HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

#1C no longer a top priority?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-28-2012, 01:31 PM
  #26
SabresAreScaryGood
Win jack for Jack!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myllz View Post
Was Hodgson realistically available at the trade deadline? Trying to answer that is impossible since nobody knows who could be gotten.
I would love to pull off a Sean Couturier or Brayden Schenn. I dont think the FLyers have room for both players

SabresAreScaryGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:31 PM
  #27
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myllz View Post
Was Hodgson realistically available at the trade deadline? Trying to answer that is impossible since nobody knows who could be gotten.

What does Hodgson have to do with this? He is not a proven #1 center and judging by many reponses in here many posters are still clamoring for a mythical #1 center. Getting Hodgson (a 3rd line center with top 6 potential at the time of the trade) does not in any way tell us that a #1 center will magically become available.

You're not answering the questions I asked. Some posters want us to acquire a legit #1 center. Well who would that be exactly? What would satisfy this group that IMO is in fantasyland with this desire.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:33 PM
  #28
flyingpig
Pay the Troll Toll
 
flyingpig's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pay the troll toll
Posts: 1,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LGB24 View Post
I think Roy is expandable this offseason and we acquire a Goose-type 3rd line C. Ennis and Hodgson look to be our top 2 centres moving forward, both showing that they have the capability to be be a true #1. Sure there is a chance it doesn't work out, but our C situation is a lot better than it was at the start of the season. Miles ahead. We absolutely still need depth at the position, but I think the focus has been shifted to size and strength.
If we could "expand" Roy, to about 6'2", 225 lbs, I think we would be all set. He would probably stay on his feet a bit more if he were expanded. .

flyingpig is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:34 PM
  #29
SabresAreScaryGood
Win jack for Jack!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
What does Hodgson have to do with anything?He is not a proven #1 center and judging by many reponses in here many posters are still clamoring for a mythical #1 center. Getting Hodgson (a 3rd line center with top 6 potential at the time of the trade) does not in any way tell us that a #1 center will magically become available.
You think Hodgson is only top 6 potential? I think he is #1 potential.

There will be prospects available, like Brayden Schenn last year who have top line potential.

I doubt anyone like Getzlaf or Kopitar get traded.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:37 PM
  #30
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LGB24 View Post
I think Roy is expandable this offseason and we acquire a Goose-type 3rd line C. Ennis and Hodgson look to be our top 2 centres moving forward, both showing that they have the capability to be be a true #1. Sure there is a chance it doesn't work out, but our C situation is a lot better than it was at the start of the season. Miles ahead. We absolutely still need depth at the position, but I think the focus has been shifted to size and strength.
So get rid of the proven talent (Roy) and hope the kids (Ennis/Hodgson) can handle roles they've never been in(top 6 center).

Do posters realize that the current success of our top 3 centers is due to the fact that they are all top 6 centers but don't have to carry the normal burden of a top 6 center. becasue the responsibility is divided over 3 lines.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:38 PM
  #31
Duddy
Everyday is
 
Duddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Austria
Posts: 10,427
vCash: 500
getting a top flight number 1 center would be dope, but we also need a 4th line center with size, good at face offs, preferably with a cool nickname like Goose or something.

They should go out and get Center depth, propsects for Rochester and some prospect in juniors.

Duddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:38 PM
  #32
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
You think Hodgson is only top 6 potential? I think he is #1 potential.

There will be prospects available, like Brayden Schenn last year who have top line potential.

I doubt anyone like Getzlaf or Kopitar get traded.
You are aware, I hope, that a #1 center is in the top 6. Top 6 potential = potentially a #2 or #1 line center.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:40 PM
  #33
SabresAreScaryGood
Win jack for Jack!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
You are aware, I hope, that a #1 center is in the top 6.
I think there is a big difference between top 6 potential or 1st line potential.

I think there is no doubt Hodgson is a 2nd line center in the NHL.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:42 PM
  #34
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
I think there is a big difference between top potential or 1st line potential.

I think there is no doubt Hodgson is a 2nd line center in the NHL.
You are really missing the point right now

When he was acquired he was not a top 6 center for the Nucks and he is certainly not a proven #1 center.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:44 PM
  #35
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
What rule are we talking about exactly?

