An offensive dynamo as #1 center? or two way all situations center as the #1?

[1972]

Crosby, wasn't hard. It's not his fault the Penguins have failed to surround him with talent like the Hawks have done with Toews and Kane.

 

[1972]

Most skilled player is Crosby but skill doesn't always win you championships.

A friend of mine (current assistant coach in the NHL) told me about 2 years back that he would pick Toews as the best player in the NHL FWIW.

True, but Crosby is quite clearly a winner. Like I said earlier, big big difference between the talent around both players. Switch there current situations and this is far more lopsided.

Stats are not everything, but Crosby has a unbelievable 1.40 PPG in his career to Toews 0.91 PPG. While Toews is definitely the better defensive player Crosby is quite significantly the better offensive player in a league where scoring is at a premium.

Both have produced in big moments, have won all there is to win etc..

 

[Eram]

As amazing as Crosby is, you're not going to use him to locked down a win late or send him out for a big PK late in a game.

Uhh what?

 

[joshjull]

Uhh what?

What aren't you understanding? Sutter is their checking center that goes out to lockdown a lead and shut down the other team's top offensive players. And Crosby doesn't PK. None of these things are criticism of Crosby, just stating whats not his normal role.

 

[stokes84]

What aren't you understanding? Sutter is their checking center that goes out to lockdown a lead and shut down the other team's top offensive players. And Crosby doesn't PK. None of these things are criticism of Crosby, just stating whats not his normal role.

Maybe that's on the coach.

 

[Russ Tyler]

Even if you think Toews is the better all around player, I still think it makes sense to build around Crosby. In terms of bang for your buck, you can still build a really great team around him.

Where I think this matters more is for non-elite players. If you have a player like Tyler Ennis, that is clearly not on the same level as Crosby, you can't just be a offensive dynamo, you'll need to be a solid all around player to compete for championships. So in that regard, yes I would rather use my money on a player that will provide a solid two way game.

 

[TehDoak]

Maybe that's on the coach.

Guess we'll find out this year

 

[joshjull]

TIME OUT ON THE FIELD

This thread is getting away from what I was intending. Its not about who is better, Crosby or Toews. That its turned into that is my fault for not better explaining my points in the OP. So apologies for that.

Here is a clarification of what I'm asking.

The new rules on contracts means, going forward, team will have fewer core players with bigger contracts taking up more cap space individually. The league is also trending towards two way hockey with most top teams and the last 3 Cup winners devoid of one way players. They may have 1 or 2 in their top 9 but thats about it.

With that in mind, would a team be better off with a Crosby type or a Toews type as their #1 center tying up a good chunk of cap space? By Crosby type I mean an offensive dynamo and by a Toews type I mean a all situations two way center.

My answer was a Toews type. My thinking was having your top paid center simultaneously your #1 offensive center and #1 defensive center puts you in a little better position and gives you more roster flexibility behind them (particularly at forward). Thats doesn't mean Toews is better than Crosby or that you can't win with a Crosby type center.

 

[joshjull]

Maybe that's on the coach.

I guess every coach he's had in the NHL then.

 

[Zman5778]

TIME OUT ON THE FIELD

This thread is getting away from what I was intending. Its not about who is better, Crosby or Toews. That its turned into that is my fault for not better explaining my points in the OP. So apologies for that.

Here is a clarification of what I'm asking.

The new rules on contracts means, going forward, team will have fewer core players with big contracts and they will be taking up more cap space individually. The league is also trending towards two way hockey with most top teams and the last 3 Cup winners devoid of one way players. They may have 1 or 2 in their top 9 but thats about it.

With that in mind, would a team be better off with a Crosby type or a Toews type as their #1 center tying up a good chunk of cap space? By Crosby type I mean an offensive dynamo and by a Toews type I mean a all situations two way center.

My answer was a Toews type. My thinking was having your top paid center simultaneously your #1 offensive center and #1 defensive center puts you in a little better position and gives you roster flexibility behind them (particularly at forward). Thats doesn't mean Toews is better than Crosby or that you can't win with a Crosby type center.

You beat me to a clarification.

I was going to say: In no way shape or form do I mean to imply that Toews is a better hockey player than Crosby. He isn't. No one is.

But, given that they'd likely earn VERY similar money under the same CBA, I'd rather build around Toews. For similar money, I think it's easier to build around the gold standard of 2-way play than the platinum standard offensive force.

