Jonathan Drouin

[DON]

2 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Why are we pretending 50 goals in the 80s is the same as 50 goals today?

If it somehow someway reflects badly on the Habs, then yes.

[xXx..CK..xXx]

Outside of their positions, I’d say Suzuki is the Pacioretty, and Drouin is the Desharnais.

 

The end. 

[alfredoh2009]

2 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

Outside of their positions, I’d say Suzuki is the Pacioretty, and Drouin is the Desharnais.

 

The end. 

ok, got it.

 

Drouin is the Robin to Suzuki being Batman 

 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:

ok, got it.

 

Drouin is the Robin to Suzuki being Batman 

 

 

Two thoughts on this...

 

One is that it's sad that we are hoping a sophomore C can somehow "carry" or elevate a guy with 350 NHL games under his belt. If anything, it should be the other way around - Drouin helping to mentor Suzuki along. 🙄 But with wankers like Drouin, it's always someone else's problem.

 

The other is that, while the MaxPac-DD analogy makes a degree of sense if we're looking for a past case where one player carries another, the analogy is quite grossly unfair to David Desharnais. The undrafted DD was a guy who surpassed all expectations and defied all odds to carve out a modestly successful NHL career for himself; he became more than the sum of his modest parts. Drouin is the exact opposite, a Ferrari with a Corolla engine.

 

Richer is a pretty solid analogue for Drouin. Apart from his two elite seasons, Richer was a soft, unreliable #6 FW who made a career of being much, much less than the sum of his formidable talents. Of course we now know he had mental health issues; God knows whether Drouin has that excuse.

 

And BTW, however different the context was in the 1980s, the Richer of 1989-90 was a dominating force who could control games single-handedly. He had that potential, but simply could not overcome the mental red tape so as to do that reliably ever again. Trading his soft erraticism for the high-impact Muller was a masterstroke which contributed directly to the 1993 Cup.

[alfredoh2009]

34 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Two thoughts on this...

 

One is that it's sad that we are hoping a sophomore C can somehow "carry" or elevate a guy with 350 NHL games under his belt. If anything, it should be the other way around - Drouin helping to mentor Suzuki along. 🙄 But with wankers like Drouin, it's always someone else's problem.

 

The other is that, while the MaxPac-DD analogy makes a degree of sense if we're looking for a past case where one player carries another, the analogy is quite grossly unfair to David Desharnais. The undrafted DD was a guy who surpassed all expectations and defied all odds to carve out a modestly successful NHL career for himself; he became more than the sum of his modest parts. Drouin is the exact opposite, a Ferrari with a Corolla engine.

 

Richer is a pretty solid analogue for Drouin. Apart from his two elite seasons, Richer was a soft, unreliable #6 FW who made a career of being much, much less than the sum of his formidable talents. Of course we now know he had mental health issues; God knows whether Drouin has that excuse.

 

And BTW, however different the context was in the 1980s, the Richer of 1989-90 was a dominating force who could control games single-handedly. He had that potential, but simply could not overcome the mental red tape so as to do that reliably ever again. Trading his soft erraticism for the high-impact Muller was a masterstroke which contributed directly to the 1993 Cup.

 

Thanks Chicou... I know it is not a good comparison between the two duos. But if I look at the last playoffs, and just look at the potential of the JD-NS duo, it makes me think of the MP-DD duo or more recently the Tatar-Danault duo.

[tomh009]

7 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

One is that it's sad that we are hoping a sophomore C can somehow "carry" or elevate a guy with 350 NHL games under his belt. If anything, it should be the other way around - Drouin helping to mentor Suzuki along.

 

Assuming that it's true, that Drouin played better with Suzuki, or with Kotkaniemi-Armia, I don't think it has anything to do with his linemates' skill or experience.

 

I believe Drouin's challenge is between his ears. He has the capability to play well, playing with the right linemate(s) appears to put him in the right frame of mind for that.

[xXx..CK..xXx]

8 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

The other is that, while the MaxPac-DD analogy makes a degree of sense if we're looking for a past case where one player carries another, the analogy is quite grossly unfair to David Desharnais. The undrafted DD was a guy who surpassed all expectations and defied all odds to carve out a modestly successful NHL career for himself; he became more than the sum of his modest parts. Drouin is the exact opposite, a Ferrari with a Corolla engine.

 

 

One can romanticize David Desharnais’ story however they like however

 

6 seasons into his career Jonathan Drouin has a .59 points per game average.

 

6 seasons into his career David Desharnais had a .62 points per game average.

