Is Building a Team Around Wingers Viable?

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
53,660
30,952
40N 83W (approx)
I think the idea is that while wingers are just as vital to team success as quality centers and blueliners, they're a lot easier to come by than either of the other two so it makes sense to focus on those instead.
 

Mickey Marner

Registered User
Jul 9, 2014
19,225
20,758
Dystopia
Not if you're goal is to win the cup. Strength on the wings is a luxury and less conducive to winning than strength at any other position.

Just go down the list of Stanley cup champs and you'll see an elite center and strong center depth, a bona fide #1D + a solid D group or 2 other huge minute munchers and timely goaltending are the keys to success, with almost no exceptions.
 

Brainiac

Registered Offender
Feb 17, 2013
12,709
610
Montreal
And keeping with the OP's premise, we have two good examples in Ovechkin and Kessel.

Both of these guys are all-stars, can finish top 10 or top 5 in scoring. Goals and talent galore. Yet they haven't been close to winning it all.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to diminish their talent and achievements. But you just can't compare that with, say, Kane. Not because of talent, but because of context. On the Hawks, the go to guys are Toews and Keith. Then Kane. Put Kessel on the Hawks instead of Kane and nobody here is talking about Kessel not being clutch or anything.

A guy like Kessel could easily win a Conn Smythe on the right team. But the sad reality is that you can't build your team around him.
 

Crede777

Deputized
Dec 16, 2009
14,611
4,124
Ovechkin, Nash in Columbus, Kovalchuk in Atlanta, Iginla in Calgary, Hall. I think when a team's far and away best player is a winger, they can have problems.
 

Atas2000

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
13,601
3,269
I don't like dogmatic schemes to build a team. You need your pieces to be cohesive. Look at Stamkos struggling without St.Lous(yeah, despite his points their 1st line is not working). Stamkos is a center, but he's an elite scorer. A winger like St.Louis with 70 assist a year was ideal for him. You can't pin it down to positionsonly. There are playmakers, scorers, grinders. You need a good mix. If you can get some elite wingers, go for it, but think of getting them centers to work with that fit in.
 

Purity*

Registered User
Jan 29, 2010
8,446
1
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.

Debatable. Lots of Hawks fans I've talked to always tell me Kane is equally as valuable.

Having a #1C #1D and #1W seems to be the most versatile and flexible setup. Acquiring Gaborik last year is what put the Kings over the top (he led playoffs in goal-scoring). Having that speedy/talented scoring winger is what breaks open those tight-checking, 1-goal playoff games. Having your best scorer being a C is definitely viable too (IE: Krecji in Boston), but being able to mix your best C and W (like LA/Chi) can prove to be very useful. The Blues past playoff disappointments have been attributed to not having that super-talented scorer to break things open when needed (they seem to have their answer now in Tarasenko).
 

TonyTinglebone

Registered User
Oct 6, 2008
1,245
13
Not if you're goal is to win the cup. Strength on the wings is a luxury and less conducive to winning than strength at any other position.

Just go down the list of Stanley cup champs and you'll see an elite center and strong center depth, a bona fide #1D + a solid D group or 2 other huge minute munchers and timely goaltending are the keys to success, with almost no exceptions.

The only team that comes to mind to win without an elite centre is the Lafleur led Habs. The most important members of those teams were at right wing, the big 3 on defence and Dryden.

And even in this case Lemaire was no slouch in the middle.
 
May 27, 2012
17,070
856
Earth
Not sure if Washington should be listed. They do have a #1C in Backstrom, the guy is a PPG player. He is no slouch. The supporting cast and goaltending is what's hurting them.
 

Alexander the Gr8

Registered User
May 2, 2013
31,602
12,666
Toronto
Not sure if Washington should be listed. They do have a #1C in Backstrom, the guy is a PPG player. He is no slouch. The supporting cast and goaltending is what's hurting them.

Absolutely. During the young guns days, we were mostly missing a solid goalie (Varly was too shaky) and an actual #1D (Green was a 4th forward). Now we're just not talented enough.
 

CpatainCanuck

Registered User
Sep 18, 2008
6,702
3,482
The only team that comes to mind to win without an elite centre is the Lafleur led Habs. The most important members of those teams were at right wing, the big 3 on defence and Dryden.

And even in this case Lemaire was no slouch in the middle.

Yes, 3 time 90 point scorer Lemaire was just a defensive centre. It is Krejci, Bergeron, Toews-the players who struggle to score 70 points-who are the real elite. :sarcasm:
 

lifeisruff

Registered User
Oct 29, 2009
1,852
70
wny
Ovechkin, Nash in Columbus, Kovalchuk in Atlanta, Iginla in Calgary, Hall. I think when a team's far and away best player is a winger, they can have problems.

