Richards or Kesler

[sunb]

as for who's better as a leader and intangibles, i'll take Richards 2 SHG & 1 GWG & .333 PCT over Kesler's same stats.

How that that prove Richards is a better leader and has better intangibles?

 

[Diaboli]

The argument Kesler is better than Richards because he has played in the NHL is absurd, absolutely ridicolous. I guess McKenna>Zinovjev too...

Take off your glasses Canuck fans, Richards is clearly the better player.

Yes, what an unbiased opinion/poster you must be in this case, GagneOwnsYou

 

[kmad]

Richards is clearly the better player.

Yeah, Canucks fans. Can't you understand GagneOwnsYou's compelling argument?

Richards is better!
How?
He just is!
In what way?
In every way!
Such as?
RICHARDS IS BETTER!

 

[MS]

Arguing that Richards will be a better defensive player because he has more grit/leadership doesn't really go anywhere. Mike Ricci has more grit/leadership than Jere Lehtinen. Doesn't mean that he's a better player or defensive forward - both excel in completely different ways. Kesler comes from the Lehtinen/Madden school of defensive hockey - great skating and work ethic, excellent positional sense, and an ability to pressure the living daylights out of the puck all over the ice and frustrate the hell out of the opposition. Richards is cut from the Ricci mold. Apples and oranges, both about equally good at this point.

 

[Teezax]

How many 5'9'' - 6'0'' players are there who play a similiar style of game as to Richards'?

It's not the point, the point is the argument of size = talent.
Richards can play any role you put him in, he can lead his team, play the PP, win the important faceoff, kill the penalties, score shorthanded etc.
Smaller players have way more heart, and grit, these are the guys that have been picked on their whole careers...they're the ones that develop the killer instinct out of force. They know to make ti to the next level they have to be a level above everyone else to get recognized. It's a testament to his play that with his size in comparion to Kesler's, there was just a one pick difference in the draft. A lot of people fail to see that.

 

[sunb]

It's not the point, the point is the argument of size = talent.

I don't think that was the argument. Size does not necessarily constitute talent but size does give one prospect a great advantage in making the NHL, especially when he plays a physical and defensive game.

Richards can play any role you put him in, he can lead his team, play the PP, win the important faceoff, kill the penalties, score shorthanded etc.

So can Kesler. Both have done it in the AHL and the WJC. Kesler has also done it in the NCAA while Richards has done it in the OHL. I don't see how Richards is better than Kesler at this point.

Smaller players have way more heart, and grit, these are the guys that have been picked on their whole careers...they're the ones that develop the killer instinct out of force. They know to make ti to the next level they have to be a level above everyone else to get recognized.

That is an opinion, not a fact. For every gritty small player that makes it in the NHL, there are a hundred who don't. Don't just look at the flawed representation of guys like Marty St. Louis et al. There are thousands of small players who we don't see.

It's a testament to his play that with his size in comparion to Kesler's, there was just a one pick difference in the draft. A lot of people fail to see that.

Kesler is also a better skater. Size and skating make a pretty big difference.

 

[paxtang]

So far I've heard that Kesler is taller than Richards and a better skater (Richards skating "deficiencies" are really overstated; he may have a choppy stride, but he's a lot quicker than people say he is.)

It's way to early to compare these two. A short stint in the AHL doesnt' prove anything for Richards long term potential, but it does prove that he can score at this level, which Canuck fans didn't feel he could.

And I'm going to have to agree with Liquidrage from way earlier that Kesler's NHL stint didn't prove anything. Yes, it was great that he got a chance to play, and play well. But he didnt' produce, regardless of his minutes. You can't use that as a plus for him over Richards. Being unproductive in low minutes doesn't make you a more effective offensive player. I just don't understand that arguement.

 

[RandomCanuckFan]

as for who's better as a leader and intangibles, i'll take Richards 2 SHG & 1 GWG & .333 PCT over Kesler's same stats.

That does not prove in any way that Richards is a better leader and has better intangibles. I would take Kesler's leadership and intangibles over Richards rather easily.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

Richards is cut from the Ricci mold.

Gotta disagree on that one only because Flyers scouts have said differently and other observers of junior hockey have stated differently.

Richards is a Doug Gilmour clone. Clarke has compared his play to Doug Gilmour's. Paul Holmgren has said the same. Pierre Maguire has said the same. Bob MacKenzie has said the same. Gord Miller has said the same. Several scouts around the league have also said the same.

The Ricci thing was something that was stated back at the time that Richards was drafted. I don't know who it was who said it, but when Sutter in Calgary has also called him a Gilmour clone, then I'm gonna say that whoever used the Ricci comparison was way off.

Either or, Kesler vs Richards has become an obscure issue in comparing two prospects who are similar in style of play, but different in terms of how they get the job done. How about we enjoy the fact that there will be some great prospects coming into the league when play resumes.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

People, mark this post down for the next time certain posters start hyping Jack Johnson and Phill Kessel...

What's the connection?

 

[rt]

If my team had a choice, I would be hoping that they select Richards, but either would be great.

 

[Vatican Roulette]

That does not prove in any way that Richards is a better leader and has better intangibles. I would take Kesler's leadership and intangibles over Richards rather easily.

From an unbiased opinion too.

