Richards or Kesler

[John Flyers Fan]

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.

Richards, Carter and Umberger all center different lines. The only time he's on the ice with either of the other two is on the PP unit, when Umberger is on the ice with him.

Richards wingers are John Sim and Boyd Kane.

 

[Pepper]

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.

Yes, that was exactly the point and I'm glad you see your hypocrisy.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

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?

dont forget some guy name mario lemieux, i think hes 6'4

pepper: the point rabid ranger was trying to make (i think) is that size and speed doesnt make kesler more talented then richards, but it gives him an advantage. for example, common sense will indicate that a gretzky at 6'4 and skate like bure will have an advantage over a gretzky at 5'6 and skate like baron. size and speed doesnt change gretzky's talent, but i sure as heck gives the bigger and faster gretzky an advantage over the smaller and slower one. and since in this discussion kesler is the bigger and faster player, he does have an advantage over richards in those areas, and those factors should be considered. since they are so similar, that advantage might be enough (for some) to predict kesler as a better player. thats all. i dont think hes implying that smaller players are inferior in all cases.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

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?

Havlat, as some sort of argument that size matters?

Man, this whole (very misunderstood) size argument just took a turn for the worse.

As if it wasn't bad enough already.

 

[Pepper]

The point is that for every 6'0 and smaller star players there are 2 or 3 6'1 or bigger star players.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

dont forget some guy name mario lemieux, i think hes 6'4

pepper: the point rabid ranger was trying to make (i think) is that size and speed doesnt make kesler more talented then richards, but it gives him an advantage. for example, common sense will indicate that a gretzky at 6'4 and skate like bure will have an advantage over a gretzky at 5'6 and skate like baron. size and speed doesnt change gretzky's talent, but i sure as heck gives the bigger and faster gretzky an advantage over the smaller and slower one. and since in this discussion kesler is the bigger and faster player, he does have an advantage over richards in those areas, and those factors should be considered. since they are so similar, that advantage might be enough (for some) to predict kesler as a better player. thats all. i dont think hes implying that smaller players are inferior in all cases.

That is the point I was trying to make. Do I think Kesler is more talented than Richards? No (although they aren't far apart in that regard). Do I think Kesler is a better leader or has more heart? No (although they aren't far apart in that regard). Is Ryan Kesler bigger and a better skater? Yes. Will that always be the case? Yes. Those are two distinct advantages that may or may not make a significant differance at the NHL level. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Pepper]

Like I said, when talking about Kessel you have always made it sound like his small size isn't going to affect his impact in NHL, i.e. belittling the importance of size whereas here Kesler's bigger frame makes him likely to be better in NHL (exaggaration to make a point).

Not a biggie, I just want to see some consistency here.

And whoever said that Kesler has better intangibles than Richards, well I'm not gonna even argue that, let's just say that I really can't understand where that claim is based. Richards looks like to be a really special on and off the ice, he has so much grit, leadership and never-say-never attitude that I really don't think Kesler is anywhere close here.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Like I said, when talking about Kessel you have always made it sound like his small size isn't going to affect his impact in NHL, i.e. belittling the importance of size whereas here Kesler's bigger frame makes him likely to be better in NHL (exaggaration to make a point).

Not a biggie, I just want to see some consistency here.

And whoever said that Kesler has better intangibles than Richards, well I'm not gonna even argue that, let's just say that I really can't understand where that claim is based. Richards looks like to be a really special on and off the ice, he has so much grit, leadership and never-say-never attitude that I really don't think Kesler is anywhere close here.

You make it sound like Kessel is Theo Fleury's size. He's listed as 6'0 and 185 lbs and is still a kid. Don't you think by the time he reaches 20 or so he'll be bigger and stronger? He'll always be a finesse player, but it's not like he'll be thrown around like a rag doll. As for the intangibles debate with Kesler/Richards, you're not giving Kesler much credit. It sounds to me like you don't know much about him at all, which I'm not surprised by since he played in the NCAA.

