Ranking NHL Teams By Forwards

Larry Fisher

Registered User
Sep 19, 2002
4,034
1,194
Kelowna, B.C.
But it is that bad.

This list is pretty atrocious overall though. Both the Sharks and Flames scored 289 goals last year (both only behind Tampa) and they are 25th and 13th place respectively. Sure the Sharks lost a couple players, but they aren't ****ing 25th and the Flames lost no one (wow thanks for those 7 goals Neal) and are 13th while all their guys are entering their prime.

Please do tell how the Leafs, who scored less goals last year than the Flames have the league's second best offence over the Flames. inb4 career year argument for the Flames players when the Leafs player also had career years.


I mean the Flames who finished second in the league, had the 2nd best goal differential, 2nd best offence, top 10 goals against, have according to these lists bottom 5 goaltending, the 7th best defence and 13th best offence and the team is virtually the same going into next year.

Remember, defence was a separate ranking and defencemen do contribute to the offence. If I was strictly ranking offence as a whole, then yes San Jose and Calgary would be higher. But I'm only ranking the forwards here.

You can't use team stats to argue position specific rankings. That's why these rankings are more opinion than stats based. Total goals, total offence, all that goes out the window when you put the focus strictly on the forwards. Calgary's forwards are deep but aren't worthy of the top 10 in my opinion.

Do you really think Calgary's forward group is better than Toronto's? You wouldn't swap them straight up in a trade?
 

Larry Fisher

Registered User
Sep 19, 2002
4,034
1,194
Kelowna, B.C.
Holy cow yes. The Capitals at nine was bad (they should be top five, probably top three), but the Sharks at 25 invalidates the entire list.

I also will question the Oilers at 19 (too high), the Bruins at 15 (too low), and the Knights at 4 (way too high).

I was waiting for somebody to say "too high" on the Oilers. I felt that was a favourable ranking based on McDavid being the LeBron of hockey. I'm surprised it took that long for somebody to call me out on it. Especially when many know that I grew up in a family of Oilers fans, that is the team I followed closest (and probably still do). That said, I stand by the Edmonton ranking and feel it's fair because of McDavid's impact. As long as he's healthy, he can singlehandedly win games, which not many/any other forwards can do.

The Capitals and Bruins, I can see the cases for them being higher too. Washington's bottom six will be a real work in progress this season, but that top six is definitely top five. Boston's top six is top 10 too, but that third line leaves a lot to be desired unless a couple kids step up (Studnicka and Steen certainly could).

Vegas has a top six that certainly ranks in the top five and I think my third line could do its share of damage (Glass-Tuch could be a dynamic duo). I like that ranking.

The Sharks lost a lot. The playoff roster would have been top 10 for forwards, top 15 for sure. Subtracting four of your top nine forwards (4/12 = 1/3) is a big blow. I think it is just shocking to everyone to see San Jose that low because the Sharks have had a top-10 forward group for much of the last decade. But the current group isn't very deep, though it would look deep again with Thornton and Marleau back in that top nine. As I've said here and in the analysis, Thornton's anticipated return has San Jose "settling in around No. 20" and Marleau would get the Sharks into the teens (likely mid-teens).
 

Larry Fisher

Registered User
Sep 19, 2002
4,034
1,194
Kelowna, B.C.
borderline generous with the Wild ranking forwards

just read the Defense rankings and 16 is...awful.

I actually like the Wild's forward group, they could be four lines deep if that third line can contribute. Those "kids" are a year older and stronger, so I do think they could make a legitimate impact.
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
This guy ... these opinions are mine and mine alone ... and I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion? Tomorrow's power rankings should provide some clarity on that front.

How? You rank the Flyers defense well ahead of the Capitals. You rank the Flyers forwards ahead of the Caps. The goaltending not that far behind. Are you saying you power rank the Caps ahead based entirely on goaltending? Larry....
 

Larry Fisher

Registered User
Sep 19, 2002
4,034
1,194
Kelowna, B.C.
If you followed enough of the league as a whole for these rankings to have any sort of credibility, you would know that Tomas Hertl is a center who broke out centering his own line this season.