Not to mention Vanek and Pominville in Buffalo and Kessel and JVR in Toronto
 

Algernop Kreider

Ant strength
Mar 9, 2014
2,243
478
New York
Not sure if Washington should be listed. They do have a #1C in Backstrom, the guy is a PPG player. He is no slouch. The supporting cast and goaltending is what's hurting them.

Saying Washington shouldn't be listed is missing the point. Obviously a team with only Ovechkin won't win, nor would a team with only Crosby, only Weber, or only Lundqvist.

The relatively recent run of successful Capitals teams shows that, with the right supporting cast, a really good team can be built around a star winger.

On its own, the fact that Ovechkin has other good players around him doesn't mean he isn't clearly the primary part of the team.
 

SLarmer28*

Guest
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.
The Chicago Blackhawks have one of best #1, #2, #3 defenseman collectively in the NHL:

Keith - #1
Seabrook - #2
Hjalmarsson - #3 (criminally underrated)
 

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
25,156
10,136
I'd argue that in some respects, the Blackhawks are built around wingers. A large portion of their core are wingers and beyond Toews, they've been making a go of it with a pretty underwhelming center ice position.

Obviously their "go to" guy, captain, all around superstar happens to be a Center...and they've got a pretty superb defence pairing as well. But the number of other centers they've run through during their years atop the league is pretty long, and not filled with big names. They've leaned on some really prominent wingers though.
 

WarriorofTime

Registered User
Jul 3, 2010
27,690
15,640
Ovechkin, Nash in Columbus, Kovalchuk in Atlanta, Iginla in Calgary, Hall. I think when a team's far and away best player is a winger, they can have problems.

If a team has a far and away best player in general that usually means they're not good enough to win. Ideally you have a few of those guys regardless of position.
 

Spade

Resident Tool
Mar 12, 2014
874
167
Digging a Hole
Was Calgary built around Theo Fleury back in the day?

When they won the Cup? They were built around a team that had Doug Gilmour and Joe Nieuwendyk up the middle. They also had guys like Joey Mullen (who scored 110+ points that year) and Hakan Loob as their top wingers. Fleury came in midway and became a crucial secondary scoring option, but he definitely was not the core of the team at the time.

That Flames team was pretty loaded in retrospect. Gary Roberts. Joel Otto. Brad McCrimmon. Rob Ramage. Al MacInnis and Gary Suter. And only 3 players were older than 30 at the time of their Cup win.

Fleury became the franchise player once everyone got traded or left.
 

Legionnaire

Help On The Way
Jul 10, 2002
44,253
3,964
LA-LA Land
No. It is not. All you do is look at the history of the Stanley Cup winners to see that the vast majority are built down the middle and not around wing.
 

SLarmer28*

Guest
I'd argue that in some respects, the Blackhawks are built around wingers. A large portion of their core are wingers and beyond Toews, they've been making a go of it with a pretty underwhelming center ice position.
Marcus Kruger is one of the best fourth line centers in the NHL especially when you take into account faceoff percentage and penalty killing ability.
 
May 27, 2012
17,070
856
Earth
Saying Washington shouldn't be listed is missing the point. Obviously a team with only Ovechkin won't win, nor would a team with only Crosby, only Weber, or only Lundqvist.

The relatively recent run of successful Capitals teams shows that, with the right supporting cast, a really good team can be built around a star winger.

On its own, the fact that Ovechkin has other good players around him doesn't mean he isn't clearly the primary part of the team.

I get what you are saying, but even then the Capitals in those successes they still had a #1C in Backstrom. I could understand if OV had Bozak as the #1C throughout those years then you build around the winger. I think Backstrom is underrated, and should get more credit than what he gets right now.
 

TonyTinglebone

Registered User
Oct 6, 2008
1,245
13
Yes, 3 time 90 point scorer Lemaire was just a defensive centre. It is Krejci, Bergeron, Toews-the players who struggle to score 70 points-who are the real elite. :sarcasm:

A little different when you have Lemaire who was at best the 6th most important player to his team in his best cup winning year.

Not saying Lemaire wasn't a great player just that those teams were by no means built around him. Bergeron/Krejci are central pieces of the Bruins and Toews is the centre piece of the Blackhawks.
 

nik jr

Registered User
Sep 25, 2005
10,798
7
strength at C is much more common among great teams.


2 dynasties, '50s DRW and '70s habs, were stronger at W than C. howe and lafleur were the best offensive players of their time and played like classic C's, though. they carried the puck a lot, were great possession players and were elite playmakers.


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?
zetterberg is a C, and rarely plays W.


1 star center 1 star winger 1 star defenseman 1 star goalie would be ideal.
better to have 2 star C's and no star W's than 1 star C and 1 star W.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->