 

[Pepper]

You make it sound like Kessel is Theo Fleury's size. He's listed as 6'0 and 185 lbs and is still a kid. Don't you think by the time he reaches 20 or so he'll be bigger and stronger? He'll always be a finesse player, but it's not like he'll be thrown around like a rag doll. As for the intangibles debate with Kesler/Richards, you're not giving Kesler much credit. It sounds to me like you don't know much about him at all, which I'm surprised by since he played in the NCAA.

Richards is very different type of player than Kessel, he comes from the Fleury/Ciccarelli mold whereas Kessel more of a traditional 'small' player.

My point is that Richards will be less affected with the physical style of NHL than Kessel because of these differences in their playstyles.

Where's Kesler in these AHL play-offs, especially in this conference finals series?? Nowhere to be seen (pointless so far?). One of the most intangibles is the ability to raise to the occasion and produce when it matters the most. Richards has shown that on every level he has played. He's also IMHO much more of a leader, the way he has lead his team offensively, physically (fight against Perry for example) and in the lockerroom (from what I've read).

Sorry, Kesler hasn't shown the same qualities to me. If you have some unreported inside information about Kesler, please share that with us because right now he's not even close to Richards when it comes to intangibles.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Richards is very different type of player than Kessel, he comes from the Fleury/Ciccarelli mold whereas Kessel more of a traditional 'small' player.

My point is that Richards will be less affected with the physical style of NHL than Kessel because of these differences in their playstyles.

Where's Kesler in these AHL play-offs, especially in this conference finals series?? Nowhere to be seen (pointless so far?). One of the most intangibles is the ability to raise to the occasion and produce when it matters the most. Richards has shown that on every level he has played. He's also IMHO much more of a leader, the way he has lead his team offensively, physically (fight against Perry for example) and in the lockerroom (from what I've read).

Sorry, Kesler hasn't shown the same qualities to me. If you have some unreported inside information about Kesler, please share that with us because right now he's not even close to Richards when it comes to intangibles.

Since when are we comparing Kessel to Richards? I thought this was a Kesler/Richards debate? As for Kessel's playing style, he is on another planet offensively, so of course he and Richards are going to occupy differant roles in the NHL. Kessel's a first line scorer, Richards in a third, or maybe second line two-way player. I won't argue with Richards' grittiness, but I think it's safe to say he has to play that way to be effective. He doesn't have enough natural talent not to.


As for Kesler/Richards in the AHL playoffs. Richards has been very impressive, there's no doubt about that. Kesler occupies a differant role, and has struggled to score of late, a problem Manitoba as a whole has experienced, due in no small part to Kari Lehtonen. I don't think the series against Chicago is an indictment of Kesler's "inatngibles" though. Where is the veteran leadership on that team?

 

[Pepper]

Since when are we comparing Kessel to Richards? I thought this was a Kesler/Richards debate? As for Kessel's playing style, he is on another planet offensively, so of course he and Richards are going to occupy differant roles in the NHL. Kessel's a first line scorer, Richards in a third, or maybe second line two-way player. I won't argue with Richards' grittiness, but I think it's safe to say he has to play that way to be effective. He doesn't have enough natural talent not to.

This was about comparing Richard's & Kessel's playstyles and how they translate to NHL.

Richards' upside is a good 2nd line center, Kessel's upside is pretty much a guess at this point since the competition he has played against is weak to say the least.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

This was about comparing Richard's & Kessel's playstyles and how they translate to NHL.

Richards' upside is a good 2nd line center, Kessel's upside is pretty much a guess at this point since the competition he has played against is weak to say the least.

Kessel's upside is not a guess. Many people consider his upside to be the best American forward drafted since Mike Modano. Will he realize his potential? That remains to be seen. As for the level of play he has competed in, I didn't realize college programs like Michigan and the WJC's (U20 and U18) qualifies as weak.

 

[cj]

Where's Kesler in these AHL play-offs, especially in this conference finals series?? Nowhere to be seen (pointless so far?). One of the most intangibles is the ability to raise to the occasion and produce when it matters the most. Richards has shown that on every level he has played. He's also IMHO much more of a leader, the way he has lead his team offensively, physically (fight against Perry for example) and in the lockerroom (from what I've read).

