those fancy regular season stats that players have made, should be forgotten, or at least not emphasized so much, as so many people tend to do. In my opinion NHL has way too long season and way too many completely meaningless games. About 60 games per season would be enough. Even that much wouldn't really be needed, but of course the teams need their hockey sales, so the business needs the amount of games, but the game and the players wouldn't really need so many games altogether.

Anyway, it is also funny to read how people here are like profets or judges, who give their verdict already now, on if a barely 18 year old prospect like Laine is generational or not. How you even can define how a prospect is generational or not? I think one thing could be that for his own generation there has not been any other player who has as great abilities as he has. Or no one else has achieved at such young age so great things as the generational talent has done already. If these are the criterias, then definitely he is generational. If you make some other criterias, might be that you don't consider Laine generational. Anyways it is useless to think too much if a prospect is generational, because the only thing that really matters is will he after all become a generational player or not.

To me only Wayne and Mario (naybe also Bobby Orr) have ever been completely generational players, and the closest modern hockey player to that status would be Crosby. Others I can't see even close to that status. You need to be able to dominate in completely your own league year after year, to really be considered in the generational class. This is how I see it.

But anyway Laine, Matthews and Puljujärvi are really that class as prospects that I can see that with the right kind of development almost anything can be possible. On the other hand there are so many things that can go wrong, that it is also very much possible that they never become even legendary players. I definitely hope they all will become new legendary players, as we definitely need more of them in hockey. But I hope people wouldn't so easily start already making a verdict that this player will never reach this status or that status. If player is super talented, it is quite arrogant to say for sure that they will never become at least great players.

 

[snipes]

Generational really is a Canadian concept and most mean a generational Canadian player with it. Otherwise names like Tretiak and Fetisov would be mentioned just as often as Gretzky, Orr etc. when talked about generationals. Very seldomly that happens.

It's funny you mention Tretiak. He's an example of a non-Canadian I was thinking about that I would label as generational (Lidstrom being the other). A player who is just so head and shoulders above his peers it's plainly obvious to everyone.

I wish it wasn't taken as an insult to say Laine is not generational. He's an elite and special talent, he's my #1 rated prospect this draft. I want him on the Oilers so bad, him and 97 would be unreal .

It's just using the word 'generational' makes it lose meaning if it's overused. Generational players are those rare elite of the elite players, you don't have to explain it or defend those players who are. They are very few and far between.

 

[Stats01]

Yup. Pretty much this. At this point, Laine just simply doesn't have enough time to raise his stocks to "generational prospect". That time passed long time a go.

whether he has time to raise his "stock" shouldn't really factor in if someone is generational. If Laine is generational then he is and he will become that...Laine doesn't need to raise his stock in a certain time period to prove his "generational" status. Although I think we use the word generational far too often with players. There are only a very few who are true generational players and 2 of them are Crosby and Ovechkin. Will Laine be a consistent 35-40 goal scorer...sure he has that potential but he isn't a generational talent and neither is Matthews. Franchise players yes...generational no.

 

[agent082]

This.

Also like "Marre" says, he played whole regular season 3rd and 2nd lines, where he hasn't player or centers who was more 4th line type of players and plays more in boards and don't haven't passing skills or IQ to make a play.

Can't believe they won with players that bad. You would think they wouldn't even make to the playoffs with 1 good line and 3 4th lines.

 

[Plural]

whether he has time to raise his "stock" shouldn't really factor in if someone is generational. If Laine is generational then he is and he will become that...Laine doesn't need to raise his stock in a certain time period to prove his "generational" status. Although I think we use the word generational far too often with players. There are only a very few who are true generational players and 2 of them are Crosby and Ovechkin. Will Laine be a consistent 35-40 goal scorer...sure he has that potential but he isn't a generational talent and neither is Matthews. Franchise players yes...generational no.

I was talking about the label "generational prospect". He's prospect days are almost over. Obviously we won't know what kind of a player he will shape out to be.

 

[kelsier]

Yup. Pretty much this. At this point, Laine just simply doesn't have enough time to raise his stocks to "generational prospect". That time passed long time a go.

I think the injury pretty much nullified the odds for that. If Laine had skated last year the way he skates today, well he'd certainly be one step closer. Generally he seems to have all the treats to earn the label: Size, immense skill level, scoring, doing abnormal stuff on the ice as 17-18 year old. Not sure what else you could ask, other than explosiveness and more speed. Kids that are heavy built and around 6"3-6"4 normally struggle more developing skating and agility. Being European doesn't help earning generational prospect status. Laine is improving and blooming still, so it's a question mark how good he can become. The odds of becoming generational player are always against you. I wouldn't even call McDavid generational at this point. He needs more sample size to earn that label.

