Is this the year that the #1C/#1D rule of thumb is broken?

[Cardiac Jerks]

It's a common argument for fans (and people on this board) to say that teams need both an elite #1 Centerman and Defensemen in order to win The Cup. In fact, you'd have to go back all the way to the 05-06 Hurricanes to find a team that did not have both.

However, of the four remaining teams in this playoffs, I'd argue that Nashville is the only team that inarguably has both such players on their team.

Pittsburgh of course has the two headed monster, but no Letang this year.

Anaheim has Getzlaf, but I think an argument can be made that Lindholm (or whoever Anaheim fans consider their best defensemen these playoffs) is not an elite #1 D, or at least not on par with the likes of Doughty, Keith, Lidstrom, Chara, etc.

Ottawa of course has the best defensemen in the world, but I would hardly call Turris an elite #1C.

This isn't a knock on these teams, or their players. I find what they have all accomplished this playoffs admirable and I'd be happy to see any of them win to be honest. My question is simply will the general rule of thumb of needing a #1C and #1D to win a cup be broken this season? And regardless, is there a possibility of this happening either next season or in the near future? Discuss.

Bonus question: Who do you think more valuable, a #1C or #1 D?

I won't try and argue that Carolina had a number one defenseman but to say they also lacked a number one centre is crazy. Staal put up 100 points which made him the third highest scoring centre yet somehow he wasn't a 1c?

An argument could even be made that Brind'amour was still go enough to be a lower end 1c.

Edit: immediately after posting this I realized I probably misunderstood what you were saying. Think you meant that they didnt have a 1c and a 1d, not that they didn't have either.

 

[playasRus]

thats why nashville is gunna win.


RyJo and Josi/Subban/Ellis/Ekholm

Yup, Nashville has a #1C and 1b in RyJo and Fisher, and like two #1 and two #2 Ds. And a top 5 goalie. Honestly they should've been contenders the past few years. Just goaltending going cold at the wrong time.

 

[JaegerDice]

Yup, Nashville has a #1C and 1b in RyJo and Fisher, and like two #1 and two #2 Ds. And a top 5 goalie. Honestly they should've been contenders the past few years. Just goaltending going cold at the wrong time.

There is not a single reality in the infinite multiverse where Mike Fisher is a 1b center in 2017.

 

[playasRus]

There is not a single reality in the infinite multiverse where Mike Fisher is a 1b center in 2017.

Pretty damn elite #2 if you want to be conservative.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

Pretty damn elite #2 if you want to be conservative.

Didn't he only have like 20 pts this year?

 

[Callidusblackhawk]

Didn't he only have like 20 pts this year?

23 in 70 games. He's all the way up to .5ppg in the playoffs though. 1b for sure

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

I thought Jarnkrok was their #2.

 

[Legionnaire11]

What did I wonder into here? Fisher is much closer to a #4 than a 1b. Closer to a 4 than a 2 even. 3C was pretty good for him this year, hopefully he can keep it up again next season, but that's really his capacity.

 

[gorangers0525]

Sorry no.

Most teams have clear 1D and 1C.

Some say ducks have 2 of each

Getzlaf and ?

Lindholm and ?

 

[Drake744]

Pretty damn elite #2 if you want to be conservative.

Sorry man but Fisher is not even close to a capable 1B center. I love the dude but he's a bottom 6 vet at best. That's why the very real possibility of losing Jarnkrok to Vegas is extra daunting.

 

[GoldOnGold]

Fisher isn't anywhere close to a 1b but he had 18+24 in 72 games, which is not really 4C caliber.

 

[Drake744]

I should've clarified. He's much more "capable" of a 2nd line center than 1b. In a perfect world he'd be a full time 3rd line center with a distinct #2C ahead of him.

Once Jarnkrok goes to Vegas I think dominoes will fall as far as our 2-4 centers go

 

[playasRus]

I should've clarified. He's much more "capable" of a 2nd line center than 1b. In a perfect world he'd be a full time 3rd line center with a distinct #2C ahead of him.

Once Jarnkrok goes to Vegas I think dominoes will fall as far as our 2-4 centers go

I guess age has caught up with him, but in the playoffs, he's looked like a beast to me, regardless of regular season production. Defensively sound, good at faceoffs, physically punishing.

Guy's a warrior. Anyone saying 42pt/72games is 4th line production clearly expect 3 100pt scorers on their top line.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

It already has been. Johansen is not an elite #1C, Lindholm is not an elite #1D, Turris is not a legit #1C, who is even Pittsburgh's #1D without Letang? lol.

 

[Legionnaire11]

I should've clarified. He's much more "capable" of a 2nd line center than 1b. In a perfect world he'd be a full time 3rd line center with a distinct #2C ahead of him.

Once Jarnkrok goes to Vegas I think dominoes will fall as far as our 2-4 centers go

Could you imagine if the young guys work out sooner rather than later...

Johansen
Ejdsell
Kamenev
Fisher

Center depth could quickly go from a weakness to a strength.

 

[Drake744]

Could you imagine if the young guys work out sooner rather than later...

Johansen
Ejdsell
Kamenev
Fisher

Center depth could quickly go from a weakness to a strength.

 

[SAK11]

So is it a 1C, an elite 1C, franchise 1C?????

I'd say Turris is pretty close to a 1C.

I'd argue Turris is a 1C in the sense that he's one of the top 30 centers in the league [in his last 3 healthy seasons, he's finished around 17th-25th in league scoring among centers]. But the counter-argument is that just like in the NFL with quality starting QBs, there aren't enough legitimate 1C's to go around. He's the type of guy that fits into the category of a low-end 1C, meaning you'd love to have him as your #2. Ottawa opted to add another Turris-level player in Brassard, and while he didn't play like a low-end 1C during the season, he has in the playoffs. Add to that Pageau who's arguably been better than both of them in the playoffs, and all of a sudden their lack of a top-end 1C isn't so devastating because of their center depth.