Sorry, Kesler hasn't shown the same qualities to me. If you have some unreported inside information about Kesler, please share that with us because right now he's not even close to Richards when it comes to intangibles.

Kesler was a ppg players in the first two series. Him, Goren and Hereema were the top scoring line for the Moose by far.

I don't think it's quite fair to judge the performance of a player in a series in which his team is clearly outmatched. Manitoba's top scorer (Peter Sarno) in the regular season has 1 point in the 3 games. The Wolves are simply a much deeper team than Manitoba, and it shows. They shut down Manitoba's big line and nobody else has been able to step up.

As for the intangibles argument, well, like I said earlier, I'll have to take your word for it. However, considering intangibles by nature is something you can't measure, I'm not sure how you can so confidently state that Richards "clearly" is "way" better than Kesler in that regard. It's not like we're talking about Richards vs. Fedor Federov here. Kesler did win the Moose MVP despite not being the leading scorer on the team. That has to mean something.

 

[cxreg]

With Richards having some success against Chicago (2 goals) where Kesler didn't, does that have any impact on this discussion? Or would you write that off as Richards has more help than Kesler did?

 

[PecaFan]

Some will write it off, surely.

For me, this issue is simple. My Canucks looked at Kesler and Richards, and decided that Kesler was better. Thus, Richards will turn out to be the better player.

These are pretty much the same guys who decided Nathan Smith was better than Brad Boyes, Brad Ference was better than Marian Hossa, Josh Holden better than Reasoner or Zubrus, Mike Wilson better than Saku Koivu, Stojanov better than Matvichuk, Nedved better than Primeau, Antoski better than Tkachuk or Brodeur, Jason Herter better than Holik...

Every single one of those examples are players taken at most *two* spots after the Canucks. This is not a case of scanning down the draft list dozens of picks to find a missed superstar.

 

[cxreg]

Some will write it off, surely.

For me, this issue is simple. My Canucks looked at Kesler and Richards, and decided that Kesler was better. Thus, Richards will turn out to be the better player.

These are pretty much the same guys who decided Nathan Smith was better than Brad Boyes, Brad Ference was better than Marian Hossa, Josh Holden better than Reasoner or Zubrus, Mike Wilson better than Saku Koivu, Stojanov better than Matvichuk, Nedved better than Primeau, Antoski better than Tkachuk or Brodeur, Jason Herter better than Holik...

Every single one of those examples are players taken at most *two* spots after the Canucks. This is not a case of scanning down the draft list dozens of picks to find a missed superstar.

Well if we're going by history, in 3 years the Flyers will have a couple 40 year old forwards and a 6th defenseman to show for Richards

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

What the hell? Kesler is no better than Brandon Dubinsky, he's just a sure bet. I won't settle for safe low-quality, I'd take Richards. Look at Dallas with all their safe picks... Trever Daley is the bluechip there.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

What the hell? Kesler is no better than Brandon Dubinsky, he's just a sure bet. I won't settle for safe low-quality, I'd take Richards. Look at Dallas with all their safe picks... Trever Daley is the bluechip there.

How do you figure Kesler is a safer version of Brandon Dubinsky? If anything, that's what Richards is. Kesler is much bigger and is a superior skater.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

Once again, people are comparing apples to oranges here. This whole Kesler is better than Richards/Richards is better than Kesler pi$$ing match is getting real old real fast.

Fact is this. Kesler is more of a goal scorer. Richards is more of a playmaker. Both play a physical game. Kesler is the bigger of the two and the better skater of the two (that isn't to say that Richards is a bad skater - he's got a choppy stride, but he always keeps his legs moving). However, Richards has that innate ability to be where ever the puck is. As well, his hockey sense and intelligence is through the roof. It's safe to say that Kesler doesn't have quite the same hockey sense and intelligence that Richards does.

Kesler will be more of a Primeau-type player in Vancouver. Unless the Canucks ever decide to cut their losses and deal the Sedin sisters and take whatever they get from that deal and move Kesler up to the 2nd line. Richards will be the 2nd line center in Philadelphia in the near future.