If you followed enough of the league as a whole for these rankings to have any sort of credibility, you would know that the Joe Thornton situation is not remotely similar to the Justin Williams situation, because Doug Wilson, Peter DeBoer, and Joe Thornton himself have all said that Thornton will return this season, where as Williams never said anything of the sort.

I realize this is a lot of information for somebody to be aware of, but if you're going to publish articles that rank teams, you ought to do the work to actually understand those teams. Whether that comes from paying closer attention to the teams during the season and throughout the off-season, or doing significantly more research on these teams in the off-season in order to better prepare yourself to write these articles, I really don't care. And where you choose to rank the Sharks, once you've actually put in enough work to form a valid opinion, I also really don't care. Go ahead and rank them 31st for all I care. But don't rank them if you think their 2nd line is going to feature Kevin Labanc on the left wing, Dylan Gambrell at center, and Tomas Hertl on the right wing. You don't even know what you're ranking.

Oh and by the way, I can ****ing guarantee you that Peter DeBoer's plans do not involve bumping Tomas Hertl - a 35 goal, 74 point center with 16 goals in his past 29 playoff games - to the wing in favor of Dylan Gambrell - an undersized 23 year old with 13 games of NHL experience.

For the last time, I used CapFriendly's depth chart tool as a starting point/basis for these lineups. I was ranking the names more so than the line combinations, which often change from game to game anyway. I just listed them as lines rather than a long vertical list of 1-12, but maybe that would have been preferred? Reality is, the Sharks lost a lot of depth up front and aren't the same forward group from years past and this spring's playoffs. We shall see if they finish second in goals for again. And, as I keep saying, that is a team stat, not solely a forward stat, and that stat was largely thanks to offence from the defence, which I ranked No. 1 yesterday.

I promise you I put in more than 100 hours on this project — researching and writing — and probably another 12 hours on responding to comments here (and elsewhere) and fielding feedback for future articles, including my preseason standings predictions. So I have put in the time, my mistake was copying the depth chart from CapFriendly instead of Daily Faceoff. It's not like my analysis focused on the individual lines or the line combinations. Those were just listed as a visual starting point.

It's funny you keep bringing up Thornton. Did you read the analysis? If not, here it is:

ANALYSIS: San Jose is still going to add a forward or two — namely Joe Thornton and possibly Patrick Marleau too. That will bolster the Sharks’ depth in a big way — and a much-needed way, with this lineup looking pretty thin at the moment. Fortunately for the Sharks, they have been drafting very well in the later rounds and the likes of Chmelevski, Checkhovich, Blichfeld and Gregor are looking like players for their future — and perhaps even the present. Gambrell could be ready to step up and if you pencil Thornton and Marleau into that top nine — or Thornton alone — it looks a lot better for San Jose. And that top line looks lethal, but without those veteran faces of this franchise, the Sharks are lurking a few spots lower than usual for the time being. If they do end up returning, San Jose would get bumped up at least a few spots — settling in closer to No. 20.

I'd say that sounds like a guy who did his research, no? I probably should have wrote "the Sharks are lurking significantly lower than usual" and probably shouldn't have mentioned "the top line looks lethal" although it does and perhaps San Jose loads up the top line like Boston and Colorado and others.

This forward group is going to have a different look without three of their top nine. Time will tell what DeBoer has in store. You are probably right about the Couture-Meier and Hertl-Kane pairings, that does make sense in hindsight, but it's not like I went on and on about the line combinations. I didn't elaborate on the combos because I fully expected them to be fluid and changing as DeBoer experiments to see what works with three fewer weapons at his disposal this season.
 

Larry Fisher

Registered User
Sep 19, 2002
4,034
1,194
Kelowna, B.C.
How? You rank the Flyers defense well ahead of the Capitals. You rank the Flyers forwards ahead of the Caps. The goaltending not that far behind. Are you saying you power rank the Caps ahead based entirely on goaltending? Larry....

Do the math my friend ... the power rankings are math based.
 

