Is it better to have balanced team and not top heavy talent?

That team was talented, I've always disagreed with those who imply that Roy singlehandedly carried them, but don't forget these are pre-dead puck era numbers. As much as I'd kill for a 1-2 tandem of Damphousse and Muller (two of my all time favourites too!) today, this was a year where the 10th highest scorer in the league was Dr. Mark Recchi with 123 points. In the past few years, getting even a PPG would make you close to a top 5 scorer in the league.

I just looked up the stats for that year, of the teams to make the playoffs, only three didn't have at least one PPG player - Montreal, New Jersey and Washington. Damphousse's 97 points would be like 74 points in the past two years.

 

Roy carried those Montreal teams as much as any player in history has carried a team to the cup.

They weren't bad teams but they weren't cup calibre rosters without Roy. '86 had an over the hill Robinson and an up and coming Chelios but really... not a cup team. We also had the added benefit of missing the Oilers in the finals too.

Edit: Just checked... Robinson was an 82 point player that year. Okay, maybe not quite over the hill.

 

Scoring is not everything, as a crappy defense will end a team's playoff hopes real fast.

They still fielded three lines, and their 4th line of Dupuis, Adams, and Satan held didn't **** things up for them.

Crosby's line
Malkin's line
Staal's line

Players they traded for, such as Chris Kunitz and Bill Guerin, had high PPG stat, with Kunitz scoring 18 points in 20 games and Guerin 12 point in 17 games.

You cite that no one else were 100 pt players, but there were eight players that scored 30 or more points.

If I recall, their shutdown third line was Kennedy-Stall-Cooke. All three of those "third liners" broke 30 points during the regular season.

And don't forget Max Talbot went crazy that postseason and posted 14 points.

 

Teams like the Pens are extremely top heavy, where the Hawks are top heavy but they have more stars that are a notch or two below guys like Sid or Geno. I agree that we need a gamebreaking player(s), but we shouldn't sacrifice depth. Secondary scoring and team defence are the things that win you cups. That's the difference between a team with a star and a star team.

Our Gamebreakers are:
Price (Top Goalie, can steal games)
Subban (Can play tons of minutes, plays every situation, has tons of intangibles and able to make strong individual plays)
Markov(on the bubble IMO, Isn't quite where he was but can really take a game over PP wise and in transition)

Potential Gamebreakers:
Galchenyuk
Beaulieu (Ceiling only)
Collberg (Ceiling only)

As for our other young players and prospects (Max, Eller, DD, Gally, Tinordi, etc) They are what you need to take that extra step and I believe we are in a huge transition phase for the Habs. It's funny that MT took a two year deal despite most coaches being signed for at least three years. Unless he is God behind the bench, MT will be gone, as he is a caretaker coach. Good for the young guys, makes us competitive, preps them for the contending coach. There has been some rumours about Quennville coming to Montreal, but like any Habs rumour, I'll believe it when I see it.

My Point is that we are little bit away from really knowing our team makeup going forward. Markov isn't getting younger, and while he could still contribute, we need to temper expectations in seasons to come, he will be a complementary player. If management sees the team as a Chicago-like team, then I'm sure they're going for a balanced approach. They'll look for 3 scoring lines, and with our D depth, hopefully that means our Dcore won't be a huge chunk of the salary cap since we can assume Tinordi, Beaulieu, etc will make the jump sooner than later.

I hope, although they will take BPA, that the Habs draft some promising forwards, hopefully with size. If we can find our equivalent to Bolland, Buff, Ladd, etc, we could have a great contending team. We have #1 G, D, and C figured out (I'm assuming Galch will become a 75-80ish Point player with intangibles) We have a good amount of youth to help our chances of timing a good contention window, all that remains is filling out the depth. If Galchenyuk can usurp Pleks for the #1C job, IMO Plekanec becomes even more valuable, because he can thrive in a role he's suited for. Add in Eller, DD, Bournival, White, Leblanc (?), etc we have a good chance of having a solid #3 and 4C.


We have Prust for a while and guys like Diaz and Emelin will be good pieces for specific roles. I think once the young guys take a step in their responsibility on the ice, guys like Cole, Gionta, etc can be trimmed and we'll be looking at a bigger, younger, more competitive team. Throw in our draft picks this year and we could steal another gem or two thanks to timmins.

I hope we do go for the balanced approach, because if you have enough star power (IMO we have just enough, with more to come) it will fulfill the same role as a superstar. If you have a guy like Toews, a guy like crosby is just icing on the cake. Better, but not necessary.

 

What does it matter how long they were there for. You asked Find a team in the last 50 years that won a cup by building from the Free agent market. I did and it was 2 years ago

 

93 yes (but that team was plenty good), 86 I disagree. The Habs were contenders in the 80's even on Roy's off years. Of course they wouldn't have won either time without Roy being Roy, but 86 team was elite defensively (Robinson was still great) and Naslund was one of the best scorers in the league that year, and they were also the toughest Habs cup team in history, and if this board teaches us anything, that is key.