In short, both are going to have good, long term futures in the NHL.

 

[ZombieMatt]

Once again, people are comparing apples to oranges here. This whole Kesler is better than Richards/Richards is better than Kesler pi$$ing match is getting real old real fast.

Fact is this. Kesler is more of a goal scorer. Richards is more of a playmaker. Both play a physical game. Kesler is the bigger of the two and the better skater of the two (that isn't to say that Richards is a bad skater - he's got a choppy stride, but he always keeps his legs moving). However, Richards has that innate ability to be where ever the puck is. As well, his hockey sense and intelligence is through the roof. It's safe to say that Kesler doesn't have quite the same hockey sense and intelligence that Richards does.

Kesler will be more of a Primeau-type player in Vancouver. Unless the Canucks ever decide to cut their losses and deal the Sedin sisters and take whatever they get from that deal and move Kesler up to the 2nd line. Richards will be the 2nd line center in Philadelphia in the near future.

In short, both are going to have good, long term futures in the NHL.

I agree with most of what you said until you began your absurd commentary about Henrik and Daniel Sedin. Cut their losses? One of the twins was in the top fifty point production of the entire league last season and both put up above average numbers for a second line (on a team that runs its second and third lines equally).

Do you really expect a pair of 23 year olds to play on a team's top line that also has Markus Naslund, Brendan Morrison, and Todd Bertuzzi, who most will agree is one of the top five lines in hockey.

Furthermore, 1999 was a poor draft year, particularly the first round. The twins were consensus top picks, and only a few players from the first round have performed better than them (Martin Havlat is the only one you can clearly argue...Stefan, Connolly, Saprykin, Jillson, Tanabe, Jackman, and Boynton have all played well, but not bounds ahead of the twins, if ahead at all, and I'd argue at least half of them haven't).

The twins have established themselves as strong second-line players. They have had no opportunity to claim a top line role because of who their teammates are. They may not have filled the lofty expectations that come with top three picks, but they have proven themselves as above average second line players who continue to improve their all around play every season they have played. They are far from busts or major disappointments considering their situations.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

I agree with most of what you said until you began your absurd commentary about Henrik and Daniel Sedin. Cut their losses? One of the twins was in the top fifty point production of the entire league last season and both put up above average numbers for a second line (on a team that runs its second and third lines equally).

Do you really expect a pair of 23 year olds to play on a team's top line that also has Markus Naslund, Brendan Morrison, and Todd Bertuzzi, who most will agree is one of the top five lines in hockey.

Furthermore, 1999 was a poor draft year, particularly the first round. The twins were consensus top picks, and only a few players from the first round have performed better than them (Martin Havlat is the only one you can clearly argue...Stefan, Connolly, Saprykin, Jillson, Tanabe, Jackman, and Boynton have all played well, but not bounds ahead of the twins, if ahead at all, and I'd argue at least half of them haven't).

The twins have established themselves as strong second-line players. They have had no opportunity to claim a top line role because of who their teammates are. They may not have filled the lofty expectations that come with top three picks, but they have proven themselves as above average second line players who continue to improve their all around play every season they have played. They are far from busts or major disappointments considering their situations.

See, I've lived in Vancouver and I had season tickets. I've watched the Sedins play numerous times and all what I can say is that I've been disappointed, to say the least. Even if they are second line players, their numbers should be much higher than what they are. It always seems that everyone is willing to make an excuse for the Sedins.

Fact of the matter is this. They get great ice time. And while I don't expect them to get more ice time than the big three, fact of the matter is that they get enough ice time and they should be producing more. As well, they don't use their linemates enough. It just seems to be the two Sedins and whatever player the Canucks throw on their line. Even then, the two Sedins play with each other and the third player has to force himself into their game. I thought they had found chemistry with Jason King, but they shunned him out eventually.

