they’re crazies. Also to avoid more crazies, don’t go to Bleacher Report. They’re upset with Couture because he was a number one draft pick and isn’t Ovechkin, Crosby, or Kane yet.

Casual hockey fans don’t tend to notice the little things in hockey. Namely, the defensive aspects of a forward, the faceoff win percentages. The casual fan wants glits and glam from their forwards. They want goals and assists and points. It doesn’t matter if the player is doing many other things well.

Therefore, I’m not particularly surprised about the criticism, when all you do is look at the box score after the game.

But sometimes I feel like people rehash old scouting reports to knock on a guy even though he’s made significant improvement.

This is really true in all sports and is one of the most annoying things when reading about prospects.

I think the problem with Couture is that people expected he would be an absolute offensive dynamo (he wasn’t bad though, scoring 1.23 PPG in the OHL), and were surprised when he wasn’t here lighting up the NHL.

Couture will always be more of a Pavelski than a Marleau (Playmaking, Defense first mindset), and it takes players like that time to be NHL ready. When Couture was drafted, he still had maturing to do, and is still only 20. He’s now bigger, and a better skater. His hockey sense is undeniable, and his vision is above average for even the NHL. He blocks shots, kills penalties, and QB’s the powerplay. He will be a solid NHL player.

That being said, he’ll never be an NHL star. He’s not Kane, Malkin, Crosby, etc. But he will have a very solid NHL career as a complete player who plays well in all 3 zones and in all situations (PK,PP,ES)… I can see 70-80 points a season as his peak. I’m fine with that total when it comes with the complete set that Logan brings.

I think he’ll sniff the NHL this year, but spend most of his time in the AHL. It’ll be interesting to see how he handles himself against other NHL players.

Ryan Garner has weighed in on Couture in his latest post and it’s less than favorable, and like I said, the odd dichotomy of views on Couture continues (not that I give Garner much credit in the hockey analysis world…)

Anyone know who will be on the ice today?

I have no idea why everyone is getting up in arms over a player who hasn’t even seen AHL competition yet. It’s always been San Jose’s philosophy that they can teach skating as long as the kid has good hockey sense. That’s how Douglas Murray and Joe Pavelski made the team, and I assume that’s the philosophy with Couture.

I also have no idea why everyone is quick to judge him off one or two games, games that most of the people with an opinion didn’t even see. This game occurred against very young competition, with most of these players probably seeing limited NHL time if any. It’s a goddamn rookie game. Let’s not hastily rush to conclusions here, regardless of where you end up (Couture is a bust, Couture is the next number one center etc.)

That being said, I’ll trust Max Giese, PJ Swenson, and TCY over Garner every day. There’s a reason I rarely read anything that guy writes.

Anyways, if Couture is defined as a playmaker (which every report indicates he is), there could be a reason he didn’t score*. When you’re playing with players for the first time, you’re going to your areas of responsibility and not taking as many chances as you would normally. A defenseman isn’t going to cut backdoor because he doesn’t trust his forward to replace him at the blueline. Forwards aren’t going to be moving as much off the puck because they’re not sure where their linemates are headed. A guy like Couture (just like Pavelski and Thornton) relies on creativity and an awareness of where his teammates are going to be in order to thrive.

*I don’t even care about this, but everyone seems to be up in arms about it.

As for Couture’s future with the team, I would prefer if he spent the year in Worcester barring a major injury down the middle. There’s no need to a) throw him on a checking line or b) scratch him most nights and deprive him of ice time in Worcester. We already have three bonafide top six centers (Thornton, Marleau, Pavelski), as well as Mitchell who will hold down the third line. You can maybe move Pavs to second line right wing if the injury bug hits like last season and throw Logan there, but now you’ve got two similar guys trying to do the same thing in the offensive zone.

Keep him in Worcester this season, let him mature and play against AHL competition for a full season, consider him if the injury bug hits and/or you want to give him NHL ice time for a couple games since he has a two-way, and then re-evaluate the organization’s depth chart next offseason.

I definitely agree with keeping him in the AHL. I don’t know why people want some of these kids brought up and thrown in 4th line roles all the time. I’d rather have a vet like Hinote playing those few minutes, grinding the hell out of the opposition and let our young potential top 6 forwards spend their time in the AHL improving their abilities.

Over all I was very impressed with the players I saw on Monday. I think there were a few flat shifts (and players), but it was quite obvious that a lot of those guys had great potential. Couture looked pretty dang good IMHO.

and so was Couture. Last night was lots of fun! Definitely kept my hockey withdraws at bay.

Too bad Logan mucked up a breakaway (did anybody else see that?) after he forced a takeaway from the last man coming out of the Ducks’ zone. It was exciting, but he lost hold of the puck (lame!). Also, he was showing a lot of creativity on the rush with all sorts of cool plays (cross and drop passes ftw!).

Petrecki will make one heck of a Shark one day. Seems like an absolute team player.