Prime Erik Karlsson vs Cale Makar

[Leafshater67]

I think Karlsson had a higher peak for a brief period but fell off while Makar is consistently dominant and very close to Karlsson’s peak all of the time.

The “Karlsson sucks” crew don’t remember him before his Achilles injury. He completely controlled every game he was in, in a way like nothing I’ve seen in the past 20 years. He burned out fast though once he lost his biggest weapon. Him dragging the sens to and through the playoffs was awesome to see

 

[x Tame Impala]

I added some more above. I’m not saying that he couldn’t still score at an elite level in Makar’s situation. I’m sure he could connect with MacKinnon like he did with Spezza. My point is that even though I believe he’d be better than Makar offensively on a bad team, I don’t think his production would differ much from Makar on a good team, because I think there’s a bit of a cap on defenseman production as ultimately running things from the defense isn’t as efficient so the puck would run through him less.

But we did see his production dip drastically on a better team. The Sharks were the 4th worst team in the league and he put up 101 points, he goes to a better team in PIT playing with HoFers and his production literally dropped in half.

 

[NyQuil]

But we did see his production dip drastically on a better team. The Sharks were the 4th worst team in the league and he put up 101 points, he goes to a better team in PIT playing with HoFers and his production literally dropped in half.

We don’t have the same luxury with Makar.

We have no clue.

He’d probably be great, but we don’t know for sure.

 

[Regal]

But we did see his production dip drastically on a better team. The Sharks were the 4th worst team in the league and he put up 101 points, he goes to a better team in PIT playing with HoFers and his production literally dropped in half.

Right but we’re also talking about mid-30s Karlsson, and saying “playing with HOFers” is a stretch when Malkin and Letang are shells of themselves The Pens suck and Sullivan limits his defensemen. If you read that entire exchange, I did mention his regression on the Pens, but I think it’s more a sign that he wouldn’t necessarily improve with better forwards more than a sign he would regress given his age and everything else holding the Pens back. His offensive numbers with Crosby are actually pretty good the last two years, but the Pens don’t have much beyond the top line.

 

[HabzSauce]

No defenceman has ever scared me as much as Karlsson did in his prime

 

[The Nuge]

There’s an argument that Karlsson could maybe edge out Makar offensively, but there’s just such a huge gap defensively that’s it’s really not a debate who’s better. Karlsson’s more like a better Hughes

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

An even differential 5v5 isn't particularly impressive for a Norris winner..

It was on that shitbag of a team.

Lidstrom deservedly won a Norris with a negative +/- on a good team. Regardless, it by-and-large remains a chump stat for chumps.

 

[Panda Bear]

We never saw peak Erik Karlsson--Cooke sliced him up before he got there.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

Prime Karl on this Avs team would be something.

I remember in that 2017 playoff run, the team would switch from playing like an elite contender to a legit lottery team whenever the Methot-Karlsson pairing was on/off the ice.

 

[Stephen]

Cale Makar takes this.

The whole point of team sports is great players playing with great players and achieve great things individually and as a team. Cale Makar has checked the boxes on this most fundamental level. And in terms of having more team support around him, this is true, but he and Mackinnon also stand out on the ice as freaks of nature on a championship level team. He has plenty of help, but he's clearly a step above on great teams.

EK65 comes with the tantalizing what if's, the romanticism of almost doing it all himself, while reduced to one leg and all that legend, but when you measure it up against the complete package, you take the complete package.

 

[the_fan]

Better comparison would be Quinn Hughes vs Karlsson. Both elite offensive talents, mediocre or bad defensively

 

[Peat]

Prime Karl on this Avs team would be something.

I remember in that 2017 playoff run, the team would switch from playing like an elite contender to a legit lottery team whenever the Methot-Karlsson pairing was on/off the ice.

This. I've rarely seen a player dominate a series like Karlsson did vs the Pens. 9-4 to the Sens with him on ice at 5v5, and 3-7 with him off ice.

I've not really watch Makar enough to vote in this, but Karlsson's prime was ridiculous.

 

[wetcoast]

Karlsson had two Norris trophies by age 25. Just as a point of reference in this thread.

We are talking primes after all.

I take prime to be best 7 year consecutive stretch and Makar has only played 6 NHL seasons and has been a Norris finalist every year since his rookie season where he was 9th.

Barring injuries he is probably going to have a 7 year prime of being a finalist in each and every year right?

Then throw in a very good to excellent post season every year most likely as well.

Makar is tracking to become a top 10 Dmen in discussion before he turns 30.

This thread should be closed by now that's how significant Makar's prime is compared to EK65 and EK65 has an excellent prime.

 

[MessierII]

Makar is way better

 

[wetcoast]

We don’t have the same luxury with Makar.

We have no clue.

He’d probably be great, but we don’t know for sure.

Yet 2 times EK65 fans explained to us how much better Karlsson would do on better teams and both times that didn't happen (except the free house money season in 22-23).

Makar is just simply the better player in his 7 year prime than EK65 was.

 

[Coffee]

The difference being that Pittsburgh’s guys are pretty close to being in the HHoF any day now.

