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

[DazedandConfused]

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.

Then obviously the 2way guy. But that isn't really what is implied by the thread title, or when you say a Crosby "type" vs Toews "type". Because a Crosby "type" isn't JUST an offensive dynamo with nothing else to provide.

Having the names in the conversation muddies the water a bit.

 

[1972]

Crosby isn't even close to a "one way" player. He is a generation player, the type of player that can produce offensively like no one else in the league, in a league where scoring is low that holds so much value. Just because he doesn't kill penalties doesn't mean he should be valued less, heck PK Subban doesn't kill penalties either. He would be a damn good PKer if Pitts wanted him to, but it doesn't make alot of sense.

 

[1972]

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.

Well obviously the 2-way guy, but it's not black and white like its laid out.

It's more like the 1.40PPG center who has won everything vs the 0.91PPG center who has won everything, both are two way players and one is a selke nominee. I personally think Toews is closer to Bergeron then to Crosby and I have a Toews jersey..

 

[sba]

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.

90-100 point guy, since there's like 3 of them tops in the league. You can find a 50 point 2 way guy and live with it.

For this team, the 90-100 point guy is a no brainer, they have enough two-way guys in the fold. They don't have any elite offensive talent.

 

[joshjull]

Crosby isn't even close to a "one way" player. He is a generation player, the type of player that can produce offensively like no one else in the league, in a league where scoring is low that holds so much value. Just because he doesn't kill penalties doesn't mean he should be valued less, heck PK Subban doesn't kill penalties either. He would be a damn good PKer if Pitts wanted him to, but it doesn't make alot of sense.

Crosby has never been used as a shutdown player or in a defensive role. Thus he isn't a two way player. Being an 11 on a scale of 1-5 offensively doesn't change that. Nothing I've posted has said he isn't the superstar that he is. Nor have I said he is a defensive liability. I also think he's the best center in the game. But for the 100x thats not even the point.

 

[Tapu Coco]

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.

Yep. Clock pretty much nailed it with the very first post of this thread.

JJ, you said this yourself:

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.

The Sabres would be one of those teams going by that trend. Look at the moves Murray has made...bringing in guys like Fasching and Deslauriers, Reinhart, Carrier, Gorges, etc...not to mention what we already had in the pipeline before he took over (Girgs, Larsson, Compher, etc). We have a lot of guys that can play well on both sides of the puck...and we have fewer of those one-dimensional offensive guys (Grigs and Armia off the top of my head, and even then they've been trying to fix that).

Defense does win hockey games, sure...but offense is needed too. Look at LA before they traded for carter. We have plenty of guys that can handle defensive responsibilities, and as Myllz pointed out, there aren't many guys who can dominate games offensively...if we do have a chance at getting one, we better make room for him and deploy him and more defensive-oriented forwards accordingly

 

[Dubi Doo]

Crosby fairly easily.

 

[joshjull]

Well obviously the 2-way guy, but it's not black and white like its laid out.

It's more like the 1.40PPG center who has won everything vs the 0.91PPG center who has won everything, both are two way players and one is a selke nominee. I personally think Toews is closer to Bergeron then to Crosby and I have a Toews jersey..

Yes it is if you're weren't so hung up on Crosby vs Toews. You're getting so lost in the specifics of each player that your missing that they were just used as the high end examples of those types of players. Its not an argument over which of those two specific players you would want.

 

[joshjull]

Yep. Clock pretty much nailed it with the very first post of this thread.

JJ, you said this yourself:



The Sabres would be one of those teams going by that trend. Look at the moves Murray has made...bringing in guys like Fasching and Deslauriers, Reinhart, Carrier, Gorges, etc...not to mention what we already had in the pipeline before he took over (Girgs, Larsson, Compher, etc). We have a lot of guys that can play well on both sides of the puck...and we have fewer of those one-dimensional offensive guys (Grigs and Armia off the top of my head, and even then they've been trying to fix that).

Defense does win hockey games, sure...but offense is needed too. Look at LA before they traded for carter. We have plenty of guys that can handle defensive responsibilities, and as Myllz pointed out, there aren't many guys who can dominate games offensively...if we do have a chance at getting one, we better make room for him and deploy him and more defensive-oriented forwards accordingly

Carter is a two way player. Not sure what the point is your aiming at me?