All in all, the sky is the limit for Patrik, but how close into the clouds he is able to reach depends on so many factors that we'll just have to wait and see. He has the right attitude to become a great player nonetheless.

 

[pikkuvaimo]

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.

Good post. I see thing same way. Laine has potential to be franchise winger, but he is not generational.

 

[IFK]

Can't believe they won with players that bad. You would think they wouldn't even make to the playoffs with 1 good line and 3 4th lines.

No, i meant that those players plays like 4th liners (maybe little wrong thing to say), like Jan-Mikael Järvinen is not playmaker, he plays more in boards or goes straight to the goal with limited playmaking skills. He is a good player and there was lot of good players, but not playmakers like HIFK Ramsted. Kuusela is scorer but he is also very good playmaker, so it would be big difference to play first line whole year.

Laine's linemates Järvinen and Peltola has both 4 points whole 18 games in playoffs and same time Laine was best in points in his team.

 

[Plural]

I think the injury pretty much nullified the odds for that. If Laine had skated last year the way he skates today, well he'd certainly be one step closer. Generally he seems to have all the treats to earn the label: Size, immense skill level, scoring, doing abnormal stuff on the ice as 17-18 year old. Not sure what else you could ask, other than explosiveness and more speed. Kids that are heavy built and around 6"3-6"4 normally struggle more developing skating and agility. Being European doesn't help earning generational prospect status. Laine is improving and blooming still, so it's a question mark how good he can become. The odds of becoming generational player are always against you. I wouldn't even call McDavid generational at this point. He needs more sample size to earn that label.

All in all, the sky is the limit for Patrik, but how close into the clouds he is able to reach depends on so many factors that we'll just have to wait and see. He has the right attitude to become a great player nonetheless.

I don't know. Kids like Lindros, Crosby, Lemieux, Gretzky, McDavid (and yes, I realize that these players ended up being different, but all were considered "generational prospects") were noted at very young age. Laine wasn't on the map as much. But that it probably partly because of Finland and our (now scratched) idiotic system.

But nevertheless, if Laine was as skilled as the other prospects who were labeled generational, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Nor would there be any doubt about which goes first, Laine or Matthews.

Sky is the limit and only time will tell what kind of career Laine ends up carving. But he's not a generational prospect. We would know it by now and no, it's not because of his injury. We would have known way before the injury.

Will he become a generational player? Who knows. Odds are against it, but Laine is elite prospect with such a rare tool-box that anything can happen. I'm certainly rooting for it.

 

[snipes]

I think the injury pretty much nullified the odds for that. If Laine had skated last year the way he skates today, well he'd certainly be one step closer. Generally he seems to have all the treats to earn the label: Size, immense skill level, scoring, doing abnormal stuff on the ice as 17-18 year old. Not sure what else you could ask, other than explosiveness and more speed. Kids that are heavy built and around 6"3-6"4 normally struggle more developing skating and agility. Being European doesn't help earning generational prospect status. Laine is improving and blooming still, so it's a question mark how good he can become. The odds of becoming generational player are always against you. I wouldn't even call McDavid generational at this point. He needs more sample size to earn that label.

All in all, the sky is the limit for Patrik, but how close into the clouds he is able to reach depends on so many factors that we'll just have to wait and see. He has the right attitude to become a great player nonetheless.

Ummm.... How many people in the world can do this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9ru_R7Qjjo

That's just one example, and it was in his first game back after missing 37 games. Study McDavid and watch him play, you'll be in absolute awe. He's the best player every time he's on the ice.

 

[kelsier]

Ummm.... How many people in the world can do this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9ru_R7Qjjo

That's just one example, and it was in his first game back after missing 37 games. Study McDavid and watch him play, you'll be in absolute awe. He's the best player every time he's on the ice.

There are plenty of beautiful goals out there by players long forgotten of who never became legends. Again, the sample size is too small. Even McDavid has a long way to overcome and become a generational player. It's the legacy you leave behind, instead of the prospect status of a kid who enters the league.

 

[snipes]

There are plenty of beautiful goals out there by players long forgotten of who never became legends. Again, the sample size is too small. Even McDavid has a long way to overcome and become a generational player. It's the legacy you leave behind, instead of the prospect status of a kid who enters the league.

I can see that argument as being a fair point for most players. Connor McDavid isn't like everyone else though.

