If you have not yet, please help us prepare for the 2017-18 season by taking a reader survey (will be closing it soon) and considering a modest financial contribution for our ‘coffee fund.’
If you have been away and are catching up on the 2016-17 ‘report card’ series, you can find a clickable menu of previous articles at the bottom of the page.
Elias Lindholm’s starting point for the 2016-17 season
Elias entered the 2016-17 season with 3 seasons and 221 games of NHL hockey under his belt. Given that he was only 21 years old, I do not think it would have been fair to call him a veteran, but he was no longer a wide-eyed, inexperienced kid either. During his first 3 seasons in the NHL, Lindholm had shown flashes of goodness in the form of a good play, a run of shifts or maybe even a couple games, but his potential as the #5 overall pick in a deep draft had come nothing close to being fulfilled. As of the end of the 2015-16 season, Lindholm was still prone to extended stretches with an invisibility cloak on the ice. He played entire games and sometimes multiple where one had to try just to notice him. He put up consecutive 39-point seasons in 2014-15 and 2015-16, offering reasonable depth scoring but not really looking like the bona fide top 6 forward that he was drafted to become.
In short, he entered his fourth NHL season in 2016-17 as a serviceable third line forward, nothing more, nothing less, but with an increasing urgency for him to push over the hump and become much more.
Elias Lindholm’s 2016-17 season with the Carolina Hurricanes
The start of the 2016-17 season was more of the same for Lindholm. He was the elder statesman on a line with rookie Sebastian Aho and newcomer Teuvo Teravainen. The trio looked good in preseason but then was slow out of the gate when the real games started. Elias Lindholm’s only point in eight games in October was a power play assist, and he did not pick up an even strength point until he scored a goal in game #10 on November 5. The combination of the Aho/Lindholm/Teravainen’s slow start and the team’s struggles saw Coach Bill Peters’ shuffle things up fairly early into the season and Lindholm play on a couple different lines. Lindholm mustered only 2 goals and 5 assists in the first quarter of the season was most often adequate and very rarely a difference-maker in the early part of the 2016-17 season.
The second quarter saw Lindholm hit a couple minor injury setbacks but also put up a few more points with 2 goals and 5 assists in only 10 games played. But somewhere right around the mid-season cut line, Lindholm was put on a line with Jordan Staal and out of nowhere seemed to find a higher gear. He did not bust out instantly on the score sheet, but for those watched Hurricanes hockey regularly and closely, the change was unmistakable. Lindholm dialed up a higher level of physical play and suddenly became more noticeable whether he was winning pucks, fighting for position in front of net or engaging opponents with the puck. The third quarter of the season for Lindholm was all about the noticeable difference in his every-shift level of play and watching closely to see if it would last. And along the way, he found a higher gear as a playmaker. He found a comfortable role set up at the side of the net on the power play and created a bunch of great scoring chances for teammates dishing the puck from his new office. He also started to tally more assists mostly of the higher-quality primary variety at even strength. His goal scoring continued to be light, but Lindholm’s point total of 17 (2 goals and 15 assists) was a big step up from his slow start. The final quarter of the season saw Lindholm post a 10-game point streak and finish it with 5 goals and 9 assists and importantly extend his run of playing at a higher level physically.
If you add it up, Lindholm played the second half of the season at a solid 62-point pace. He was a noticeable physical force even on non-scoring shifts. The burning question with Elias Lindholm is whether his strong second half of 2016-17 represented the maturation that Canes fans have been eager to see for a few years now or if it was just the better half of another up and down season.
Grading Elias Lindholm
Graded as: Top 9 scoring forward.
Grade: B. In total, Lindholm had a decent season. But his season was a very striking before and after picture. The ‘before’ looked no better than seasons past. I would rate it a C+. The ‘after’ saw Lindholm transform into and remain a regular force physically and also boost his scoring. I would rate it an A-.
On the whole, Lindholm’s 45 points were 6 more than 2015-16, and he made strides in other areas of his game. Most notably, the Peter Forsberg comparison from his draft year that was nowhere to be found in his first three years finally reared its head on a regular basis. Lindholm acquired a newfound penchant for playing physical on the walls, being a bulldog battling for pucks and just simply being more noticeable and difficult to play against on every shift. While he gets a B for the season in total, his trajectory once he found the ignition switch was at least a B+ and offers hope that even better could be within reach.
Looking forward to 2017-18
Elias Lindholm will be near the top of my watch list when the 2017-18 season kicks off. After an extended run that saw him morph into a completely different player in terms of style of play, power forward ruggedness and compete level, it seems reasonable to consider this a permanent transformation. But until I see it extended into a new season and not something he needs to work his way up to, there is at least a chance that it was simply a longer burst at a higher gear but still part of what will continue to be an up and down, inconsistent pattern.
For the 2017-18 season, I would hope for 50 points if he plays on a checking type line with Jordan Staal or more like 55-60 if he finds himself on more of a scoring-focused line. I would also look for him to continue his playmaking magic from the side of the net on the power play. He could also benefit from a bit more accuracy on his shooting from close range which could boost his goal scoring. For as much as Tripp Tracy loves to rave about his release, Lindholm is currently a below average NHL finisher. More significantly, he can be difference-maker regardless of the score sheet if he continues the brand of hockey that he played in the second half of the 2016-17 season.
What say you Hurricanes fans?
What grade do you give to Elias Lindholm? Was his run of stronger player long enough to boost his full-season average higher than the B that I gave him? And if you had to grade him by halves of the season what would the splits be?
How certain are you that the new Elias Lindholm is a permanent transformation?
If you could pair him with one forward in starting to build lines for the 2017-18 season, who would it be?
Previous report card articles
Go Canes!