This way, I don't have to go and spend $3-5 million on a 3rd line defensive specialist center. I can spend a little less and have more balanced scoring across 3 lines.

 

[joshjull]

You beat me to a clarification.

I was going to say: In no way shape or form do I mean to imply that Toews is a better hockey player than Crosby. He isn't. No one is.

But, given that they'd likely earn VERY similar money under the same CBA, I'd rather build around Toews. For similar money, I think it's easier to build around the gold standard of 2-way play than the platinum standard offensive force.

This way, I don't have to go and spend $3-5 million on a 3rd line defensive specialist center. I can spend a little less and have more balanced scoring across 3 lines.

Thank you. Thats exactly what I was getting at.

 

[stokes84]

Everything being equal, I guess you'd want the guy who can do everything. At the end of the day, you just want the overall better player no matter what type he is. If the offensive guy does more things better, then I want him, and same thing the other way.

 

[truthbluth]

TIME OUT ON THE FIELD

This thread is getting away from what I was intending. Its not about who is better, Crosby or Toews. That its turned into that is my fault for not better explaining my points in the OP. So apologies for that.

Here is a clarification of what I'm asking.

The new rules on contracts means, going forward, team will have fewer core players with big contracts and they will be taking up more cap space individually. The league is also trending towards two way hockey with most top teams and the last 3 Cup winners devoid of one way players. They may have 1 or 2 in their top 9 but thats about it.

With that in mind, would a team be better off with a Crosby type or a Toews type as their #1 center tying up a good chunk of cap space? By Crosby type I mean an offensive dynamo and by a Toews type I mean a all situations two way center.

My answer was a Toews type. My thinking was having your top paid center simultaneously your #1 offensive center and #1 defensive center puts you in a little better position and gives you roster flexibility behind them (particularly at forward). Thats doesn't mean Toews is better than Crosby or that you can't win with a Crosby type center.

I like the idea for this question, and, truth be told, I'd rather have Crosby, but the point is somewhat moot since you don't really have control over which one you get. I think that Crosby could have been built around better. For example, Pittsburgh could have gotten a fortune for Malkin and kept Staal. That may have been a better move. The moves that Chicago has made in the last 6 or seven years have just been incredible. They are a better built team, but I'm not sure it's just because of the $2.4 mill that they save by having Toews instead of Crosby. Does that make sense? There is more to team building than who the number 1 center is. I would rather have Crosby to build around though, because I believe you can plug in a $2 mill C to be your shutdown guy, but you can't plug in a $2 million C to be your 40 goal scorer.

 

[Sabretooth]

Maybe that's on the coach.

bylsma was known to be against using his top players on the PK and defensive situations, and really had a hardon for the Craig Adams and Tanner Glasses of the world for the end-of-game pulled goalie 5 on 6 defensive situations. Ask any penguins fans how many times that cost the penguins the lead in the last minute of the game. I've watched every penguins games for the past few years, it has been a lot. I would agree its definitely on the coach, and saying crosby is not a 2-way player is

 

[SabresFanNorthPortFL]

I don't think you're comparing apples to apples.

First, it's not like Crosby is only a one dementional player, aka Ovie. Crosby makes all around him better.

The other thing about Towes is Kane. Towes can be a better two way player because of Kanes offensive ability. I agree the Pens are just built bad. Malkin is too similar to Crosby. It's almost to the point with the Pens that they would be better off trading Malkin for two centers...one an upgraded Sutter, think 50 point Drury/Peca type....and a downgraded solid #2 offensive center, like a in his prime Roy. Having so much tied up in two offensive first centers hurts.

And again, I don't know how Chicago would be without the dynamic Kane brings, ie it all being up to Towes.

To answer your question. You can't go wrong with either, as both are top five in the world but for me, I'd take Crosby. It just seems easier to get/train a defensive guy than get a guy putting up 1.4 ppg.

By the way....I don't ever remember seeing Gretzky playing defense but he won a few Cups.

 

[LongWayDown37]

People complicate things too much. Its Crosby and there isn't really a debate. When you have to fill your reasoning with caveats, you're trying to hard to be unique. Every team in the league is better off with Crosby than they would be with Toews.

 

[La Cosa Nostra]

This should be a laugher. Crosby ainec and picking Toews is just wrong. Does Toews turn 20 goal scorers into 40 ones? Nope. Does Crosby? Yep.

I'll take the 120 point scorer over the 70.

 

[T Low]

TIME OUT ON THE FIELD

This thread is getting away from what I was intending. Its not about who is better, Crosby or Toews. That its turned into that is my fault for not better explaining my points in the OP. So apologies for that.

