Mikko Rantanen Or John LeClair?

[BLNY]

So? He was underwhelming in Montréal and soon trending down even in Philadelphia. Having three to five solid years doesn't make a great career. Even within your "really nice stretch" he was a key element in losing as the biggest cup favorites to Buffalo in the first playoff round in '98 and disappointing every year since. Had 89 points in 154 playoff games in his career overall, Rantanen already has 101 in 81.

He was meh in Montreal cause they wanted him to be a shutdown 3C. He was 31 when his back started failing him. Five straight 40 goal or more seasons, three of them 50 goal seasons. His abbreviated first season in Philly was another 50 goal pace. In 441 games between 94-95 and 99-00 he had 497 points. Even after that, from ages 31-36, he put up 200 points in 300 games. Rantanen may have a longer peak, as noted above. Debate which player is better, but don't pass him off as a scrub.

 

[OilersFanatics505]

The same can be said for Rantanen no? He has yet to prove he can produce at the same rate without Mackinnon for large stretches.

Did we already forget that during their cup run with their injuries that he played half the season as their 2nd line center? Or are we just parroting things without any real knowledge?

 

[Felidae]

Did we already forget that during their cup run with their injuries that he played half the season as their 2nd line center? Or are we just parroting things without any real knowledge?

Did you even follow the comment thread that prompted my reply?

If you did, you'd know the poster I replied to didn't consider a 30 game sample size of Leclair finishing 4th in scoring to be large enough, just 11 games removed from Rantanen's half a season sample size.


My main point was to make sure there wasn't some double standard, that is all..