The only rule I know about is you need to be strong up the middle to win Cups.
The rule which states you need a bona-fide #1 to win it all, a Gezlaf, a Crosby, a Towes, a Malkin, a Staal, a Lecavalier, etc.

slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:49 PM
  #36
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,520
vCash: 500
@joshjull: whether or not you think it's realistic has nothing to do with whether or not it's a priority need for this team to be a cup contender. The goal: somebody who can center the top line and put up a PPG, while playing sound defense, and has enough sandpaper in their game that they're not shut down easily in the playoffs. If Getzlaf is still available, he might fit the model. Otherwise, you usually try to draft them, even if it means trading up. Yeah, there are probably only fifteen guys like this in the league. That doesn't mean you just, what, give up on getting them...?

The reason being most teams that win the cup have these types of guys, and in my diagnosis, he's the most important piece of a cup winning roster. So I go out of my way to find him, even if the only way to do it is to draft him.

The Bruins are an exception to the rule, and the next time Ryan Miller can play 24 straight playoff games with a s% above .940, I give the Sabres as currently assembled a chance to win the cup, too. Doesn't mean that's a strategy to improve.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:49 PM
  #37
SabresAreScaryGood
Win jack for Jack!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
You are really missing the point right now

When he was acquired he was not a top 6 center for the Nucks and he is certainly not a proven #1 center.
Im not missing the point.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:55 PM
  #38
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 39,514
vCash: 500
Acquiring a #1 center is too tough.

We're better off hoping Ennis and/or Hodgson develop into a #1 center.

So no, it's not the top priority. I think getting some more size, some forward prospect depth at all positions, and also some more center depth (i.e. bottom 6) should be the top priority. But if the opportunity to get a top #1 C guy arises, it should be pounced on...but we don't need to actively pursue it.

New Sabres Captain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:55 PM
  #39
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
Im not missing the point.
yes you are. You're arguing about what Hodgson could be but thats not the point. The point is he wasn't a proven #1 center when he was acquired nor was he even a top 6 center when he was acquired. So getting him via trade tells us absolutely nothing about the availability of proven #1 centers.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:59 PM
  #40
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
yes you are. You're arguing about what Hodgson could be but thats not the point. The point is he wasn't a proven #1 center when he was acquired nor was he even a top 6 center when he was acquired. So getting him via trade tells us absolutely nothing about the availability of proven #1 centers.
Well, you're assuming we have to trade for somebody who's proven. That's why you figure it's so impossible to land a #1 center. I think you either draft them or acquire them as prospects. At best, you might be able to nab one when their stock is really low in a blockbuster type deal. But yeah, of course those types of players are usually untradeable. Most GMs are smart enough to know that those guys are the biggest building blocks of cup-winning rosters, and that's why.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:06 PM
  #41
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,834
vCash: 500
Awards:
They're still thin down the middle, literally and figuratively. They need to be kicking the tires on possible improvements, particularly someone who has some beef and can play a shutdown role.

__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:14 PM
  #42
BuiltTagonTough
Stand still laddy!
 
BuiltTagonTough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 10,536
vCash: 500
A shutdown #3 is something we should be looking into, whether we sign Goose or Stoll in the off season or draft someone.

I still think, barring making massive reach or having a very talented winger drop, 3 of our first 4 picks should be centers. Not players who could make the transition, actual natural centers.

BuiltTagonTough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:15 PM
  #43
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
The rule which states you need a bona-fide #1 to win it all, a Gezlaf, a Crosby, a Towes, a Malkin, a Staal, a Lecavalier, etc.
Those centers are not all on the same level. There is a decent variance between them. You forgot Datsyuk btw and Vinny doesn't belong since he won pre-lockout. I would also like to point out that every one of those centers was drafted by their team and developed from within. So how exactly are we going to trade for one? One thats already established themselves that is.

Also what you define as a bonafide #1 is not the same as others. No one considered Toews a stud #1 center until AFTER they won the Cup. Same goes for Getzlaf. The top two centers on the Ducks that year were Andy McDonald (offensively) and Pahlson (getting big minutes as a shutdown center).


At the end of the day you need a good #1 center and depth behind him. Because none of those centers, regardless of skill level, carried their teams to the Cup. Their teams were strong up the middle.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:16 PM
  #44
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,834
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Those centers are not all on the same level. There is a decent variance between them. You forget Datsyuk btw and Vinny doesn't belong since he won pre-lockout. I would also like to point out that every one of those centers was drafted by their team and developed from withn. So how exactly are we going to trade for one?

Also what you define as a bonafide #1 is not the same as others. No one considered Toews a stud #1 center until AFTER they won the Cup. Same goes for Getzlaf. The top two centers on the Ducks that year were Andy McDonald (offensively) and Pahlson (getting big minutes as a shutdown center).