As for 1999 being a poor draft year, big deal. They've been given every opportunity to step up their game, but they haven't. These were supposed to be the future of the Canucks. I'm not convinced that they are the future of the Canucks. Their play is uninspiring and they just don't show enough passion to be the best. It's almost like mediocrity is acceptable. Maybe you can also blame that on the coaching staff for not pushing them enough, but jeez, these kids are getting paid good money and it looks like they just go through the motions.

Like I said though, that's just me and that's my opinion of the Sedins. They have the talent to do more, yet they seem to be content with just getting by.

 

[LaVal]

Fact of the matter is this. They get great ice time. And while I don't expect them to get more ice time than the big three, fact of the matter is that they get enough ice time and they should be producing more.

Todd Bertuzzi - 21:00
Brendan Morrison - 20:07
Markus Naslund - 19.22
Martin Rucinsky - 18:52
Trevor Linden - 16:17
Geoff Sanderson - 16:05
Magnus Arvedson - 14:29
Matt Cooke - 14:06
Artem Chubarov - 14:04
Henrik Sedin - 14:02
Daniel Sedin - 13:32
Jarkko Ruutu - 11:28
Mike Keane - 11:11
Brad May - 8:55

LOADS of icetime. The Canuck's 4th line center recieves more icetime than both of them, and the only players they recieved more icetime than were Ruutu, Keane, and May. Take a look at Dallas for example, where their 2nd line LW and 2nd line center recieve 19 and 17 minutes. Their 3rd line recieves more icetime than the twins. Tampa's 2nd line recieves 18 minutes a piece. The trend continues on. The fact is, they are recieving 3rd line or less minutes per game... contrary to what you said.

In the past, Henrik was the only twin to break the 13 minute mark, and only did it once.

As well, they don't use their linemates enough. It just seems to be the two Sedins and whatever player the Canucks throw on their line. Even then, the two Sedins play with each other and the third player has to force himself into their game. I thought they had found chemistry with Jason King, but they shunned him out eventually.

Don't use their linemates? Their linemates have produced with them no matter what scrub was thrown there with them. Brookbank had 2 goals in 2 and a half games on their line. Ruutu produced, as did King (who had a single goal on another line), as did Arvedson (getting 6 goals in 6 games when moved down to play with them), as did just about every player that didn't produce elsewhere. They even found a way to get Sanderson to produce, a completely different type of linemate for their style of game, while Daniel was playing his off wing. Last season if Crow wanted someone to get rolling again, he put them with the twins.

 

[ZombieMatt]

That last post is perfect. Anyone who believes the Sedins have failed to live up to expectations, within the framework of their opportunities, has absolutely no evidence to support their claims.

They are putting out extremely good numbers when you consider points per minute played, and have done it all without a legitimate winger beside them. They've played with Trent Klatt, Jason King, and other similar players. None of the players they have consistently played with resemble true second line players, and not at thta time of their career (King).

The Sedins have been given basically no opportunity to be successful and still remain among the highest scoring second line players in the entire NHL. What more do you want?

 

[Hunter74]

I think those ice time minutes are misleading.

13-14mins per game is pretty good when you consider that only 7secs of it is on the PK. So that means teh majority of those minutes are spent on 5on5 time and PP. They averaged 2:54 and 2:34 for PP ice time respectivly for 6th and 7th on the team.

Plus on top of that Sanderson and Rucinsky are ranked ahead of them in ice time ut most of there ice time could of came from Columbus and New York.

So if you remeoved the 2 players who showed up late that means they were 4th and 5th on the team in PP time and 8th and 9th on the team in overall ice time.

Personally i think the PP ice time is a good indication that they had plenty of opportunities to put up some offensive numbers in on offensive team playing and offensive styled game plan.

yeah when you factor in special teams into ice times it really makes a difference.

 

[jeffbrown]

Regardless of how it's broken down, 13 minutes of ice time is LOW. I'm a strong believer that if the twins get 15-16 minutes of ice time (heck, I think they should get 17-18) that their production will increase accordingly. Also, their power play time is usually pretty difficult to deal with too since the big line is usually out there for about 1.5 minutes, then the Sedins have 30 seconds of PP time. But probably half at least of that is spent trying to regain the zone, setup, then try to do something.