 

[sba]

Crosby has never been used as a shutdown player or in a defensive role.

His possession numbers are like other planet good...there's barely a need for him to play "defense" like you're thinking and he's still no slouch at it. I've seen plenty of Pens games where he's the guy on the ice for key draws in close games, he's not really that much different of a defensive player than Toews or whoever. It's just that the offense is so great that it gets all the attention.

He's not friggin' Cody Hodgson or anything.

Sure he's not Bergeron either, put he puts up 40-50 more points a year. I mean, that's crazy production.

 

[1972]

Crosby has never been used as a shutdown player or in a defensive role. Thus he isn't a two way player. Being an 11 on a scale of 1-5 offensively doesn't change that. Nothing I've posted has said he isn't the superstar that he is. Nor have I said he is a defensive liability. I also think he's the best center in the game. But for the 100x thats not even the point.

A two player is someone who plays both ends of the rink, which Crosby does and really any good centermen does. which would be a two way player.

Crosby is most definitely an all around hockey player.

anyway since I don't feel like discussing this any further to answer your question I take the "two way player"

 

[Tapu Coco]

Carter is a two way player. Not sure what the point is your aiming at me?

LA had a hard time scoring before getting carter. When they got him, they started scoring more goals in addition to the great defensive play they already had, leading them to a cup

It was just an example trying to reinforce what I said before, defense can win hockey games but not if you don't score goals

 

[Dubi Doo]

Yes it is if you're weren't so hung up on Crosby vs Toews. You're getting so lost in the specifics of each player that your missing that they were just used as the high end examples of those types of players. Its not an argument over which of those two specific players you would want.

It is a little confusing, because crosby is in a tier of his own. Perhaps comparing Toews to a prime Thornton or even Stamkos would be more clear. Didn't Crosby play a shutdown role for Canada this past year? The man's a great all around player who makes players around him light years better, and puts up 100+ point consistently.

 

[joshjull]

It is a little confusing, because crosby is in a tier of his own. Perhaps comparing Toews to a prime Thornton or even Stamkos would be more clear. Didn't Crosby play a shutdown role for Canada this past year? The man's a great all around player who makes players around him light years better, and puts up 100+ point consistently.

Fair enough

 

[joshjull]

LA had a hard time scoring before getting carter. When they got him, they started scoring more goals in addition to the great defensive play they already had, leading them to a cup

It was just an example trying to reinforce what I said before, defense can win hockey games but not if you don't score goals

They added a lot more than Carter and they also didn't score much during this past season. 26th in the NHL in goals for.

 

[Tapu Coco]

They added a lot more than Carter and they also didn't score much during this past season. 26th in the NHL in goals for.

...and then they did the exact same thing by acquiring Gaborik at the deadline last season to fix the exact same issue

 

[joshjull]

...and then they did the exact same thing by acquiring Gaborik at the deadline last season to fix the exact same issue

So has Pittsburgh and many other teams to gear up for the playoffs. The Pens pretty much rebuilt Crosby's line the year they won the Cup by adding Kunitz and Guerin. Thus my question, what is the point you're getting at?

 

[joshjull]

His possession numbers are like other planet good...there's barely a need for him to play "defense" like you're thinking and he's still no slouch at it. I've seen plenty of Pens games where he's the guy on the ice for key draws in close games, he's not really that much different of a defensive player than Toews or whoever. It's just that the offense is so great that it gets all the attention.

He's not friggin' Cody Hodgson or anything.

Sure he's not Bergeron either, put he puts up 40-50 more points a year. I mean, that's crazy production.

Stating Crosby isn't a two way center doesn't mean he sucks defensively or that he isn't the most dominant offensive center in the game thus an incredible driver of possession. When I'm talking about two way center play I'm talking about guys like Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Toews, Kopitar, Bergeron, etc. Crosby is not used in a two way role like they are. Where they are relied on offensively and are also the top defensive centers on their team. Not really sure why stating something that is a fact is so controversial and rage inducing. And its not really the point. I know you know that based on one of your previous posts that accurately addresses what I'm asking.