Here is a clarification of what I'm asking.

The new rules on contracts means, going forward, team will have fewer core players with bigger contracts taking up more cap space individually. The league is also trending towards two way hockey with most top teams and the last 3 Cup winners devoid of one way players. They may have 1 or 2 in their top 9 but thats about it.

With that in mind, would a team be better off with a Crosby type or a Toews type as their #1 center tying up a good chunk of cap space? By Crosby type I mean an offensive dynamo and by a Toews type I mean a all situations two way center.

My answer was a Toews type. My thinking was having your top paid center simultaneously your #1 offensive center and #1 defensive center puts you in a little better position and gives you more roster flexibility behind them (particularly at forward). Thats doesn't mean Toews is better than Crosby or that you can't win with a Crosby type center.

Are you including their current respective contracts? A Toews type at $ 10.5m vs a Crosby type at $8.7m ( am I correct w/ the #s ?))

I used to think Toews was a more character guy, until if saw Zetterberg make him meltdown like a four year old preschool girl.

I'd build around a $8.7m Crosby type, using that extra $1.8 to get a $6m Dman instead of a $4.2m Dman.

 

[Zman5778]

Are you including their current respective contracts? A Toews type at 10.5 vs a Crosby type at 8.7 ( am I correct w/ the #s ?))

I used to think Toews was a more character guy, until if saw Zetterberg make him meltdown like a four year old preschool girl.

I'd build around a $8.7m Crosby, using that extra $1.8 to get a $6m Dman instead of a $4.2m Dman.

Two completely different CBAs. Can't compare their numbers directly. I think if you do a percentage of cap when the deals were originally signed, the percentages are fairly close.

 

[joshjull]

Are you including their current respective contracts? A Toews type at 10.5 vs a Crosby type at 8.7 ( am I correct w/ the #s ?))

I used to think Toews was a more character guy, until if saw Zetterberg make him meltdown like a four year old preschool girl.

I'd build around a $8.7m Crosby, using that extra $1.8 to get a $6m Dman instead of a $4.2m Dman.

I'm speaking in general using them as examples of the two types of centers. Not using their specific contracts. Crosby isn't even the highest cap hit center on his own team. Which type of center would you want as your highest paid #1 center? A 100+pt offensive center or a 70+pt two way all situations center. Leave Crosby/Toews out of it I guess. Not saying you, but some can let go of their hang ups over the two and speak about the concept.

 

[Zman5778]

This should be a laugher. Crosby ainec and picking Toews is just wrong. Does Toews turn 20 goal scorers into 40 ones? Nope. Does Crosby? Yep.

What? Nice hyperbole. Not taking anything away from Sid, but he's never played with a 40 goal skater on his line. Kunitz was a 20 goal scorer in Anaheim and Crosby did bump his scoring to 35 last year.

And if you're trying to give Sid credit for Neal.....nope. Neal was with Malkin the majority of the time.

No one is trying to say that Toews is better. What some are saying is that they'd rather build around Toews than Crosby, which is a completely defensible point of view.

 

[DazedandConfused]

Yeah, for me it doesn't matter what circumstances you put on it. It's not like Crosby is a lost man looking for directions in his own end.

 

[joshjull]

Yeah, for me it doesn't matter what circumstances you put on it It's not like Crosby is a lost man looking for directions in his own end.

You're too hung up on Crosby. I was just using him as an example of that type of center since he is the very best. And I used Toews as a representative of his type of center for the same reasons.

Which type of center would you want as your highest paid #1 center? (Lets say the salary is the same) A 100pt offensive center or a 70pt two way all situations center. Leave Crosby/Toews out of it if it makes it easier to ponder the idea.

 

[Husko]

Tom Brady or Peyton Manning?

 

[Myllz]

You're too hung up on Crosby. I was just using him as an example of that type of center since he is the very best. And I used Toews as a representative of his type of center for the same reasons.

Which type of center would you want as your highest paid #1 center? (Lets say the salary is the same) A 90-100pt offensive center or a 70+pt two way all situations center. Leave Crosby/Toews out of it if it makes it easier to ponder the idea.

Defensive responsibilities and holding late game leads can be handled elsewhere. Nobody was worried about having Briere and his lack of a two-way game because we had Drury behind him. There are lots of guys who are good defensively and are capable of playing good two-way games. On the other hand, there aren't very many guys who can dominate a game offensively.