JeremyTB

Registered User
Mar 16, 2007
4,997
1,658
So the Oilers who are going to have Kassian on their top line and Neal and Gagner on their 2nd line is 5 spots better than the Sharks?

Sharks should atleast be near the middle of the pack.
 

JeremyTB

Registered User
Mar 16, 2007
4,997
1,658
For the last time, I used CapFriendly's depth chart tool as a starting point/basis for these lineups. I was ranking the names more so than the line combinations, which often change from game to game anyway. I just listed them as lines rather than a long vertical list of 1-12, but maybe that would have been preferred? Reality is, the Sharks lost a lot of depth up front and aren't the same forward group from years past and this spring's playoffs. We shall see if they finish second in goals for again. And, as I keep saying, that is a team stat, not solely a forward stat, and that stat was largely thanks to offence from the defence, which I ranked No. 1 yesterday.

I promise you I put in more than 100 hours on this project — researching and writing — and probably another 12 hours on responding to comments here (and elsewhere) and fielding feedback for future articles, including my preseason standings predictions. So I have put in the time, my mistake was copying the depth chart from CapFriendly instead of Daily Faceoff. It's not like my analysis focused on the individual lines or the line combinations. Those were just listed as a visual starting point.

It's funny you keep bringing up Thornton. Did you read the analysis? If not, here it is:

ANALYSIS: San Jose is still going to add a forward or two — namely Joe Thornton and possibly Patrick Marleau too. That will bolster the Sharks’ depth in a big way — and a much-needed way, with this lineup looking pretty thin at the moment. Fortunately for the Sharks, they have been drafting very well in the later rounds and the likes of Chmelevski, Checkhovich, Blichfeld and Gregor are looking like players for their future — and perhaps even the present. Gambrell could be ready to step up and if you pencil Thornton and Marleau into that top nine — or Thornton alone — it looks a lot better for San Jose. And that top line looks lethal, but without those veteran faces of this franchise, the Sharks are lurking a few spots lower than usual for the time being. If they do end up returning, San Jose would get bumped up at least a few spots — settling in closer to No. 20.

I'd say that sounds like a guy who did his research, no? I probably should have wrote "the Sharks are lurking significantly lower than usual" and probably shouldn't have mentioned "the top line looks lethal" although it does and perhaps San Jose loads up the top line like Boston and Colorado and others.

This forward group is going to have a different look without three of their top nine. Time will tell what DeBoer has in store. You are probably right about the Couture-Meier and Hertl-Kane pairings, that does make sense in hindsight, but it's not like I went on and on about the line combinations. I didn't elaborate on the combos because I fully expected them to be fluid and changing as DeBoer experiments to see what works with three fewer weapons at his disposal this season.

Even without Thornton and Marleau how do you justify the Oilers being 5 spots ahead of them when they have McDavid,Draisaitl,RNH, and bunch of 4th liners? After those 3 their next leading point getter had 38. They are going to have 3 guys in their top 6 that would have a hard time cracking the lineup of most teams. And if they did it would be as a 4th liner or barely making the 3rd line.Kassian,Gagner, and Neal probally wouldn't crack the Sharks top 9.

And you mention Thornton as uncertain(which he really isn't) but don't meantion the RFS's not signed yet. You have the Jets at #6 when both Connor and Laine aren't signed yet.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sam Spade

Larry Fisher

Registered User
Sep 19, 2002
4,034
1,194
Kelowna, B.C.
So the Oilers who are going to have Kassian on their top line and Neal and Gagner on their 2nd line is 5 spots better than the Sharks?

Sharks should atleast be near the middle of the pack.

The Sharks don't have a McDavid. Or even a Draisaitl. They have Couture, who is similar to (but at least slightly better than) Nugent-Hopkins. Meier, Hertl and Kane are quality top-six forwards too. The Sharks have four top-six forwards, five counting Labanc. The Oilers have three — or four if you are confident Neal is going to bounce back in Edmonton. Both teams are lacking depth up front. Ultimately, McDavid and Draisaitl lifted the Oilers over several teams in these rankings, including the Sharks.
 
