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

[Digable5]

Give me the offensive dynamo.

He may not play D all that well, but by controlling so much of the offensive play, its of far less concern.

The best defense is a good offense?

 

[joshjull]

3 games into the season, who the **** cares. Get either when we can get it and build the team around the player. Beggars can't be choosers.

I care and I'm not sure what being 3 games into the season (now 4) has to do with the thread topic. Obviously we would take which ever is available to us. Not sure what that has to do with the thread topic either since I'm not asking which one the Sabres should get or need.

The thread topic was intended to be a rhetorical question with no wrong answer. Just looking for a discussion on the matter and see where posters opinions are.

 

[sabresandcanucks]

To your point Josh, I don't think there is a wrong answer. I would choose Toews and the reason for that decision is twofold. One, he is a hell of a player. Two, he is not offensively gifted enough like Crosby to generate goals on his own which forces management to bring in the Hossa's of the world to add scoring depth. With Crosby, because he is such a threat, management tends to look for mediocre players to support him knowing that he will make them better.

In the end, one player cannot win you a championship, depth does.

 

[GerbeSonOfGloin]

In a vacuum, Crosby, easily.

Taking the Sabres' current situation into account, Crosby even more easily. The current best young center on our roster is Girgensons, who if everything goes well could become a Kesler-type 2C, and the best young center in the system is Reinhart, who doesn't have quite the explosive offensive firepower of most #2-overalls, but makes up for it by being a two-way, character guy. What our system lacks right now is truly high-end talent.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

To your point Josh, I don't think there is a wrong answer. I would choose Toews and the reason for that decision is twofold. One, he is a hell of a player. Two, he is not offensively gifted enough like Crosby to generate goals on his own which forces management to bring in the Hossa's of the world to add scoring depth. With Crosby, because he is such a threat, management tends to look for mediocre players to support him knowing that he will make them better.

In the end, one player cannot win you a championship, depth does.

There's no wrong answer and no right answer, this thread is simply an exercise in rhetoric. The original question implies that one player or the other will win a championship. Both players can be part of it neither can win it alone. But hey I've just been contradictory because I've got nothing better to do with my time.

 

[flyingpig]

One who can win a faceoff????

 

[Sabretooth]

I care and I'm not sure what being 3 games into the season (now 4) has to do with the thread topic. Obviously we would take which ever is available to us. Not sure what that has to do with the thread topic either since I'm not asking which one the Sabres should get or need.

The thread topic was intended to be a rhetorical question with no wrong answer. Just looking for a discussion on the matter and see where posters opinions are.

I meant, the way this team looks thus far into the season. I was despairing after how bad the team looked against anaheim. The team needs talent and right now it doesn't matter what type of talent, it just needs talent, and it needs to build a style to fit the talent, and not be constrained by any preconceived notion of what type of style to play. None of these centers that fit the types you're talking about were selected by choice due to playing a specific style, and the sabres aren't likely to have that choice either. We drafted a Reinhart and hockey gods willing we'll be able to draft a McDavid or Eichel, and we have a few centers in our prospect pools who could possibly develop into top line centers as well, and none of them will be exactly like any existing center already in the league. They'll all have their own unique skillsets and it'll be up to TM to build the team to make the most of those skillsets. If you draft a crosby and try to force him to be a toews, then you'll probably not be getting the best results.

Sorry you're frustrated by some of the responses but there isn't really a whole lot to discuss. Sabres would be fortunate to have either type of center you describe, and either type would make this team better, and its hard to have a preference at all when the team is so devoid of that type of talent at all.

Would I rather have a Ferrari or a Lamborghini? Well its not a question I ever put any thought into whatsoever because there is no way I'm ever planning on having either. And if some day my fortunes cause me to happen into one or the other, I'm certainly not going to be thinking "well this is nice, but I'd have preferred the other".

 

[joshjull]

I meant, the way this team looks thus far into the season. I was despairing after how bad the team looked against anaheim. The team needs talent and right now it doesn't matter what type of talent, it just needs talent, and it needs to build a style to fit the talent, and not be constrained by any preconceived notion of what type of style to play. None of these centers that fit the types you're talking about were selected by choice due to playing a specific style, and the sabres aren't likely to have that choice either. We drafted a Reinhart and hockey gods willing we'll be able to draft a McDavid or Eichel, and we have a few centers in our prospect pools who could possibly develop into top line centers as well, and none of them will be exactly like any existing center already in the league. They'll all have their own unique skillsets and it'll be up to TM to build the team to make the most of those skillsets. If you draft a crosby and try to force him to be a toews, then you'll probably not be getting the best results.