Saying those teams (86 especially) wouldn't have won without Roy is true, but the same can be said about the Bruins and Tim Thomas two years ago. That doesn't mean the rest of the team wasn't great. Actually I remember reading and heading commentators say that some thought Lemieux should have won the Conn Smythe in 86.

 

Free agents have been a key part of some cup winning teams. Not as often as you might think but it's happened. Rangers won after getting Messier. Leetch won the Conn Smythe but nobody could say that Messier wasn't huge winning that too.

 

Kunitz and Guerin were playing with Crosby and Malkin it's not surprising they put up a points. At the end of the day their offence consisted of 2 great players and a bunch of average 2nd liners. That's top heavy.

8 players with 30 or more points isn't all that much. Last year we were a last place team and had 5.

 

That Tampa team had 7 forwards with over 30 points and six of those forwards went over 10 points in the playoffs.
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000552004.html

While they might not have been AS DEEP as some of the more recent teams, they field a legit TOP 6 and not a TOP 3 and a bunch of scrubs.

 

I think the rest of the team was 'good' not 'great.' The Oilers were great. The Flyers were great. We weren't great but we had Roy and he's the difference maker.

 

You sign players when you have an already good team and want to build around the Bruins got lucky with Thomas and signed Chara to put them over the top. Thomas is pretty much like he was drafted by the bruins as he was Undrafted.

What I mean is that you cant jut expect to sign a couple of player and win the cup. You have to already have an established core.

 

Well, they weren't the Oilers for sure, plus the Habs at that time were a defense-first team. Our 80's finals rivals, the Flames, weren't the Oilers or Flyers either. And yes, Roy was the best player on that team, but in 86 I would argue Robinson and Naslund were great, and Lemieux was certainly great in the playoffs.

 

And your point is what? Just because Pronger was a superstar doesn't mean Philly is top heavy, they were still a well balanced team except for goaltending. Same goes for the Habs just because we didn't have superstars doesn't mean we were balanced, we relied on a couple of players to carry the team usually Koivu and a Goalie.

 

Thomas was drafted by Quebec, then went to Edmonton before finally signing with Boston.

Boston finished with 74pts the year before they signed Chara. They then built the team around Chara. He wasn't a guy they signed to put them over the top.

 

3 players=one whole line. And we didn't have 5 forwards over 30 points. We only had four.

You still need some skill to pot in those delicious setups from Crosby and Malkin. Can't expect Mike Rupp or Travis Moen to do the same.

30 points is a LOT for third liners. Having all three third liners eclipsing 30 points is a not a common occurrence in the NHL. That's because one, third liners usually don't have much skill, and two, they get less ice time.


I was counting forwards, not dmen because they're their own little beasts and don't play in the top 6 or top 9. You really think we had scoring depth last year? We had NONE. Cole, DD, Pacioretty, and Plekanec were the only forwards to eclipse 30 points. 1 line and a third of a line. Ok, maybe Kostitsyn and Cammalleri could have went over, but they were cold as crap that season. Even so, that would mean only 6 players went over 30 points.

 

Team building is a rather haphazard affair. You don't get to choose when to build. They had Bergeron, Krecji, and Lucic in the system already. Chara and Thomas are only two players. Without the rest of them, they wouldn't have been able to hoist the Cup.

 

Yeah sorry about Thomas. But you still get what I mean and I might think you're nitpicking here. Thomas didnt play one game in the NHL until he was with the Bruins in the early 2000s. They did build around Chara who was young at the time but what are the odds you fall on a Chara in free agency?

Look at the last big FA signing... Suter, Parise, Richards, Gaborik, Komisarek, Hossa, Cammaleri, Havlat, Gionta....
It's all players who are great but its not player you really ''build'' around.

 

My point is that their superstar was the difference maker that you pointed to in our loss against them.

Not a coincidence that Pronger was in the finals three years with three different teams.

 

One of the things I will point out is that "balance" and "top heavy" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. An elite player like Crosby can "create" scoring depth from his teammates. Just because it's Crosby "creating" scoring depth doesn't make it any less important.

And of course, special teams and defense are important too.

 

Does Anaheim count.

 

Of course all the others like Horton,Kelly and Paille to name a few.That's A & B teams that won the SC.

 

They pretty much built their whole defense from free agency yes. It's not like they signed two of the best Dman of their genereation though
But I think they had two UFA in their whole offense

 

I didn't realize you meant forwards since you said players. Yes 30 points for a 3rd liner is good. But they also had a couple guys playing with Malkin and Crosby and only putting up 30-40 pts which is not very good. I would fully expect Moen to get 30-40 pts playing with Malkin or Crosby he was on pace for 27 playing with Eller and Kostitsyn on the 3rd line.

I don't think we had scoring depth that was the point, we we're close to the number you gave and clearly didn't have depth. Though now that you cleared up the forward only it's not quite as close

But when your 3rd best point producer doesn't even have half as many points as the either of the top 2 guys, then yes you are a top heavy team (That's both reg season and playoffs).

 

I never said that they drafted the rest of the team. You look everywhere to improve your team. It's just that you need to make sure the costs of the deal are not too detrimental if things go wrong.

 

Having a superstar doesn't change whether you are top heavy or well balanced though so it's irrelevant to the discussion.