Last edited:

Larry Fisher

Registered User
Sep 19, 2002
4,034
1,194
Kelowna, B.C.
Even without Thornton and Marleau how do you justify the Oilers being 5 spots ahead of them when they have McDavid,Draisaitl,RNH, and bunch of 4th liners? After those 3 their next leading point getter had 38. They are going to have 3 guys in their top 6 that would have a hard time cracking the lineup of most teams. And if they did it would be as a 4th liner or barely making the 3rd line.Kassian,Gagner, and Neal probally wouldn't crack the Sharks top 9.

And you mention Thornton as uncertain(which he really isn't) but don't meantion the RFS's not signed yet. You have the Jets at #6 when both Connor and Laine aren't signed yet.

Comparatively, the Sharks have Couture, Meier, Hertl, Kane, Labanc and a bunch of fourth-liners, plus the possibility/likelihood of a 40-year-old Thornton returning to the fold. The Oilers have eight or nine "filler" spots, the Sharks have seven.
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
For the last time, I used CapFriendly's depth chart tool as a starting point/basis for these lineups. I was ranking the names more so than the line combinations, which often change from game to game anyway. I just listed them as lines rather than a long vertical list of 1-12, but maybe that would have been preferred? Reality is, the Sharks lost a lot of depth up front and aren't the same forward group from years past and this spring's playoffs. We shall see if they finish second in goals for again. And, as I keep saying, that is a team stat, not solely a forward stat, and that stat was largely thanks to offence from the defence, which I ranked No. 1 yesterday.

I promise you I put in more than 100 hours on this project — researching and writing — and probably another 12 hours on responding to comments here (and elsewhere) and fielding feedback for future articles, including my preseason standings predictions. So I have put in the time, my mistake was copying the depth chart from CapFriendly instead of Daily Faceoff. It's not like my analysis focused on the individual lines or the line combinations. Those were just listed as a visual starting point.

It's funny you keep bringing up Thornton. Did you read the analysis? If not, here it is:

ANALYSIS: San Jose is still going to add a forward or two — namely Joe Thornton and possibly Patrick Marleau too. That will bolster the Sharks’ depth in a big way — and a much-needed way, with this lineup looking pretty thin at the moment. Fortunately for the Sharks, they have been drafting very well in the later rounds and the likes of Chmelevski, Checkhovich, Blichfeld and Gregor are looking like players for their future — and perhaps even the present. Gambrell could be ready to step up and if you pencil Thornton and Marleau into that top nine — or Thornton alone — it looks a lot better for San Jose. And that top line looks lethal, but without those veteran faces of this franchise, the Sharks are lurking a few spots lower than usual for the time being. If they do end up returning, San Jose would get bumped up at least a few spots — settling in closer to No. 20.

I'd say that sounds like a guy who did his research, no? I probably should have wrote "the Sharks are lurking significantly lower than usual" and probably shouldn't have mentioned "the top line looks lethal" although it does and perhaps San Jose loads up the top line like Boston and Colorado and others.

This forward group is going to have a different look without three of their top nine. Time will tell what DeBoer has in store. You are probably right about the Couture-Meier and Hertl-Kane pairings, that does make sense in hindsight, but it's not like I went on and on about the line combinations. I didn't elaborate on the combos because I fully expected them to be fluid and changing as DeBoer experiments to see what works with three fewer weapons at his disposal this season.

Again, I am not even taking issue with the ranking. The issue I have is that you aren’t even ranking the right things. What you did was like ranking pizza toppings and saying “pepperoni - these thick, square cubes of chicken add an immense degree of flavor”. You aren’t even ranking what you think you are ranking. You could have ranked “San Jose Sharks” 31st and I wouldn’t care, because you are not even ranking

If at the end of your research, you weren’t knowledgeable enough to say “wow, this looks completely wrong, let me fix this” in response to a second line of Kevin Labanc-Dylan Gambrell-Tomas Hertl, then your research was insufficient, and you need to do more research next time. Perhaps you spent an ample amount of time researching, but you did not spend it efficiently, because it would’ve taken two minutes for you to log into HFBoards and say “hey Sharks fans, what are your forward lines going to look like next season?”, and another ten at most to go over potential line combinations and come up with something that doesn’t feature a 2nd line of Kevin Labanc on the left wing, Dylan Gambrell at center, and Tomas Hertl on the right wing.

