Is there any evidence that teams have to be built a specific way to win a cup?

[Dustin]

I see it a lot on here. People speak about having a big 1C or you have to have a 1D to win. Is there any proof of this?

I know for years people said you can't build a winner around a winger using the Leafs as an example but is it not possible that the Leafs were just not a good enough team in other areas?

Click to read more...

 

[Duke749]

You almost always have to have a #1 goalie. After that just depth throughout the lineup.

 

[Stealth JD]

no. there are countless ways to build a championship club. with or without star players, HOF'ers, elite goalies, a #1D, etc.

your short-comings must be overcome in other area though. if you're weak at the Center, you better have a great D or G. If you're weak defensively, you better have a strong offense and/or special teams. If your G is average, you better be superb somewhere else. It's like a colossal game of rock-paper-scissors.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

95% of the time you need a stud dman

100% of the time you need a decent goalie

There have been terrible goalies that won cups. But in the modern era. How many did it with a pure trash playoff run

 

[Kale Hulls]

You always need your best players to show up when it matters, except for maybe Pitsburgh last year and Crosby.

 

[Aladyyn]

High-end 1D is probably the biggest requirement. The only winners that didn't have one post-lockout are Carolina (2005-06 was weird and they lucked out with injuries in ECF and SCF) and Pittsburgh (Crosby-Malkin-Staal C spine trumps all). Other than that you have Pronger, Lidstrom, Keith, Chára, Doughty, Letang. All at worst top 5 defensemen at the time of the Cup.

 

[Redline]

There is no ideal blueprint to win a cup. There are any number of practical options provided the entire organization buys in and executes the plan.

 

[Barrie22]

High-end 1C is probably the biggest requirement. The only winners that didn't have one post-lockout are Carolina (2005-06 was weird and they lucked out with injuries in ECF and SCF) and Pittsburgh (Crosby-Malkin-Staal C spine trumps all). Other than that you have Pronger, Lidstrom, Keith, Chára, Doughty, Letang. All at worst top 5 defensemen at the time of the Cup.

Staal in 2005-06 was an elite #1 center. 45 goals and 100 points is good.

 

[Aladyyn]

Staal in 2005-06 was an elite #1 center. 45 goals and 100 points is good.

I typed 1C but meant 1D the whole time, sorry about that

 

[Barrie22]

I typed 1C but meant 1D the whole time, sorry about that

You mean i had to do that extra work for nothing. You are just mean lol.

But yeah carolina is the only team in like the past 30+ or more years that didn't have a elite goaltending, elite center and elite defensemen.

 

[nickschultzfan]

Yep.

Great #1, #2, and [#3 Dman/balanced 2nd pairing]

Great #1 center, middle-6 center, and a [third center/1st line winger]

Great #1 goalie.

Good depth.

 

[Hisch13r]

You mean i had to do that extra work for nothing. You are just mean lol.

But yeah carolina is the only team in like the past 30+ or more years that didn't have a elite goaltending, elite center and elite defensemen.

Anaheim? McDonald was 16 in center scoring and 31st in league scoring

 

[silkyjohnson50]

Yeah, you need really good/elite players - often 2 or 3 of them. Additionally, your goaltender typically has to play his best hockey in the playoffs. C and D has been vitally important and it's rare to win without an elite in both positions.

 

[Frk It]

You mean i had to do that extra work for nothing. You are just mean lol.

But yeah carolina is the only team in like the past 30+ or more years that didn't have a elite goaltending, elite center and elite defensemen.

Chicago didn't have elite goaltending in 09-10.

Not sure I'd say 00 or 03 Devils had an elite center.

 

[AINEC*]

You need intangibles. It's why Chicago won cups and Vancouver didn't.

 

[Bending and Tending]

You always need your best players to show up when it matters, except for maybe Pitsburgh last year and Crosby.

3 GWG's vs Tampa. Assisted on the cup winner. 2nd on the team in points. Conn Smythe winner.

Keep dreaming buddy.

 

[Kale Hulls]

You need intangibles. It's why Chicago won cups and Vancouver didn't.

Tangible things are objects in the real world that have volume and mass, intangable things are things that cannot be physically touched because they don't exist as real objects (eg. a puck is tangible, goal scoring or leadership is intangible.)

When we talk about the things known as "intangibles" here we shouldn't call them intangibles, we should call them ineffables because not once have I ever heard somebody put in words what they actually are.

 

[Kale Hulls]

3 GWG's vs Tampa. Assisted on the cup winner. 2nd on the team in points. Conn Smythe winner.

Keep dreaming buddy.

He was great against Tampa, but he dissapeared in the SCF.

Really wish Kessel won the Conn Smyth, he deserved it tbh.

 

[Bending and Tending]

He was great against Tampa, but he dissapeared in the SCF.

Really wish Kessel won the Conn Smyth, he deserved it tbh.

There were several players who could have won. Few teams will win a cup with only one deserving player.

The point is: if you think Crosby didn't show up, you didn't watch. Points aren't everything and Crosby was all over the ice against San Jose.

 

[Butch 19]

score more goals than opposition

or shorter version: more goals > less goals = Cup

 

[x Tame Impala]

There is no ideal blueprint to win a cup. There are any number of practical options provided the entire organization buys in and executes the plan.

Don't know how anyone can say this. Except for Carolina, the makeup of post-lockout Cup winners is generally made up of most, if not all, of the following...

-elite 1C
-elite 1D
-capable goalie, not necessarily elite
-elite depth
-dynamic players
-dynamic players showing up and being effective
-strong possession game
-talented enough of a roster that tilts luck in their favor more often than not

It's why the "any playoff team has a chance at the cup" narrative is BS. Montreal, New York, Minnesota, Washington, etc...predictably lose every year because they're lacking in one or more of these fundamental areas.

 

[MNRube]

- Goaltending. Obviously.
- Three F lines that can play in any situation
- An effective two-way C to win draws and shutdown opponents
- A dominant top D pair that can play 30+ mins
- Great PK
- Two pairs of D that can move the puck
- One lethal goal scorer

Those are the big ones for me. Don't need all of them but at least like 75%

 

[silkyjohnson50]

Anaheim? McDonald was 16 in center scoring and 31st in league scoring

Anaheim was unique in having 2 of the 3 best defencemen in the game on their blueline.

 

[Seanaconda]

Anaheim? McDonald was 16 in center scoring and 31st in league scoring

That was getzlafs and perry's coming out year in the playoffs tho. Plus you know pronger and niedermayer

 

[Blender]

Not sure I'd say 00 or 03 Devils had an elite center.

I don't think the Devils had an elite center for any of their 3 Cup wins. They made up for it with an elite goaltender, elite defense, and very good forward depth. The cap has made it much more difficult to follow that model though, as it isn't as affordable to roll out the 3rd and 4th liners those Devils teams could.