 

You’re saying that Desharnais carved out a nice little niche for himself, however I would say playing with an elite finisher in Pacioretty helped him carve out a spot as a 1st line NHLer. Desharnais amassed 4 points as an Oiler and 29 points in 71 games as a Ranger. 
 

One could argue that Desharnais being compared to Drouin is a compliment to Desharnais simply because Drouin was a 3rd overall pick. Of course the negative way to spin it would be to pick on Drouin and all his faults when discussing the comparison. 
 

In the end, I think in the future the comparison between the two will be moot because Drouin will be a better player than Desharnais ever was.  We can talk about heart and hockey IQ and it may be true that Drouin is lacking, but by the end of their career, there will be no comparison between Desharnais and Drouin, but it will simply be because Drouin was the much better player.

[PMAC]

1 hour ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

One can romanticize David Desharnais’ story however they like however

 

6 seasons into his career Jonathan Drouin has a .59 points per game average.

 

6 seasons into his career David Desharnais had a .62 points per game average.

 

You’re saying that Desharnais carved out a nice little niche for himself, however I would say playing with an elite finisher in Pacioretty helped him carve out a spot as a 1st line NHLer. Desharnais amassed 4 points as an Oiler and 29 points in 71 games as a Ranger. 
 

One could argue that Desharnais being compared to Drouin is a compliment to Desharnais simply because Drouin was a 3rd overall pick. Of course the negative way to spin it would be to pick on Drouin and all his faults when discussing the comparison. 
 

In the end, I think in the future the comparison between the two will be moot because Drouin will be a better player than Desharnais ever was.  We can talk about heart and hockey IQ and it may be true that Drouin is lacking, but by the end of their career, there will be no comparison between Desharnais and Drouin, but it will simply be because Drouin was the much better player.

I hope that the last part of your post becomes true

[hab29RETIRED]

1 hour ago, PMAC said:

I hope that the last part of your post becomes true

If we keep him, i hope so too, but would feel more comfortable moving him to get a less risky upgrade.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

18 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

One can romanticize David Desharnais’ story however they like however

 

6 seasons into his career Jonathan Drouin has a .59 points per game average.

 

6 seasons into his career David Desharnais had a .62 points per game average.

 

You’re saying that Desharnais carved out a nice little niche for himself, however I would say playing with an elite finisher in Pacioretty helped him carve out a spot as a 1st line NHLer. Desharnais amassed 4 points as an Oiler and 29 points in 71 games as a Ranger. 
 

One could argue that Desharnais being compared to Drouin is a compliment to Desharnais simply because Drouin was a 3rd overall pick. Of course the negative way to spin it would be to pick on Drouin and all his faults when discussing the comparison. 
 

In the end, I think in the future the comparison between the two will be moot because Drouin will be a better player than Desharnais ever was.  We can talk about heart and hockey IQ and it may be true that Drouin is lacking, but by the end of their career, there will be no comparison between Desharnais and Drouin, but it will simply be because Drouin was the much better player.

 

Drouin will almost certainly have a longer career than DD. He is much more talented than DD ever was.

 

It is amusing to note, in this context, that as you say above, DD had a higher PPG average. That kind of proves my point - he was a guy who maxed out the limited talent he had, made the most of his opportunity, and surpassed all reasonable expectations. Like Byron in that respect. The other has done the exact opposite, playing chronically below the bar set by his own talent - to the point where people are now suggesting he needs to have his hand held by a 22-year-old sophomore C.

 

We all hope Drouin figures it out, even though he's already have 350 games in which to do so. But my guess is that both will be minor footnotes in Habs history, the one a top-6 C for a few years when we didn't have any, the other being one in a long list of indifferent #6 FWs, like Bourque or Martin Ruscinsky.

 

 

[Link67]

Well guys, the big difference between Drouin and Desharnais aside from the obvious talent and skill levels, is that Desharnais had his first productive season as a 25 year old, entering his prime years, while Drouin will be entering next season as a 25 year old, and already having multiple productive years under his belt. 

 

Regardless of how this plays out, Drouin is at the very least a dependable top 6 forward hovering around the 50 point mark year after year thus far, while it may not be 3rd overall worthy, this is still a good NHL player. Now, entering his prime years and fresh off a productive playoff that saw him spark some intriguing chemistry with our #1 Center, it will be interesting to see what kind of seasons he puts together between ages 25 and 30. 

 

More of the same? Which is still a good player, or does he ascend into the 70 point player range from this point on and become the player we were hoping for when we got him? One thing is for sure, he is entering the years where a step forward is most likely to happen. This comparison is a little silly to me at this time, we can compare their stats in the future when we see what both of them did between ages 25 and 30.

