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

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

A revised OP


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.

What's the point of this? Do I want my #1 center to be one of the best 5 players in the league? Yes.

 

[Tapu Coco]

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

That year, Malkin had 113 points and Crosby had 103. Next closest was Jordan Staal with 49. Highest scoring winger was Petr Sykora (46 pts). Historically, the penguins have locked money into their centers and defensemen, leaving little room for their wingers, and that continues to this day. Going by the numbers, it certainly wasn't Crosby's or Malkin's fault that the wingers weren't producing, as those types of players make the players around them better and produce more. Of course changes had to be made, wingers like Satan, Sykora, and Fedotenko weren't going to cut it.

And I said that was beside the point, I gave you my explanation of why I'd rather have the crosby type. Isn't that what you wanted?

 

[joshjull]

That year, Malkin had 113 points and Crosby had 103. Next closest was Jordan Staal with 49. Highest scoring winger was Petr Sykora (46 pts). Historically, the penguins have locked money into their centers and defensemen, leaving little room for their wingers, and that continues to this day. Going by the numbers, it certainly wasn't Crosby's or Malkin's fault that the wingers weren't producing, as those types of players make the players around them better and produce more. Of course changes had to be made, wingers like Satan, Sykora, and Fedotenko weren't going to cut it.

And I said that was beside the point, I gave you my explanation of why I'd rather have the crosby type. Isn't that what you wanted?

Yes it is and thanks

 

[Russ Tyler]

Can the Sabres make the playoffs with Tyler Ennis as their #1 center?

 

[Beerz]

Can the Sabres make the playoffs with Tyler Ennis as their #1 center?

Yes.

But not win a Cup.

 

[joshjull]

What's the point of this? Do I want my #1 center to be one of the best 5 players in the league? Yes.

Me too

As aside I've always wanted to ask what your avatar is. Is that Bob Marley with a blue Yoda on his back?

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

Me too

As aside I've always wanted to ask what your avatar is. Is that Bob Marley with a blue Yoda on his back?

It is actually.

 

[Paxon]

In theory I'll take the two-way guy, but it really comes down to the two specific players. I think you'll find a lot of the so-called offensive dynamo legit #1 centers are quite effective defensively and especially so considering puck possession, and especially as they get older and round out their games. I hate to get hung up on the example as others have, but Crosby is simply the best player in the world, and anyone who'd take Toews over him specifically is nutty in my professional opinion. I think a better comparison would be Stamkos vs. Toews, as Stamkos is basically average defensively but the best goal scorer in the league. They're much more on the same tier of player. Who would I take? I'd probably say Toews.

Can the Sabres make the playoffs with Tyler Ennis as their #1 center?

We did it with Roy as our #1 center. So, yes. They won't go anywhere though.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

Trade Crosby for Toews. Is Chicago better? YES.

Winner

 

[Man of Principles]

A guy like Toews is going to make his presence felt whether he is or is not on the scoresheet. Crosby's not really doing anything if he's not scoring. When he's not scoring, all I see is a bunch of fiddling around.

Players like Toews and Kane have risen to the challenge in the past few playoffs. Crosby has flopped. Pittsburgh as a whole has flopped because their top 6 is designed to be dynamic offensively. It's been proven time and time again that that approach doesn't work in postseason play.

 

[ZZamboni]

I've always liked the two way center more than the "what's defense again?" type player. i prefer all 4 centers be good and responsible at both ends of the ice.

 

[Crazy Tasty]

The only reason that I stated Eichel earlier, is that it appears he's a mixture of both. He appears to have great offensive skill (maybe not elite) and is no stranger to the defensive zone. If I have my choice, I'm taking that type of player for my #1.

If it's a choice between Crosby or Toews for this team right now, I take Crosby. We have no other offensive threat in the organization.

 

[yahhockey]

A team is better off with the two way center than they are with a one dimensional scoring machine however there is a line in points production where the two way player becomes less valuable. If you are talking in the 70+ points range while being dependable on the back end of the ice then it's a no-brainer with the two-way center. If the question were a Bergeron-type where the points total is 10ish less then it's a harder question to answer and may tip the scales in favour of the scoring forward. If the question were which player would you rather have added to the current Sabres lineup the answer may be different but if we're asking simply a generic which type of player would you select to build a team around I'll take the two way center.