And no, you don’t sound like a guy who did his research on Thornton when you just compared his situation to Justin Williams’s situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viqsi

Larry Fisher

Registered User
Sep 19, 2002
4,034
1,194
Kelowna, B.C.
Even without Thornton and Marleau how do you justify the Oilers being 5 spots ahead of them when they have McDavid,Draisaitl,RNH, and bunch of 4th liners? After those 3 their next leading point getter had 38. They are going to have 3 guys in their top 6 that would have a hard time cracking the lineup of most teams. And if they did it would be as a 4th liner or barely making the 3rd line.Kassian,Gagner, and Neal probally wouldn't crack the Sharks top 9.

And you mention Thornton as uncertain(which he really isn't) but don't meantion the RFS's not signed yet. You have the Jets at #6 when both Connor and Laine aren't signed yet.

I assumed all the RFAs will get signed before Dec. 1 and likely before Oct. 2. I don't think that is an unrealistic assumption. These rankings are for the entire season, not just opening night.

On that front, I didn't include Puljujarvi in Edmonton's depth chart because it does sound like he won't be returning to the fold. But are you suggesting you believe Connor and Laine have played their last games for the Jets?
 

Larry Fisher

Registered User
Sep 19, 2002
4,034
1,194
Kelowna, B.C.
Again, I am not even taking issue with the ranking. The issue I have is that you aren’t even ranking the right things. What you did was like ranking pizza toppings and saying “pepperoni - these thick, square cubes of chicken add an immense degree of flavor”. You aren’t even ranking what you think you are ranking. You could have ranked “San Jose Sharks” 31st and I wouldn’t care, because you are not even ranking

If at the end of your research, you weren’t knowledgeable enough to say “wow, this looks completely wrong, let me fix this” in response to a second line of Kevin Labanc-Dylan Gambrell-Tomas Hertl, then your research was insufficient, and you need to do more research next time. Perhaps you spent an ample amount of time researching, but you did not spend it efficiently, because it would’ve taken two minutes for you to log into HFBoards and say “hey Sharks fans, what are your forward lines going to look like next season?”, and another ten at most to go over potential line combinations and come up with something that doesn’t feature a 2nd line of Kevin Labanc on the left wing, Dylan Gambrell at center, and Tomas Hertl on the right wing.

And no, you don’t sound like a guy who did his research on Thornton when you just compared his situation to Justin Williams’s situation.

And if I said "hey Sharks fans, what are your forward lines going to look like next season?" I probably would have got 10 different lineups. I don't think there is a consensus on San Jose's lines. There are opinions, including yours. And I honestly don't think that second line looks too bad as is. San Jose's bottom six and lack of depth is what dropped the Sharks in my rankings, not the combinations of the top two lines.

Thornton and Williams are similar since both are nearing the end of their careers and were contemplating retirement to some degree this offseason. Until Williams' announcement, I think the betting odds would have favoured him returning over retiring probably 80-20 or certainly 60-40. But again, if you read my analysis, the very first sentence highlighted the likelihood of Thornton returning and it was mentioned multiple times throughout my analysis for the Sharks.
 

JeremyTB

Registered User
Mar 16, 2007
4,997
1,658
I assumed all the RFAs will get signed before Dec. 1 and likely before Oct. 2. I don't think that is an unrealistic assumption. These rankings are for the entire season, not just opening night.

On that front, I didn't include Puljujarvi in Edmonton's depth chart because it does sound like he won't be returning to the fold. But are you suggesting you believe Connor and Laine have played their last games for the Jets?

No but how are the Jets going to be able to afford both of them without losing somebody? They have just under $18 million. I don't see how they can sign both for under that amount.
 

Larry Fisher

Registered User
Sep 19, 2002
4,034
1,194
Kelowna, B.C.
No but how are the Jets going to be able to afford both of them without losing somebody? They have just under $18 million. I don't see how they can sign both for under that amount.

