Franchise center vs franchise defenseman

[Tv9924]

If you were starting a team from scratch would you rather build around a #1 center or a #1 defenseman?

Click to read more...

 

[ManofSteel55]

Center. I don't think you can win the cup without one. Teams have won cups without a superstar defensemen more often.

 

[journeyman79]

Center. It's easier to find a number one defenseman through the draft.

 

[La Masse]

Center IMO much harder to find then a stud #1 d-man

 

[Tv9924]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the defenseman has a bigger impact on the game just by virtue of him being out on the ice more? In the playoffs it's not unusual for a top defenseman to play close to 30 minutes a game.

 

[ColdSteel2]

I'll take the D-man, but only if it is one like Keith who plays half the game in the playoffs.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Elite forwards impact the game more than defensemen.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

Gotta be a centre. We've only had a #1 in Ottawa once (Yashin) and we had some success with Spezza, but that was mostly Alfredsson "clicking" and going deep for us.

Even with Karlsson carrying us, we rely on luck too much to win. Gotta have that franchise C.

 

[Ctrain2k]

Centre only because it's franchise, much easier to find a 1C than a 1D.

 

[Dogewow]

Center. It's easier to find a number one defenseman through the draft.

Center IMO much harder to find then a stud #1 d-man

What's the reasoning behind this logic?

I understand that people put more emphasis on centers and this thread is proving it, but I don't know that I buy the line of thinking that it's "easier" to find a number one defenseman.

And before anyone says anything, no I'm not talking about players capable or shoved into playing the number one role. We're talking "franchise", which in my mind (and I think the premise of the thread) is referring to a next level talent or someone you can build a franchise around.

 

[Stealth JD]

Depends on the player, obviously.

McDavid vs Karlsson, McDavid obviously
Johansen vs Karlsson, Karlsson obviously
Johansen vs Jones, pick 'em.

You can make an argument for either, depending on the examples used.

 

[journeyman79]

What's the reasoning behind this logic?

I understand that people put more emphasis on centers and this thread is proving it, but I don't know that I buy the line of thinking that it's "easier" to find a number one defenseman.

And before anyone says anything, no I'm not talking about players capable or shoved into playing the number one role. We're talking "franchise", which in my mind (and I think the premise of the thread) is referring to a next level talent or someone you can build a franchise around.

If you look at some of the best defensemen over the past few years or so, most of them don't come from the very top of the draft i.e. Weber, Suter, Chara, Keith, Karlsson.

Most of The best centers in the league came from the very top and teams had to rebuild to get them.

 

[Wallet Inspector]

Franchise center please.

To me it feels like teams that consistently make the playoffs put just can't pull off a cup win(Blues, Rangers, Preds, Habs) all have one thing in common: They got a great number 1 defenseman, but they lack of a game-breaking center(Preds do have Johansen, but he was injured in the finals).

 

[Machinehead]

Center. I don't think you can win the cup without one. Teams have won cups without a superstar defensemen more often.

When was this?

The only one in the last ten years was Pittsburgh, but they made up for it with two generational centers, and still had to get lucky. And they had a franchise D who happened to be hurt.

Also within the last ten years, the Ducks won with Pronger and Niedermeyer, and Andy McDonald as their 1C. So if you wanna cherry puck Pittsburgh, the opposite has happened just as often.

I don't see all these teams winning without star D as people so often claim.

 

[nuck]

D man for sure. Look at what Karlsson did for a pretty sketchy Sens lineup last playoff. Pronger back on the Oilers last playoff run. Chara for the Bs. One elite D man can be a battering ram in the playoffs. Not downplaying the value of a star center but a D man can play over 30 minutes in key must-win games and be effective. You can't get that mileage out of any one forward.

I hate to pick on Joe Thornton because I love the guy, but who would his defenseman comparable be? One of the greatest offensive players of his era for sure, and a complete package of other skills and he couldn't tip the balance. As long as Karlsson is on Ottawa or Doughty is on LA these clubs are threats to take you out in a playoff round and with any support at all a great D takes you further than a great center (yeah I know Crosby, but look at the #2, and #3 scoring production on the last two Pens clubs. He was their best player but they probably don't win either Cup without the scoring of Malkin and Kessel.)

 

[Peggy]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the defenseman has a bigger impact on the game just by virtue of him being out on the ice more? In the playoffs it's not unusual for a top defenseman to play close to 30 minutes a game.

Wasn't that a big conversation with Duncan Keith when Chicago won their first cup? Or was it the 2nd? He played like 30 minutes a game(?)

 

[tarheelhockey]

I feel like you can cobble together a defense by committee, as long as there are no glaring weak links, and still be a pretty good team.

You can't really do that at center. Not unless you want to pay a major price in the matchup game. Having three 2Cs is not the same thing as having a 1C, a 2C, and a 3C.

 

[Dogewow]

If you look at some of the best defensemen over the past few years or so, most of them don't come from the very top of the draft i.e. Weber, Suter, Chara, Keith, Karlsson.

Most of The best centers in the league came from the very top and teams had to rebuild to get them.

All that means is that they typically aren't picked at the top of the draft. It doesn't mean that it's easier to pick one in the draft and develop them.

 

[Voodoo Child]

Winning teams are built from the number one center down.

 

[Machinehead]

All that means is that they typically aren't picked at the top of the draft. It doesn't mean that it's easier to pick one in the draft and develop them.

In fact, it's probably harder.

That's why teams don't waste top picks on them when an 18 year old center is ready to play in the NHL yesterday.

And goaltenders, forget it. I don't think you want to touch them until round three or later, and a goaltender has more ability to impact a single game than anyone.

This has to do with development, not value.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

Defenseman. As a Bolts fan, we have had 1 legit franchise dman ever, and he makes life so much easier.

 

[Tv9924]

Wasn't that a big conversation with Duncan Keith when Chicago won their first cup? Or was it the 2nd? He played like 30 minutes a game(?)

Duncan Keith's Conn Smythe run was what I was thinking when I voted for the defenseman in this poll. Absolutely dominant defensively and in transition, and you'd have him on the ice for half the game.

 

[tarheelhockey]

In fact, it's probably harder.

That's why teams don't waste top picks on them when an 18 year old center is ready to play in the NHL yesterday.

And goaltenders, forget it. I don't think you want to touch them until round three or later, and a goaltender has more ability to impact a single game than anyone.

This has to do with development, not value.

Exactly, and I'd add one other thing -- contract control.

A goalie is likely to be long gone out of your organization before he hits his stride as a mature player. A defenseman is probably going to be right at the end of his ELC before you know what you have, and in the UFA zone before he hits his best years. But a star forward will give you several years of cost-controlled ELC and RFA production before you have to really pay him.

 

[FlyTimmo]

I'd take the defenseman. They are generally have better longevity than a center.

 

[Bumpus]

Center > Defense