Sorry you're frustrated by some of the responses but there isn't really a whole lot to discuss. Sabres would be fortunate to have either type of center you describe, and either type would make this team better, and its hard to have a preference at all when the team is so devoid of that type of talent at all.

Would I rather have a Ferrari or a Lamborghini? Well its not a question I ever put any thought into whatsoever because there is no way I'm ever planning on having either. And if some day my fortunes cause me to happen into one or the other, I'm certainly not going to be thinking "well this is nice, but I'd have preferred the other".

Actually there is a lot to discuss if posters actually read the OP and knew their was a context or qualifiers given to the thread title question. Its not being asked without context.

That context being…….

1) The top teams in the NHL are more and more built around two way players up front, especially at center. All of the centers for the 3 teams that have won the last 5 Cups (LA, Boston and Chicago) are either two way all situations centers or defensive centers. None are offensive centers. Thats not to say there isn't an offensive player or two in the mix but not at center

2) The contract rules have changed in the new CBA making it much more expensive cap wise to sign core players. That means going forward teams will have less core players locked up taking up more cap space than before. As an example, Kane and Toews currently take up 18% of the upper limit of cap space. Next season they may take up as much as 30% (obviously dependent on where the upper limit is). By comparison this year Kane/Toews/Keith combined take up 26%. In fact they are very lucky Keith signed his big extension prior to the new rules. Its why he has a cap hit of only 5.5mil. Had he signed under the new rules. Its likely his cap hit would be pretty much on par with Kane/Toews. Meaning those three combined would be taking up 40-45% of the Hawks cap space.

With the above qualifiers in mind which type of center would you prefer to be locked up as your #1 center? Or which one would be better from a team building pov? I had answered the all situations type (or Toews type) because they can address more roles on the team thus freeing up cap space for depth. I looked at it as getting more bang for the buck.


My frustrations stems from the fact that very few posters actually addressed what I asked. Very few responses addressed the qualifiers. Instead I get arguments over who is better Crosby -vs- Toews, which one the Sabres should get, etc. Things I never asked. Nor was I simply asking which is the better type of center to have in a vacuum. Which you obviously thought I was asking based on your snarky and dismissive comment about whether you would want want a Ferrari or a Lamborghini. Not to mention your previous post dumping all over the thread generally. Its frustrating to be called out on a thread topic when the one calling you out is not actually understanding whats being asked. Part of the problem was I initially didn't do great job laying out my point. I modified the OP but by then things had already gone sideways.

 

[ZZamboni]

I knew exactly what the OP was asking. That's why I said I would prefer a two way center over a "what's defense again?" center. If I may suggest... Next time don't even say a players name. Too many posters focused on Crosby and Toews because you mentioned them. That made a few not read the exact question and gave the chance to turn it into a pissing match of those players.

The thread title says pretty much everything that needed to be asked

 

[joshjull]

I knew exactly what the OP was asking. That's why I said I would prefer a two way center over a "what's defense again?" center. If I may suggest... Next time don't even say a players name. Too many posters focused on Crosby and Toews because you mentioned them. That made a few not read the exact question and gave the chance to turn it into a pissing match of those players.

The thread title says pretty much everything that needed to be asked

That they did

 

[Sabretooth]

Actually there is a lot to discuss if posters actually read the OP and knew their was a context or qualifiers given to the thread title question. Its not being asked without context.

That context being…….

1) The top teams in the NHL are more and more built around two way players up front, especially at center. All of the centers for the 3 teams that have won the last 5 Cups (LA, Boston and Chicago) are either two way all situations centers or defensive centers. None are offensive centers. Thats not to say there isn't an offensive player or two in the mix but not at center

2) The contract rules have changed in the new CBA making it much more expensive cap wise to sign core players. That means going forward teams will have less core players locked up taking up more cap space than before. As an example, Kane and Toews currently take up 18% of the upper limit of cap space. Next season they may take up as much as 30% (obviously dependent on where the upper limit is). By comparison this year Kane/Toews/Keith combined take up 26%. In fact they are very lucky Keith signed his big extension prior to the new rules. Its why he has a cap hit of only 5.5mil. Had he signed under the new rules. Its likely his cap hit would be pretty much on par with Kane/Toews. Meaning those three combined would be taking up 40-45% of the Hawks cap space.

With the above qualifiers in mind which type of center would you prefer to be locked up as your #1 center? Or which one would be better from a team building pov? I had answered the all situations type (or Toews type) because they can address more roles on the team thus freeing up cap space for depth. I looked at it as getting more bang for the buck.