EDIT: Wanting either type of center I asked about is legit position that can be defended. I was just curious what posters thought on the matter and was awaiting their responses. Instead I've been derailed dealing with angry Crosby posts. I'm probably to blame for that as well Man I butchered the presentation of this.

 

[Tapu Coco]

So has Pittsburgh and many other teams to gear up for the playoffs. The Pens pretty much rebuilt Crosby's line the year they won the Cup by adding Kunitz and Guerin. Thus my question, what is the point you're getting at?

Having a lineup full of two-way players is not a bad thing at all, hence recent success of such teams like LA, Boston, etc. However, good two way play and an emphasis on defense isn't going to win you hockey games unless you can score goals. The score is measured by goals for, not prevented.

Adding offensive players such as gaborik and carter propelled the kings to overcome their scoring problems and win cups. You can't just dispel this by saying other teams geared up too...there are 16 teams per year trying to do that, not just one. That's not the point of what I'm trying to say anyway.

Maybe what I forgot to say was how it relates to the sabres and this whole player type debate. Having enough two way players without enough offensive emphasis and skill can lead to a hard time scoring goals. Thus, adding a player of the "Crosby type", rather than the "Toews type" can address possible scoring issues, and any defensive neutrality/liability can be compensated for by not only greater amounts of production, but other teammates' contributions (for the kings, this would be kopitar, stoll, richards, brown, etc complimenting carter and gaborik bringing more offense).

The Sabres have a fair amount of two way players in the pipeline that can provide this type of support with further development and time, I dropped specific names earlier. With this abundance, and no elite offensive talent in the pipeline, I think it would be more beneficial at this point in time to build around a "Crosby type" than a "Toews type". That's my point.

 

[joshjull]

Having a lineup full of two-way players is not a bad thing at all, hence recent success of such teams like LA, Boston, etc. However, good two way play and an emphasis on defense isn't going to win you hockey games unless you can score goals. The score is measured by goals for, not prevented.

Adding offensive players such as gaborik and carter propelled the kings to overcome their scoring problems and win cups. You can't just dispel this by saying other teams geared up too...there are 16 teams per year trying to do that, not just one. That's not the point of what I'm trying to say anyway.

Maybe what I forgot to say was how it relates to the sabres and this whole player type debate. Having enough two way players without enough offensive emphasis and skill can lead to a hard time scoring goals. Thus, adding a player of the "Crosby type", rather than the "Toews type" can address possible scoring issues, and any defensive neutrality/liability can be compensated for by not only greater amounts of production, but other teammates' contributions (for the kings, this would be kopitar, stoll, richards, brown, etc complimenting carter and gaborik bringing more offense).

The Sabres have a fair amount of two way players in the pipeline that can provide this type of support with further development and time, I dropped specific names earlier. With this abundance, and no elite offensive talent in the pipeline, I think it would be more beneficial at this point in time to build around a "Crosby type" than a "Toews type". That's my point.

But if the team with the best offensive center (Crosby) and arguably one of the top 5 offensive centers on their roster as well (Malkin) had to add offensive help to win a Cup. Then its not really telling us anything about the debate between offensive center vs two way all situations center. Since teams with both have needed to add offensive help

 

[Husko]

Drury or Briere?

 

[Chainshot]

Either? Both?

 

[Moskau]

I take a Toews type 9 times out of 10. But when it's vs Crosby you take Crosby.

 

[kirby11]

I'd take the two way guy. Finding a shut down center who can put up a solid number of points is more challenging than finding more one dimensional wingers to do scoring.

 

[Beerz]

I take Crosby over Towes and it isn't even close. Even tho it makes me cringe because I can't stand Crosby (but if he was on my team I doubt I'd harbor the same feelings) ..


In the general sense it's a hard question to answer because it depends on what the rest of your team looks like... if I had a shutdown 50 point center playing behind Stamkos ...I take Stamkos over Towes too... but If I had garbage behind Stamkos ..I'd probably take Towes over Stamkos