Lmao I picked Makar, but no kidding! Crosby and Malkin will be inducted the night of their last games

 

[the_fan]

Again, it continues to be funny when people judging d-men solely on offensive production. Karlsson puts up bunch of points, but he’s also responsible for bunch of goals against because he can’t defend. Where is the impact in that? Isn’t it actually important to play defense as a d-man?

Yeah he had that one good playoff run, but the guy has been a liability in the d zone his entire career, and he’s been a minus player all but couple of seasons. Makar puts up bunch of points without sacrificing his d zone play, and he’s never been a minus player in his career so far going back to UMass. That just means he gets it done on both ends of the ice.

 

[Crow]

I feel like people saying Cale is better and will forever be better on on defense are correct but overstating their case a bit, or they just don’t remember how good Karlsson was before two major leg injuries.

Also offensively when EK was 25 he finished 4th in points, 3 less than healthy 27 year old healthy prime Crosby.

26 year old prime Cale Makar finished just 3 points ahead of 37 year old guy Crosby.

Makar might be on another level defensively but Karlsson was offensively. He was the best offensive d man I’ve seen in the cap era by far. In his prime, in Makars situation with his complimentary teammates on offense and help on defense, in this leagues scoring environment, I could see him putting up 120 points and I feel like that is conservative. And on a team like the avs he’d also be plus 30 something so any overall difference would negligible.

 

[the_fan]

Put it this way. Is it a coincidence that all the top, great d-men of all time in the NHL like Coffee, Lidstrom, Leetch, Pronger, Niedermayer, Keith, Doughty, Hedman, Makar etc… all won the cup because they weren’t just one dimensional offensive d-men who sucked defensively, and they made an impact on both ends of the ice.

Compared to Karlsson, Hughes who are one dimensional and only make an impact on offense but can’t defend. It’s no coincidence that this type of players haven’t won the cup being #1 d-men on their teams, but people continue to be fooled by their offensive productions, ignoring the fact that their teams don’t win because they can’t defend.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Put it this way. Is it a coincidence that all the top, great d-men of all time in the NHL like Coffee, Leetch, Pronger, Niedermayer, Keith, Doughty, Hedman, Makar etc… all won the cup because they weren’t just one dimensional offensive d-men who sucked defensively, and they made an impact on both ends of the ice.

Compared to Karlsson, Hughes who are one dimensional and only make an impact on offense but can’t defend. It’s no coincidence that this type of players haven’t won the cup being #1 d-men on their teams, but people continue to be fooled by their offensive productions, ignoring the fact that their teams don’t win because they can’t defend.

Why are you in every thread dumping on Hughes, Hutson, etc?

You sound incredibly insecure about Makar.

 

[the_fan]

Why are you in every thread dumping on Hughes, Hutson, etc?

You sound incredibly insecure about Makar.

No, I’m just saying Karlsson continues to be overrated and it will probably never stop. All those d-men I mentioned in my post, I’d take them over Karlsson easily. All I’m saying is, i prefer d-men who can actually play D because that’s what the position is about. Playing defense

 

[ijuka]

Karlsson's best years are still post-tendon, so we honestly never saw a true prime Karlsson the way we have prime Makar. Overall, probably Makar, though.

 

[ijuka]

No, I’m just saying Karlsson continues to be overrated and it will probably never stop. All those d-men I mentioned in my post, I’d take them over Karlsson easily. All I’m saying is, i prefer d-men who can actually play D because that’s what the position is about. Playing defense

That's not true. The position, like any other position, is about helping your team win games, whether it's done through offense or defense.

 

[the_fan]

That's not true. The position, like any other position, is about helping your team win games, whether it's done through offense or defense.

Yeah and Karlsson has done one thing well which is offense. Meaning he has helped his team win games as much as he’s been responsible for losing games because lack of defense. Just imagine if he could actually play defense while scoring all those points. For one, he’d probably have at least one cup by now, probably would have a Conn Smythe too.

 

[NyQuil]

Put it this way. Is it a coincidence that all the top, great d-men of all time in the NHL like Coffee, Lidstrom, Leetch, Pronger, Niedermayer, Keith, Doughty, Hedman, Makar etc… all won the cup because they weren’t just one dimensional offensive d-men who sucked defensively, and they made an impact on both ends of the ice.

Compared to Karlsson, Hughes who are one dimensional and only make an impact on offense but can’t defend. It’s no coincidence that this type of players haven’t won the cup being #1 d-men on their teams, but people continue to be fooled by their offensive productions, ignoring the fact that their teams don’t win because they can’t defend.

There's a lot of confirmation bias here.

I don't know if you're aware, but in the early 80s, there were a lot of discussions about Paul Coffey the way there was about Karlsson. He risked too much for offence, he didn't focus well enough defensively.

It got to the point where Rod Langway won a pair of Norris trophies in a bit of a backlash.

What I'm seeing is a list of guys who, when they win the Cup, it proves that they are good defensively.

Ray Bourque only won one right before he retired after being traded to a prohibitive favourite. Does Boston's lack of Cup wins with Bourque as their best player and Captain mean that he was too one-dimensional to win?

Al MacInnis is another guy who settled down into a two-way role with St. Louis, but when he won the Cup in Calgary, there were concerns about his defence as well.

Sergei Gonchar won a Cup with Pittsburgh, and he wasn't known to be a great two-way defenceman for most of his career.

I just don't think this line of argument stacks up.