My frustrations stems from the fact that very few posters actually addressed what I asked. Very few responses addressed the qualifiers. Instead I get arguments over who is better Crosby -vs- Toews, which one the Sabres should get, etc. Things I never asked. Nor was I simply asking which is the better type of center to have in a vacuum. Which you obviously thought I was asking based on your snarky and dismissive comment about whether you would want want a Ferrari or a Lamborghini. Not to mention your previous post dumping all over the thread generally. Its frustrating to be called out on a thread topic when the one calling you out is not actually understanding whats being asked. Part of the problem was I initially didn't do great job laying out my point. I modified the OP but by then things had already gone sideways.

Look at all the top teams and the top centers, how many actually got to choose the types of top, franchise centers they ended up with, really. The penguins didn't end up with crosby and malkin because they made a choice to draft them over comparable 2-way players, they drafted them because they were the best players available. By rights, the blackhawks were lucky to end up with toews with the 3rd overall pick. Very few if any teams actually get any choice at all who their top pick franchise centerman is or what type of mold he fits into.

I'd argue that the success of the Kings, Blackhawks, and Bruins has more to do with the fact that they have better built teams from top to bottom than because their top line center fits a specific mold. That said, Kopitar, Toews, and Krejci were 9th, 12th, and 11th in points among centers across the league last year. In terms of just goals scored, Kopitar and Toews were only 7 and 8 goals behind crosby, less than .1 gpg. Toews, despite getting a decent chunk of SH TOI, was just 3rd highest amoung centers on his own team for SH TOI last year, while leading PP TOI for centers. Koptitar was 2nd amoung the kings centers (close enough to Jarret Stoll to be tied for 1st really), and also led his team's centers in PP time. Krejci was used SH just slightly more than crosby (4th highest amoung centers on the bruins), and also led the bruins centers in PP time. Easy argument to make that he is utilized more like Crosby's mold than Toews'. Crosby's 40ish minutes of SH TOI is lowest amoung all the centers I've mentioned actually finished 2nd to only Sutter in terms of absolute SH TOI amoung centers on the penguins (although he was beat out by a committee of other centers on a per game basis).

What I'm trying to say is that these superior 2-way or defense-first centers also just happen to be amoung the best centers in the league in scoring anyways, and some (Krejci) even fit the description/comparables of/to the "offensive dynamo" rather than "2-way all situations".

Lets look at the teams that had higher scoring centers than Kopitar. We've got Pittsburgh, the Sharks, the Caps, the Stars, the Flyers, and the Ducks. The Pens, Sharks, and Ducks were all contenders, while the others weren't for reasons that had to do with more than just the type of centers on the team. That said...

Getzlaf was the 2nd highest scoring center in the league last year. He was also 2nd on his team amoung centers in SH TOI. Pavelski led the sharks centers in both points and SH TOI. These 2 are basically the definition of 2-way all situation players. Backstrom was the 2nd highest center on the Caps in SH TOI. Giroux - #2 center on the Flyers in SH TOI. Only Seguin for the Stars joins Crosby and Malkin in the not hardly used on the PK group. I should also mention Stamkos would likely be in the "Offensive Dynamo" group in the top 10 scoring centers, had he been healthy the entire season.

So when you start to dig into it you can see how the line between "offensive dynamo" and "all situations 2-way" becomes blurry at best. The top centers for the 3 teams you mentioned are all amoungst the top point scoring centers anyways. There really is no real group of "offensive dynamo" centers that are at a higher scoring level than the so called "all situations 2-way" centers. The 2-way centers you say you prefer all produce about as many points as the offense-only centers, so yeah there's really not a whole lot of room for debate. You're basically asking if you want a center of contributes a lot of offense, or a center that contributes a lot of offense and also plays good defensively.

Add that to the fact that teams really don't get to choose what type of center they get if/when they get an opportunity to get that franchise center. It just leaves me wondering what you're really trying to get out of this discussion at all.

Now, on one hand you tell me you're looking for a discussion that has no wrong answer, and only the other you tell me my answer that we just need to get top talent without worrying about the type is being snarky and dismissive and dumping all over the thread. Well, now I've supported my position with more effort and stats than pretty much anyone who attempted to answer (including you). I ask you, what is the real, tangible difference between the 2 types of centers you're comparing? The assumption is that the offensive dynamo would produce more points than the 2-way player, but I think I've demonstrated that such offense-only top tier centers don't really exist, or at the very least maybe only account for 10% of the top centers in the league. And as this is the sabres forum, what does preference for one type or the other mean as far as how the sabres should think of/handle/develop the centers already in the system for the top line role, or how the sabres should approach the 2015 draft under the assumption the sabres will have a choice between one of the 2 top centers slated to go at the top of the draft? Or, should the sabres be trying to acquire a top center of the type you like in another way, and who should that be/how can they get him? Should the sabres ever pass at the opportunity to get a top talent just because they don't fit the mold you want in a top line center?