Watch him play as much as you can if you get the chance, you'll end up saying "that kid is the best player I've ever seen". I don't need to pump 97s tires, the best evidence is watching him.

Back on topic -- how good would Laine and 97 be together? makes you smile thinking about it.

 

[Plural]

There are plenty of beautiful goals out there by players long forgotten of who never became legends. Again, the sample size is too small. Even McDavid has a long way to overcome and become a generational player. It's the legacy you leave behind, instead of the prospect status of a kid who enters the league.

Again, people generally talk about two different things. Generational prospect and generational player. Sometimes they have nothing to do with each other. I'd say that McDavid was a generational prospect or the very least, very close to it.

 

[Gabranth]

I can see that argument as being a fair point for most players. Connor McDavid isn't like everyone else though.

Watch him play as much as you can if you get the chance, you'll end up saying "that kid is the best player I've ever seen". I don't need to pump 97s tires, the best evidence is watching him.

Back on topic -- how good would Laine and 97 be together? makes you smile thinking about it.

Gretzky and Kurri.

 

[snipes]

Gretzky and Kurri.

Laine's one timer as a right shot from the left side looks identical to Kurri, right down to the way they bend their body.

 

[pikkuvaimo]

There are plenty of beautiful goals out there by players long forgotten of who never became legends. Again, the sample size is too small. Even McDavid has a long way to overcome and become a generational player. It's the legacy you leave behind, instead of the prospect status of a kid who enters the league.

Haha. I see only three players in the whole league who can do that. 97, 87 and Mr. Showtime. There is absolutely no doubt that is McDavid generational or not. In finnish version of Hfboards I allready made my self clear. I'm pretty sure that 97 wins Art Ross next season. Sorry for off-topic.

Laine IS NOT generational. Good chance he will be franchise, but he is not generational prospect. He has generational shot, but that is where it ends.

 

[Roof Daddy]

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.

I think it's a comment like this that people are taking issue with. On one hand, you're acting as though defining generational is very black and white - Laine can't be because the term is reserved for Gretzky/Lemieux. Then you make the comment above that suggests currently Ovie isn't (despite having more hardware than Crosby), but could become one based on career achievements. This is why the term is so goofy. You can't truly determine generational until a player's career is over. I would argue guys like Selanne, Jagr and Lidstrom were "generational" because it's extremely rare to see players with those types of careers who are still productive and dangerous into their late 30's, early 40's.

For me, I'd prefer to refer to the uniqueness of a prospect as "once in a decade." Laine's skill set is definitely once in a decade. The combination of size, skill, shot power and release is the best since Ovie.

I want him on the Oilers so bad. Between the playmaking ability of McDavid and the havoc a guy like Maroon can cause parking in front of the net, Laine could put up some nice numbers.

 

[Plural]

Laine's one timer as a right shot from the left side looks identical to Kurri, right down to the way they bend their body.

Hah, actually you might be right. Laine is so much bigger and plays differently to Kurri that I didn't even think to make that comparison.

I know McDavid doesn't have the same hockey brains Gretzky had, but he still thinks the game fast and on a high level. No matter who his "side kick" will be, that player needs to be thinking at the same frequency as McDavid. Kurri had a lot of great tools as a player and he was a world class talent. But the biggest reason (and one of the most underrated aspects of Kurri's game) Jari worked so well with Wayne was that he was able to think and process the game on Hall of Fame level. Obviously not as high hockey IQ as Gretzky, but notably high still.

In order for Laine and McDavid to work, they need to click. If Laine (or whoever ends up with McDavid) can't think the game on same level as McDavid, then their games will not be very well suited. Basically all the greats like to have the puck a lot and there is only one of them in the rink. If they don't click, they won't be able to play efficiently together. Obviously having two stars in the same line will be good. But it necessarily won't be magic. When Gretzky and Kurri were playing together, both guys carried the puck. But they were able to think so much alike, that it wasn't a deterrent for their game. It worked like a charm. And that's rare.

I'm really rooting for the Oilers to get #2 pick. I wan't to see Laine with McDavid so much. I'm not sure it will work, but man if it does. Wow...

 

[Roof Daddy]

Again, people generally talk about two different things. Generational prospect and generational player. Sometimes they have nothing to do with each other. I'd say that McDavid was a generational prospect or the very least, very close to it.

This is a very good point. The lottery system was first introduced because so many teams tried to tank for Daigle. We know how that turned out, but you could argue he was a "generational" prospect. Neither Pronger, nor Kariya were ever considered a threat to go number 1 that year, and they put up some pretty impressive numbers in their draft year.