 

[enthusiast]

I choose neither and rangers build

 

[Splintered Sherwood]

I think the answer is an easy one, in that I'd rather have a Crosby than a Toews, for the simple reason that Toews' effectiveness is slightly cast and coach dependent whereas Crosby would still rack up 60+ points centring a line of Ville Leino and a fire hydrant. Toews' leadership would be marginal or non-existent on the Winnipeg Jets or any other team that would be floundering because no amount of superb two way play can elevate a mediocre team to a great one.

I suppose the answer to the question lies in the following: which player makes the rest of the team better? I think the offensive dynamo player allows a coach to spread out the talent to the 2nd and 3rd lines as you can have someone marginal or bordering on the mediocre on the wing of your talented centre's line and get away with it. I mean, by rights, on talent alone there was no justifiable reason as to why Marty McSorley played on a line with Wayne Gretzky, but yet there he was, just there to make sure no one took liberties with the Great One by rearranging people's faces, if needed.

 

[NotABadPeriod]

Winning is a team attribute. I don't know how you just attribute it to one player.

Toews has had the benefit of better built teams around him. He's got a very solid blue line (Keith, Seabrook, Hjalmarsson, had Campbell, etc.) He's had a couple of elite forwards (Kane, Hossa) and top-tier supporting players like Sharp.

Crosby's best blue line has been what, Gonchar, Orpik, and Scuderi? Yes he has Malkin, but their whole problem is they haven't surrounded those two with enough supporting guys. Hossa was there briefly, Neal and Staal were solid, but beyond that you're talking about Chris Kunitz and Pascal Dupuis. Toews wouldn't be able to save that roster any more than Crosby is.

All things being equal (namely contract), I'd take a Crosby-type over a Toews-type every time to build my team.

 

[Jame]

Yes.

But not win a Cup.

You can't be serious?

 

[Jame]

I think the answer is an easy one, in that I'd rather have a Crosby than a Toews, for the simple reason that Toews' effectiveness is slightly cast and coach dependent whereas Crosby would still rack up 60+ points centring a line of Ville Leino and a fire hydrant. Toews' leadership would be marginal or non-existent on the Winnipeg Jets or any other team that would be floundering because no amount of superb two way play can elevate a mediocre team to a great one.

I suppose the answer to the question lies in the following: which player makes the rest of the team better? I think the offensive dynamo player allows a coach to spread out the talent to the 2nd and 3rd lines as you can have someone marginal or bordering on the mediocre on the wing of your talented centre's line and get away with it. I mean, by rights, on talent alone there was no justifiable reason as to why Marty McSorley played on a line with Wayne Gretzky, but yet there he was, just there to make sure no one took liberties with the Great One by rearranging people's faces, if needed.

Said Terry Murray to Daryl Sutter

 

[Beerz]

You can't be serious?

I can. And I am.

 

[Jame]

I can. And I am.

Fanboyism will do that to you

 

[Beerz]

Fanboyism will do that to you

Fanboyism?

 

[Jame]

Fanboyism?

It's the dominant religion on HF

 

[Kublakhan]

Tough to answer because I would think much of that would depend on the makeup of the rest of the team.

At this stage, I think I'd still rather have a Crosby for this team just to get that level of raw offensive talent, but... yeah, that's a tough one.

We need a superstar.. or two.. one to put the puck in the net and the only guy that can stop the first guy from putting the puck in the net..

 

[Beerz]

It's the dominant religion on HF

Meh. Forget it. I figure this is just an attempt to lure Stokes into Ennis argument 567.

Have at it.

 

[Jame]

Meh. Forget it. I figure this is just an attempt to lure Stokes into Ennis argument 567.

Have at it.

Not at all. But I understand not wanting to defend such a silly statement. I mean, imagine what you'd have to come up with to support the idea that a 5th year, 25 yr old, undersized center, who's never even scored 50 PTs is capable of being a 1st line center of a playoff team.
Lol

Tyler Ennis is a 1st line center on a lottery team.