Is Building a Team Around Wingers Viable?

[umwoz]

Not strictly another Edmonton thread, but more of an open question.

If we look at the core of the top teams in the league(currently)...
(Disclaimer: these are simply an estimation of the core from my view)

Pittsburgh: Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Fleury
Tampa Bay: Stamkos, Hedman, Bishop
Detroit: Datsyuk, Howard, Zetterberg, Kronwall

Chicago: Toews, Kane, Keith, Crawford
Ducks: Getzlaf, Perry, Fowler
Blues: Pietrangelo, Shattenkirk, Tarasenko

Now, while you definitely see some impact wingers up there(Perry, Tarasenko, Zetterberg). It definitely seems like these teams prominently feature their centers and defensemen. The only case that immediately comes to mind is Ovechkin.(who was a generational type of scorer when the Caps were dominating)

So the question is, can you build your team in the NHL with the feature piece being a winger?

Click to read more...

 

[Classic Devil]

The Devils did it with Kovalchuk and Parise pretty successfully. But it took two of them.

 

[WarriorofTime]

1 star center 1 star winger 1 star defenseman 1 star goalie would be ideal.

 

[canucks10]

All those teams have a top D-Man & Goalie.
You build a team from the back up & a forward core from the middle out.

 

[umwoz]

The Devils did it with Kovalchuk and Parise pretty successfully. But it took two of them.

Arguably 3... Elias put up 78 points in the year they went to the finals. Unless I'm mistaken and he played mostly center that year.

 

[QJL]

The Rangers went to the cup last year and their strength was at wing. I suppose we will find out in the coming years.

Nash, St. Louis, Zuccarello, Kreider, Hagelin, Stempniak, Fast, Miller, Duclair, Buchnevich

 

[umwoz]

The Rangers went to the cup last year and their strength was at wing. I suppose we will find out in the coming years.

Nash, St. Louis, Zuccarello, Kreider, Hagelin, Stempniak, Fast, Miller, Duclair, Buchnevich

Fair enough... But I feel like the Rangers are the poster child for building your team around defense and goaltending.
(McD, Staal, Girardi.... now Moore, Boyle and obviously Lundqvist)

Their second leading scorer currently is Brassard, and I know Stepan has been near a point a game since returning. Sure their wingers play a prominent role, but I view them more like Chicago who has a core that is built down the middle and on D, with wingers like Hossa, (sometimes)Sharp, Saad etc... that contribute as a result of that core.

 

[DL44]

Out of all the positions you require, winger is of least importance to the construction of a team....

But that doesn't equate to saying they're aren't crucial... they are vital. just not AS vital... as C/D/G.

 

[nwaZ*]

Was Calgary built around Theo Fleury back in the day?

 

[FlyTimmo]

It is generally better to have a #1 center before a #1 LW/RW but, if the team has other solid pieces it is possible to win with your best player being a winger.

Though it is probably better to always build down the middle first.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Fair enough... But I feel like the Rangers are the poster child for building your team around defense and goaltending.
(McD, Staal, Girardi.... now Moore, Boyle and obviously Lundqvist)

Their second leading scorer currently is Brassard, and I know Stepan has been near a point a game since returning. Sure their wingers play a prominent role, but I view them more like Chicago who has a core that is built down the middle and on D, with wingers like Hossa, (sometimes)Sharp, Saad etc... that contribute as a result of that core.

Hawks biggest strength is at wing. Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Saad, Bickell.

 

[umwoz]

Hawks biggest strength is at wing. Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Saad, Bickell.

I would argue that their Selke/Conn Smythe winning Center and their two-time Norris winning defenseman are the pieces around which their team is built. But I understand that Kane and Sharp absolutely are key players, and the rest of those guys do a great job rounding out the depth that is their signature.

 

[hallhopkinseberle]

Yup just look at Edmonton it has worked well for them

 

[WarriorofTime]

I would argue that their Selke/Conn Smythe winning Center and their two-time Norris winning defenseman are the pieces around which their team is built.

This is semantics. What do you mean by "built"? Teams are built around an entire core, not one or two guys (unless that's all there is to their core because they have nobody else worthy).

 

[Brainiac]

It's not impossible to do, of course. But when your star player, your go to guy is a scoring winger, you're just making things a little more difficult.

 

[umwoz]

This is semantics. What do you mean by "built"? Teams are built around an entire core, not one or two guys (unless that's all there is to their core because they have nobody else worthy).

Essentially that looking at Chicago, their two best players are Keith and Toews. If you take those players away the Blackhawks(IMO) are not an elite team in the NHL.(although I'm sure they would still make the playoffs)

Maybe it is a little semantically blurry, but I tend to have a tighter definition of core.

 

[startainfection*]

1 star center 1 star winger 1 star defenseman 1 star goalie would be ideal.

I'd rather have 2 star centers and 2 star dmen

 

[Virtanen18]

Preds have been sort of successful building the back end up and having a star goalie. Can only imagine if they had a star forward.

 

[Bee Sheriff]

Aren't the leafs trying to do this right now?

 

[Frenchy]

When you build a team, you usually build it from the Draft and all teams will tell you that they will draft the BPA no matter his position on the ice. You never draft on needs , because what you may need this year is probably not what you will need in 2-3 years when this junior player will be NHL ready .

That said , after the draft , there are two popular way of thinking, When you build a team . 1- you build from the back end going forward , a good goalie , good Dman and then good forwards . 2- you build your teams strong in the middle with good centers . I believe in both cases ( 1 or 2 ) that wings are secondary in the building plans . It's fun if you get a quality one in the draft , but usually wings are complementary pieces that you add later in your building process , by trading excess positions players that you previously drafted in the past .

 

[Maplebeasts]

Aren't the leafs trying to do this right now?

Well we are also lucky to have a pretty good goalie in Bernier, but for the most part our strength is definitely on the wing. It hasn't translated to any massive success. We're probably a star centre and another good d away from serious contention

 

[WarriorofTime]

Preds have been sort of successful building the back end up and having a star goalie. Can only imagine if they had a star forward.

Filip Forsberg bro.

I'd rather have 2 star centers and 2 star dmen

Having a center and winger is ideal since you have flexibility in that you can split them up but also have the option of putting them together when you want to form a super line.

 

[tsujimoto74]

Hawks biggest strength is at wing. Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Saad, Bickell.

Maybe the most depth there, but IMO the driving force of Chicago's success is their D (particularly how good/quick they are at transitioning from defense to offense). Keith, Seabrook, and Hjalmarsson are all top 2 quality d-men, and obviously one of them being a 2x Norris-winner is a pretty big deal.

 

[KingsFan7824]

A winger as the #1 guy on the team? Difficult. Possible, but difficult. Hull in St.Louis couldn't get beyond the 2nd round. He goes to Dallas, a team that had everything but a Hull type player, and he and they end up winning a Cup.

The Kings in 2012 bring in Carter as a RW. Last year, it was Gaborik, and he led the league in playoff goals. Williams ended up as the Conn Smythe winner. None of those guys were who the Kings have been built around, but at the same time they've all been vital.

Most of the time, you're going to need every piece to ultimately win. Carolina, with the lack of a #1D, being an exception. And of course whoever you have on the team has to play well and produce when needed. You can get wingers though. Of the pieces needed to win a Cup, in general, wingers are the easiest to acquire for the least amount.

 

[Menzinger]

This is semantics. What do you mean by "built"? Teams are built around an entire core, not one or two guys (unless that's all there is to their core because they have nobody else worthy).

Yeah, people get way too transfixed on the semantics of the issue. You take away those wingers, I don't think the Hawks win their cups: they are central to that teams core.