 

[Vatican Roulette]

What's the connection?

johnson and kessel aren't the biggest players, and i may be wrong, but they are both american as well(maybe a comparison with kesler )

 

[Roger's Pancreas*]

Richards is a Doug Gilmour clone. Clarke has compared his play to Doug Gilmour's. Paul Holmgren has said the same. Pierre Maguire has said the same. Bob MacKenzie has said the same. Gord Miller has said the same. Several scouts around the league have also said the same.

I don't like the doug gilmoure comparison for multiple reasons. My honest to god comparison to Richards would be Bobby Clarke. I was afraid at the ahl level he might turtle but instead he's keeping his play gritty, and sometimes dirty if necessary.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

johnson and kessel aren't the biggest players, and i may be wrong, but they are both american as well(maybe a comparison with kesler )

I think his poorly constructed point was I was trumpeting size as an advantage yet am willing to discount Kessel's (and I guess Johnson's) lack of size as being a non-factor when it comes to being successful. He was basically calling me a hypocrite.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

I think his poorly constructed point was I was trumpeting size as an advantage yet am willing to discount Kessel's (and I guess Johnson's) lack of size as being a non-factor when it comes to being successful. He was basically calling me a hypocrite.

Kessel: 6'0'' 185

Johnson: 6'1'' 205

These guys aren't small...

 

[rt]

Kessel: 6'0'' 185

Johnson: 6'1'' 205

These guys aren't small...

...nor are they done growing.

 

[DARKSIDE]

I don't know, to me size means nothing, i think we've had enough players prove that to us. Antropov is a joke, St Louis is a hart winner. That's one comparison, yet many gm's would have had Antro way higher than St Louis on their lists.. Most of the NHL's best players are 6 flat and lower.

Sakic 5'11
Yzerman 5'10
Roenick 6'
Forsberg 6'
Datsyuk 5'11
Demitra 6'0
Drury 5'11
St Louis 5'9
Brad Richards 6'0
Kariya 5'10
Selanne 6'0
Naslund 6'0
Gretzky 6'0


That's just from the top of my head, I invite anyone with the size argument to come forward now and find me a list of players over 6'0 that can compare to this list.

And i won't even include the likes of Howe and Lafleur both at 6 flat.

Then why do most people always bring up Zach Parise's size at currently: 5'11 - 180lbs.?

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Kessel: 6'0'' 185

Johnson: 6'1'' 205

These guys aren't small...

Don't tell Pepper that.........

 

[FearTheFlyers]

Kesler is faster and larger than Richards. If I had to make an objective decision, I'd choose Kesler based on those two qualities, because that is the only thing with which we can actually generate a legitimate comparison.

Except for the fact Richards has scored more at every level.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Except for the fact Richards has scored more at every level.

How do you figure?

 

[MojoJojo]

Just an update, Richards just destroyed Brad Boyes in a fight last night. They both were suspended for a game. Apparently Boyes got a few good licks in the beginning but then Richards went ape s**t and turned Boyes' face into a bloody mess.

 

[MojoJojo]

That's just from the top of my head, I invite anyone with the size argument to come forward now and find me a list of players over 6'0 that can compare to this list.

And i won't even include the likes of Howe and Lafleur both at 6 flat.

Its not about this list vs that list, Its about how many drafted prospects bust at the NHL level. Naturally, there are many more people between 5-10 and 6-1 than there are beteen 6-2 and 6-5, which is true of prospective players as well. If you look at the odds of making it to the NHL based solely on size you would see that the size of a prospect does indeed corrlate to the chances they will make it to the NHL. Though there are not necessarily a lot of Charas and Lindros's out there in the NHL, as a proportion of their overall population they are much better represented at the highest levels of competition, simply because there are so few of them.

 

[Twist and Shout]

I don't know, to me size means nothing, i think we've had enough players prove that to us. Antropov is a joke, St Louis is a hart winner. That's one comparison, yet many gm's would have had Antro way higher than St Louis on their lists.. Most of the NHL's best players are 6 flat and lower.

Sakic 5'11
Yzerman 5'10
Roenick 6'
Forsberg 6'
Datsyuk 5'11
Demitra 6'0
Drury 5'11
St Louis 5'9
Brad Richards 6'0
Kariya 5'10
Selanne 6'0
Naslund 6'0
Gretzky 6'0


That's just from the top of my head, I invite anyone with the size argument to come forward now and find me a list of players over 6'0 that can compare to this list.

And i won't even include the likes of Howe and Lafleur both at 6 flat.

Iginla 6'1
Lecavalier 6'4
Sundin 6'5
Hossa 6'1
Elias 6'1
Bertuzzi 6'3
Smyth 6'1
Modano 6'3
Havlat 6'1
Murray 6'3
Kovalchuk 6'2
Jagr 6'2
Thornton 6'4
Guerin 6'2
Satan 6'3
Nieuwendyk 6'2
Doan 6'2
Nash 6'3
Fedorov 6'1

Want more?

 

[Hyack57]

Geezus... what's with you people. Who gives a flying rats ass what they do in the AHL. Nothing matters until they make the NHL. Sebastien Bordeleau was a pretty decent AHL producer as was Pavel Rosa. All it proves is that they are good at the AHL.

At this point in time I'd take Kesler over Richards b/c Kesler is older, has tasted the NHL, and has a shot at making the Canucks. They are almost near identical players. And let's not forget that Richards is playing with the likes of Carter, Umberger et al while Kesler has the mighty Lee Goren and Jimmy Roy or whomever with him in Manitoba.