Btw the Habs in 1993, The Devils in 95, 2000 and 2003 as well as the Bruins last year all won Cups without the "stud #1 center".

At the end of the day you need a good #1 center and depth behind him.
Those Cup teams had unreal center depth and in the case of the Devils, two Selke-quality pivots (Madden/Holik). Buffalo could due to use a guy who is a human erasure out there to round out their center group.

Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:19 PM
  #45
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Well, you're assuming we have to trade for somebody who's proven. That's why you figure it's so impossible to land a #1 center. I think you either draft them or acquire them as prospects. At best, you might be able to nab one when their stock is really low in a blockbuster type deal. But yeah, of course those types of players are usually untradeable. Most GMs are smart enough to know that those guys are the biggest building blocks of cup-winning rosters, and that's why.
I'm well aware of the fact that a #1 center is only going to be acquired by drafting them or in a trade when they are like Hodgson, very early in their development.


But again just look at this thread.

Posters are still clamoring for a #1 center. Even though we have two kids (Ennis/Hodgson) showing some potential. So that tells me they want the proven commodity not the prospect with potential. That is someone we will not be able to acquire via trade.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:26 PM
  #46
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
Those Cup teams had unreal center depth and in the case of the Devils, two Selke-quality pivots (Madden/Holik). Buffalo could due to use a guy who is a human erasure out there to round out their center group.
I know that but they aren't the stud centers that some posters are refering to. I also deleted that reference from my post so I didn't further divert the discussion but you caught it before I edited it. It gets tough when I'm debating multiple posters and they're picking small parts to argue.

The arguement from some is we need to get a legit #1 center. I've argued you just need to be strong up the middle (Those Devil squads fit my defination). But I've also been asking for a defination of what this mythical #1 center is supposed to look like and I've gotten different answers. But none of those types (Crosby, Malkin, B.Richards, Toews Getzlaf, Datsyuk, etc) are going to available via trade. So why should an unattainable goal by our #1 priority?

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:26 PM
  #47
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Posters are still clamoring for a #1 center. Even though we have two kids (Ennis/Hodgson) showing some potential. So that tells me they want the proven commodity not the prospect with potential. That is someone we will not be able to acquire via trade.
It won't be easy. But, I wouldn't say it is impossible.

Joe Thornton has been traded once in his career already. You never know what can happen.

For instance, do LA or SJ go through a major shake up if things don't go well between now and the end of the playoffs? If they do, a #1C could possibly move this summer like the Philly centers moving last off season.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:28 PM
  #48
OkimLom
Registered User
 
OkimLom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
They're still thin down the middle, literally and figuratively. They need to be kicking the tires on possible improvements, particularly someone who has some beef and can play a shutdown role.
The first name I thought of when you posted this; Jordan Staal. Honestly, I would take him on our team in a second. It would be tough to pry him out but I would not hesitate for the chance to get him in our lineup.

Shutdown kind of guy, sandpaper to his game. Similar Situation as Hodgson. Lindy likes to balance out ice time so I'm sure these guys would not be buried.

Staal/Hodgson/Ennis as your centers(not in that order) and if you somehow grab Parise in the offseason...Sure hes not Elite talent but that center depth is very Boston-like. Potential to still have dangerous lines no matter who you put out there.
Of course the lines would change but, still...The potential.

Leino-Staal-Pominville (shutdown line)
Parise-Hodgson-Vanek
Foligno-Ennis-Stafford

OkimLom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:30 PM
  #49
boots electric
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 1,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
It's still the #1 priority, IMO. A 15 game hot streak by Ennis and Hodgson is not enough to convince me otherwise. Ennis is great at center but he can be just as great on the wing if a legit #1 came to town.
This sums up my thoughts as well. Ennis has been awesome the last couple of months at center, and the way things have been going, there's no reason whatsoever to move him to the wing...right now. It's still an incredibly small sample size, and it's waaaaay too early to judge whether or not he's a permanent solution to the team's situation at center.

I don't think there's any question at least one of our top two picks will be used on a center, and I fully expect Darcy to target one NHL-ready (or damn close) center via trade. Bjugstad is still an interesting proposition IMO

tl;dr -- MOAR CENTERS

boots electric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:31 PM
  #50
drinking bleach irl
don't be so serious
 
drinking bleach irl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Country: Ras al-Khaimah
Posts: 11,677
vCash: 436
Obviously the answer here is to acquire Hanzal.

drinking bleach irl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:36 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.