I see where you’re coming from, but I’d still grade him higher Matt. He was a bit slow to get moving through October and November, but he had ramped up his productivity by the end of November before he got hurt and ended up missing 10 games. I don’t know if I’d dock him for getting hurt, and he almost certainly would have been a 50+ point scorer if he had played those games.
IF he plays a full season next year, he could easily be a 60+ point player, especially if you keep him on the same line as Aho. Given that Aho and Lindholm both have a skillset of making people better around them, I see a nice jump in point production from both, especially if we get a bona-fide scorer to put in between them.
I am 83% certain that this was a permanent transformation. It’s not like he was playing above his skill level. He’s always had that skill level, the confidence just wasn’t there. We saw him take that mental step this year. People don’t usually go backwards mentally. He could easily get off to a slow start next year, and lose that edge, but I don’t think he does with Aho at his side. He simply took some time to develop as many players do. I call 70 points for Aho next year and 60 for Lindholm…..health permitting (fingers crossed)
I probably attended the wrong educational institutions because I was always graded on performance, not potential. If we’re not grading on a curve, then a C+ is the best I can do. Yes, he improved as the year went on but not performing at an acceptable level for half a season does not advance the argument of being a top 9 forward. If you’re grading by semester, then D for first half and B for second. I believe we were all pleasantly surprised by the way he finished the season and his push over the last couple of months provides hope that he’s maturing into the solid, 60 pt. two-way player that the Canes need. He needs to be a season long B or better player for the Canes to succeed. There is actually quite a bit riding on him and his performance. Another half season of meh play will throw a monkey wrench into the plans for building this team into a Cup contender. They don’t have anyone behind him who can take his place, which is actually a pretty scary thought when talking about team depth, and what (limited) options there are if a player or players don’t perform up to expectations.
True, but seeing as he scored a career-high in points and put up by far his best defensive season ever (based on Corsi & giveaway/takeaway ratio), what kind of grading scale would we be using?
What constitutes an acceptable level? Because compared to the rest of the NHL, Lindholm’s #’s put him firmly in the ‘acceptable 2nd line’ total for performance.
Do we expect McDavid to bloom out of Lindholm?
I guess I look at an acceptable second line player as a C player, with a good second line player a potential B. He scored a career high, but the baseline metric was pretty low so he didn’t have to do much to set new career standards. It really speaks to how you look at overall play and production. I like him, he had a real good half of a year but consistency is a criteria that goes into the mix as well. I acknowledge the stat provided below by Raleightj (primary assists – league-wide)is impressive – I was not aware of his ranking vs. similar players. Good stuff there and you can’t ignore some of the good things he did. My point is it’s time to raise the bar for success for this crew to a point where just being OK, or maybe in this case even being “good”, isn’t good enough. Then we won’t have these conversations but instead we’ll be arguing about who has to get traded to make room for his salary because he scored 70 points and led the team into the playoffs. I’d probably even give him a B for that!
A- or B+ (B- in the first half; A in the second). I am of the school – as Lindy himself, Peters, and various commentators have described – that there was nothing wrong with how Lindholm was playing early in the season, he just wasn’t scoring (I was sitting right behind the net when he scored his first goal, turned around, and lifted his eyes up as if to say “thank you”). But when you are not scoring you have to do other things. He was physical and possession-oriented, overall solid – and doing everything he was doing after the scoring started. He definitely had more confidence as the season progress and he started scoring. He became the complete package. I think he pairs well with Aho.
This is the stat I couldn’t remember, “According to stats.hockeyanalysis.com, among forwards who skated at least 500 minutes of 5-on-5 play, Lindholm was 7th out of 351 players in terms of 5-on-5 primary assists per 60 minutes.”
For a season of work, that is truly A-worthy.
I approve of this use of statistics. Well played.
You guys know your hockey! Can’t argue with anything, and what I like is Lindstrom’s drive to get better. I’ve no clue how high his peak is, but at least he’s reached a level where he’s a definite asset!
I think Matt is about correct with B given the whole season.
What I am starting to see as we move away from the last game is real optimism. I often thought i was the positive one commenting on most posts. But now we have Matt and multiple commenters saying both TT and Lindholm will be scoring 60 points each year. Hope you are correct. I think I said earlier that I think 235 goals is a good guess for the team’s scoring next season. It is a little optimistic, but I think reasonable given the improvement shown by Lindholm, the entire 2nd half for Aho, and the potential that either a prospect or roster addition can add. With a few surprises the magic 246 is within reach.
Didn’t say Teravainen would score 60 points next season. Just said that he had enough skill that it was possible.
Lindholm’s situation is both interesting and also situational. I am on record as intending to watch Lindholm like a hawk at the start of the 2017-18 season to see if he can carry over. I want to believe, but I do not view it as a sure thing. Scoring-wise, he could depend on line mates and role. If he pairs with Jordan Staal on a checking line, he could have a strong season and still come up just short of 50 points in that role. If he is the right wing on a line with Aho and an added scoring-capable center, 60 points is not unreasonable.
To follow up on my comment about the optimism suddenly overflowing on C&C, here is a partial list of players who have never reached the 60 points we think Teravainen and Lindholm are destined to reach:
Hornqvist
Cullen
Couturier (never actually exceeded 40)
Tatar
Galchenyuk
Stepan
Dustin Brown has only done it once
Bobby Ryan hasn’t done it in 6 years
An excellent point ctcaniac. Also add to that list Ryan Nugent-Hopkins and Evander Kane. And Landeskog has only done it once as well.
I am somewhat skeptical of Teravainen as a 60 point player. He has the potential, but I think he needs another gear to his play to make it. Lindholm I think absolutely has the ability, especially if he stays on a line with Aho. IF he can play consistently and healthy, I think he has that level of play already in him.