Really? I assume Laine gets around $10M and Connor around $8M. It's also possible Laine takes a bridge deal at around $6-$7M for two or three seasons. That is plenty of cap space to get those two locked up, long term or on bridge deals IMO.
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
And if I said "hey Sharks fans, what are your forward lines going to look like next season?" I probably would have got 10 different lineups. I don't think there is a consensus on San Jose's lines. There are opinions, including yours. And I honestly don't think that second line looks too bad as is. San Jose's bottom six and lack of depth is what dropped the Sharks in my rankings, not the combinations of the top two lines.

Thornton and Williams are similar since both are nearing the end of their careers and were contemplating retirement to some degree this offseason. Until Williams' announcement, I think the betting odds would have favoured him returning over retiring probably 80-20 or certainly 60-40. But again, if you read my analysis, the very first sentence highlighted the likelihood of Thornton returning and it was mentioned multiple times throughout my analysis for the Sharks.

Yes, you would’ve gotten slightly different lineups. However, every lineup would’ve had some pairings of Meier/Kane and Couture/Hertl on lines 1 and 2, and every lineup would’ve had Joe Thornton at 3rd line center. Not a single one of them would’ve had Tomas Hertl on the right wing of the 2nd line, being centered by Dylan Gambrell.
 

Larry Fisher

Registered User
Sep 19, 2002
4,034
1,194
Kelowna, B.C.
Yes, you would’ve gotten slightly different lineups. However, every lineup would’ve had some pairings of Meier/Kane and Couture/Hertl on lines 1 and 2, and every lineup would’ve had Joe Thornton at 3rd line center. Not a single one of them would’ve had Tomas Hertl on the right wing of the 2nd line, being centered by Dylan Gambrell.

That's fair, but I honestly don't think that would have changed my ranking. And I wouldn't have included Thornton until he was under contract again. As mentioned in the analysis, whenever that happens, San Jose "settles in around No. 20" for me.
 

JeremyTB

Registered User
Mar 16, 2007
4,997
1,658
Really? I assume Laine gets around $10M and Connor around $8M. It's also possible Laine takes a bridge deal at around $6-$7M for two or three seasons. That is plenty of cap space to get those two locked up, long term or on bridge deals IMO.

If that's all it would cost they would already be signed. Last I heard is Connor wants around $9 million per and there is no way Laine is settling for $6 or $7 million when he is asking for atleast $10 million.
 

Bertuzzzi44

Registered User
Jun 26, 2018
3,399
2,980
Lol Sharks should be top 15; their forwards are fast, heavy, and skilled. Bad list overall.
 

JPeeper

Hail Satan!
Jan 4, 2015
11,511
8,599
Remember, defence was a separate ranking and defencemen do contribute to the offence. If I was strictly ranking offence as a whole, then yes San Jose and Calgary would be higher. But I'm only ranking the forwards here.

You can't use team stats to argue position specific rankings. That's why these rankings are more opinion than stats based. Total goals, total offence, all that goes out the window when you put the focus strictly on the forwards. Calgary's forwards are deep but aren't worthy of the top 10 in my opinion.

Do you really think Calgary's forward group is better than Toronto's? You wouldn't swap them straight up in a trade?

It's not like Calgary had 4 .95+ PPG forwards, a Selke caliber forward and a top 3 4th line last year.
 

DearDiary

🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷
Aug 29, 2010
14,623
11,396
Sharks tied for the lead in the West in goals last year, and are ranked 25th?!?!

Pavelski isn't that much of a loss. This is an embarrassing ranking.

Topic = best forwards
Your post = most goals

Can you comprehend the difference between forward and offense? Do you not think that guys like Karlsson and Burns had anything to do with those numbers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larry Fisher

Sam Spade

Registered User
May 4, 2009
27,484
16,207
Maryland
Do the math my friend ... the power rankings are math based.

Respect for all the hard work, seriously, but as is said time and time again in sports the game is not played on paper.

If the Flyers offense finishes higher than the Capitals offense this season I will be beyond shocked. I will also come back to this thread and apologize.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->