 

I'm not ready to label Drouin a 50 point guy just yet, too much talent and still young, the opportunity to take a step forward is still very present. While Desharnais was a pleasant surprise who was plateaued as a 50 point player.

[alfredoh2009]

1 hour ago, Link67 said:

Well guys, the big difference between Drouin and Desharnais aside from the obvious talent and skill levels, is that Desharnais had his first productive season as a 25 year old, entering his prime years, while Drouin will be entering next season as a 25 year old, and already having multiple productive years under his belt. 

 

Regardless of how this plays out, Drouin is at the very least a dependable top 6 forward hovering around the 50 point mark year after year thus far, while it may not be 3rd overall worthy, this is still a good NHL player. Now, entering his prime years and fresh off a productive playoff that saw him spark some intriguing chemistry with our #1 Center, it will be interesting to see what kind of seasons he puts together between ages 25 and 30. 

 

More of the same? Which is still a good player, or does he ascend into the 70 point player range from this point on and become the player we were hoping for when we got him? One thing is for sure, he is entering the years where a step forward is most likely to happen. This comparison is a little silly to me at this time, we can compare their stats in the future when we see what both of them did between ages 25 and 30.

 

I'm not ready to label Drouin a 50 point guy just yet, too much talent and still young, the opportunity to take a step forward is still very present. While Desharnais was a pleasant surprise who was plateaued as a 50 point player.

the reason for the silly comparison ( I agree , it seems silly at face value ) has to do with the comments from many on the Habs (players, coaching) highlighting the chemistry Suzuki and Drouin have.

 

This reminds me how the sum of the parts was higher than the individual components of the DD-Patches duo  

[Sir_Boagalott]

Most of you seem to be focusing on goals, when in this years playoffs Drouin seemed to be a great passer.  Its that reason I would hold onto him until not next years trade deadline but the year after.  My reasoning:  Caufield. 

 

Caufield has a great shot, but he'll need a great passer to constantly set him up.  Who will be setting up Caufield?  Even if Drouin never becomes a 30 goal guy he might turn out to be great assist guy feeding Caufield.  That could end up being Drouins niche.  

[hab29RETIRED]

6 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

Most of you seem to be focusing on goals, when in this years playoffs Drouin seemed to be a great passer.  Its that reason I would hold onto him until not next years trade deadline but the year after.  My reasoning:  Caufield. 

 

Caufield has a great shot, but he'll need a great passer to constantly set him up.  Who will be setting up Caufield?  Even if Drouin never becomes a 30 goal guy he might turn out to be great assist guy feeding Caufield.  That could end up being Drouins niche.  

Suzuki would be my choice as his setup man - if Caufield shows he is ready and belongs.

[Commandant]

8 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

Most of you seem to be focusing on goals, when in this years playoffs Drouin seemed to be a great passer.  Its that reason I would hold onto him until not next years trade deadline but the year after.  My reasoning:  Caufield. 

 

Caufield has a great shot, but he'll need a great passer to constantly set him up.  Who will be setting up Caufield?  Even if Drouin never becomes a 30 goal guy he might turn out to be great assist guy feeding Caufield.  That could end up being Drouins niche.  

 

Yes, Drouin is a better passer than scorer. 

The other guy who is a better passer than scorer is Domi, and I think he can do this from the wing if he is re-signed instead of traded as well. 

[Sir_Boagalott]

I certainly dont disagree with Suzuki.  However, Caufield seems to have an uncanny knack at finding open spots so he'll need a centre and winger that are really good passers. It is likely that Caufield's goals will be limited to his linemates passing ability, so the Habs should put him on a line with their best passers.  The better passers Caufield plays with the more he will score.  It might be possible for Drouin to get 70+ pts but it'll be by getting close to 50 assists.

[alfredoh2009]

1 hour ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

I certainly dont disagree with Suzuki.  However, Caufield seems to have an uncanny knack at finding open spots so he'll need a centre and winger that are really good passers. It is likely that Caufield's goals will be limited to his linemates passing ability, so the Habs should put him on a line with their best passers.  The better passers Caufield plays with the more he will score.  It might be possible for Drouin to get 70+ pts but it'll be by getting close to 50 assists.

KK is my pick to setup Caufield. Someone like Tatar on their left would be nice too

[TurdBurglar]

Drouin reminds me of Semin.  He would thrive is a situation where he is the secondary playmaker/shooter on a line, much like Semin did on the wing of Backstrom and Ovechkin.  A lot of players could pick up points in that role, but like Semin, I believe he could make people think he’s just almost good as his linemates.