 

[Not So Mighty]

ANA should count as having the defense; their corps is top 5 in the league easily imo.

Doesn't matter because Nashville has a Top 1 defense corps and they are going to win the Cup convincingly. Congrats.

 

[Regal]

23 in 70 games. He's all the way up to .5ppg in the playoffs though. 1b for sure

That was last year. He had 42 in 72 this year. Not a 1b, but still a solid #2

 

[Callidusblackhawk]

That was last year. He had 42 in 72 this year. Not a 1b, but still a solid #2

Indeed it was. Whoops. Wikipedia doesn't have this year's stats up for him yet and I just looked at the bottom of the list.

As you said 1b is still a stretch. And in this years playoffs he has 0 points...

 

[93LEAFS]

Turris is a 25-40 guy, which puts him in the 1B/2A category for me. I wouldn't consider him a number 1 center. There are probably 20 guys I'd consider legitimate number 1's (or on the verge of being one). The top 10 is the elite, and the 10-20 are good enough to build a team that is an extended contender around with the right supporting cast. Crosby and Malkin are top 5 (and more likely top 3 guys), Getzlaf is a top 10, and Johansen is a top 10-20 guy and probably in the top 15.

I agree the better rule of thumb, is that if you need two (whatever combo) of an elite center and an elite defender. The only team in recent memory that broke this rule was Carolina, who only really had an elite center (but a hell of a lot of veteran depth). Also, if you lack an elite center, you need an elite winger on top of the 2 elite defenders (see Elias on the Devils and Selanne on the Ducks). A couple teams have won cups without bonafide number 1 defenders since 2000. I don't think Boyle was in 2004 (but they had two high-end centers and a Hart trophy winning winger), and Pittsburgh in 2009 (but had the 2 best centers in the league).

The only teams who don't really fit this formula somewhat are Ottawa and Anaheim. Anaheim does have a top 10 center though and a top 5 defensive forward in the league which makes them match-up hell, and great defensive depth (no true elite number 1 such as Doughty, Lidstrom, Chara, Keith, etc). Pitt has two elite centers and a top 10 winger and Anaheim has a legitimate first line center and 2 defenders who are top 15, and at worst top 20 in the league, they also have a guy who is probably a top 10 winger.

 

[teravaineSAROS]

The real thing you need is a 2003 draftee. Since the lockout:

Canes - Staal
Ducks - Getzlaf/Perry
Wings - Don't think Quincy or Howard suited up in the playoffs
Pens 2x - MAF
Hawks 3x - Seabrook/Crawford/Buff
Bruins - Bergeron
Kings 2x - Brown/Carter/Richards

Detroit is the only team to not have a 2003 draftee on its roster when winning the Cup since the lock out. Always found this to be interesting as it helps drive home how great that draft was.

Nashville is the team to buck this trend if they win. Only remaining team without a 2003 draftee, although I'm not sure if Carle is still on the roster.

You know this is a good example of the whole causation =/= correlation problem HfBoards has a lot of times

 

[Jacksonbobson]

Getzlaf and ?

Lindholm and ?

Kesler and Fowler.

Kesler absolutely played like a number one center all year. Constantly shut down the other teams top lines by dominating possession all the while having 58 points and being a top 3 face-off man.

Fowler arguably played better than Lindholm this year, its not totally out of line to say hes at least in the conversation of being a number one d-man.

 

[A1LeafNation]

You need two of elite #1 C # D #1 G

Crosby Malkin
Karlsson Anderson
Lindholm Getzlaf
Subban Josi Rinne

 

[Countdown0]

I think, if you break hockey down to the basic abstract strategy of how the game is played, you don't need the elite talent on your team to be in any specific position.

You DO need to have elite talent somewhere though. Could be all in your top forward line, could be your goalie and your top d pairing, could be any mix. It doesn't matter where the elite talent is, just that you have it. I think what tends to happen is that young players who are forwards and are very skilled often end up playing centre. What I mean is that I don't think you NEED an elite centre to win the Stanley Cup. I think that young forwards who have the potential to become elite talents in the NHL are simply more likely to end up playing centre. Obviously, its not a universal rule (see Patrick Kane, Alex Ovechkin, Brad Marchand, Jaromir Jagr, Mike Bossy, all examples of great forwards who primarily play or played wing), but it just seems that elite forward talent is naturally more pre-disposed to playing centre. Gretzky, Messier, Lemieux, Crosby, McDavid, Yzerman, Forsberg (Peter, in case you were wondering who I meant), Esposito, Beliveau.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I think the idea of "you need a number 1 centre to win a championship" is an observation bias. More of the truly elite talent young players in junior and minor hockey play centre than wing, and that translates to the pro game. Therefore it looks like you need an elite #1 centre to win, but actually you just need that elite talent on your team period.

As for elite #1 d-men, every team has a #1. Not every #1 is elite. The question is more about if your #1 can be a game changer, or if he's just good enough to do the job. Lidstrom was an elite #1 for Detroit, and could change the game when he played. Alex Edler is the #1 d-man on Vancouver's roster, but would you say he's an elite #1 d-man? I wouldn't.

The really important thing is combining both the elite talent and the depth. If you're elite guys don't have the 3rd and 4th liners along with the #4, #5, and #6 D all doing well in their role to support them, then your elite talent wont matter.

The playoffs is a grind, and if your depth can't help carry the weight of a playoffs run, your elite guys will be ground into dust before they can win the Cup. The depth needs to take some of the burden off of the elite guys so that they can be elite when they need to.