HFBoards

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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-22-2013, 09:51 PM
  #76
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Having a superstar doesn't change whether you are top heavy or well balanced though so it's irrelevant to the discussion.
I don't think it is.

I think that the Pronger example clearly illustrates how important superstars are. Pronger took the Oilers past the Ducks and into the finals. Next season he joins the Ducks and takes them to the cup.

People who think that superstars don't have a huge impact don't know what they're talking about. They can't do it all by themselves but good luck winning without one.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 09:52 PM
  #77
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 9,133
vCash: 500
I'm watching the Hawks and I'd take them over a lunchpail type team any day of the week. You need studs to win cups IMO. We have a few (Price, PK, Max, Chuckie)...then there complimentary, character guys you need like Prust, Moen, etc...but we need more. I think we're a few pieces away from being a contender.

hockeyfan2k11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 09:53 PM
  #78
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrb1p View Post
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.
I think you can build around Parise. Arguably Richards, Gaborik, and Suter as well.

Komisarek, Gionta, Havlat weren't the big FA signings of their respective years.

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 09:55 PM
  #79
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I don't think it is.

I think that the Pronger example clearly illustrates how important superstars are. Pronger took the Oilers past the Ducks and into the finals. Next season he joins the Ducks and takes them to the cup.

People who think that superstars don't have a huge impact don't know what they're talking about. They can't do it all by themselves but good luck winning without one.
How is it relevant to whether a team is well balanced or top heavy?

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 09:57 PM
  #80
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
How is it relevant to whether a team is well balanced or top heavy?
It's more evidence of what I said... good luck winning without a superstar. You need top talent to win.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 09:59 PM
  #81
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prallchengher View Post
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.
If one player is creating that scoring depth then it's top heavy since everything is reliant on that one player. But you're right they aren't mutually exclusive because if you surround Crosby with a bunch of other really good players then have a balanced team.

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:01 PM
  #82
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrb1p View Post
3 core player out of the market.
Sort of like:

Carter-Richards-Williams
Or
Chara-Horton-Thomas
Or
Hossa-sharp-Campbell


Yeah, try again.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:02 PM
  #83
Mrb1p
Registered User
 
Mrb1p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Citizen of the world
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
I think you can build around Parise. Arguably Richards, Gaborik, and Suter as well.

Komisarek, Gionta, Havlat weren't the big FA signings of their respective years.
Komisarek got 4m, Gionta got 5 and Havlat got 5 too.. Big signings are big.

Mrb1p is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:03 PM
  #84
Madam Kadri
Fight, Troll, Score
 
Madam Kadri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland native
Country: United States
Posts: 6,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
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).
Hmm, I think I've found the discrepancy in our lines of though. I'm was thinking more about line performance being well-balanced, regardless of the talent distribution. Whether we're "well balanced" or "top heavy" in terms of talent, I don't care as much. In terms of talent distribution, I just don't want "well balanced" to mean the same as everyone sucks or is mediocre, because such a team is going to go nowhere.

Madam Kadri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:04 PM
  #85
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
It's more evidence of what I said... good luck winning without a superstar. You need top talent to win.
And does having a superstar mean you can't be well-balanced as well? If not then it has no bearing on whether top-heavy vs well-balanced is better since both can have them.

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:04 PM
  #86
Mrb1p
Registered User
 
Mrb1p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Citizen of the world
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
Sort of like:

Carter-Richards-Williams
Or
Chara-Horton-Thomas
Or
Hossa-sharp-Campbell


Yeah, try again.
Then you think about it...
The kings had Quick, Kopitar, Brown, Doughty ahead of those guys. So yeah, it fits my bill.
The bruins had Krejci, Bergeron, Lucic and Chara and Thomas are practically homegrown so, yeah it fits my bill.
And the Hawks had Toews, Keith, Seabrook, Kane, Bolland and Niemi apart of their core too... So yeah it fits!

Mrb1p is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:05 PM
  #87
Mrb1p
Registered User
 
Mrb1p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Citizen of the world
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
And does having a superstar mean you can't be well-balanced as well? If not then it has no bearing on whether top-heavy vs well-balanced is better since both can have them.
Dude, this is completely useless posts why are you even debating this

Mrb1p is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:10 PM
  #88
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Having a superstar doesn't change whether you are top heavy or well balanced though so it's irrelevant to the discussion.
It does.

Top-heavy means you take on an 8 million dollar player and two 1 million dollar player over three 3.33 million dollar players.

That's what top heavy means. The penguins ate a great example. Habs are a great counterexample.


Last edited by DAChampion: 02-22-2013 at 10:20 PM.
DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:17 PM
  #89
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrb1p View Post
Komisarek got 4m, Gionta got 5 and Havlat got 5 too.. Big signings are big.
That year Bouwmeester, the Sedins, Hossa, Gaborik, and Cammalleri were the cream of the crop. Komisarek, Gionta and Havlat were the second tier guys.

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:24 PM
  #90
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
And does having a superstar mean you can't be well-balanced as well?
Welcome to the salary cap.

A balanced team in the context if this thread means a team of approximate equals.

Can't do that with supestars on the roster.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:34 PM
  #91
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It does.

Top-heavy means you take on an 8 million dollar player and two 1 million dollar player over three 3.33 million dollar players.

That's what top heavy means. The penguins ate a great example. Has are a great counterexample.
I disagree, the cap is high enough that you could have an 8 million dollar player, 2 guys at 6m, 3 guys at 5m, 6 guys at 3m, another 6 at 2m, and 4 guys at 1m.

That's not top heavy, not too mention there are plenty of superstars at 5-6 million dollar cap hits. Not too mention the ones on cheap RFA deals or ELCs.

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:38 PM
  #92
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Welcome to the salary cap.

A balanced team in the context if this thread means a team of approximate equals.

Can't do that with supestars on the roster.
The OP was talking about the Habs scoring by committee, doesn't mean Plekanec is equal to White, or Markov is the an equal to Bouillon. There will always be a large variance.

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:41 PM
  #93
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,266
vCash: 500
Absolutely not. You can gradually upgrade your depth but elite players don't grow on trees. The Habs were fortunate to have drawn a lottery pick that enabled them to draft Price.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:42 PM
  #94
HatTricK09
Registered User
 
HatTricK09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,412
vCash: 50
A team needs a talented player to succeed, but they also need some balanced lines to backup the talents.
Having 6+ players that scores 20-25 goals is nice and all but we also need a player to count on during key situations
It's a fine balance between having stars and good depth that makes a team win.

HatTricK09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:52 PM
  #95
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTricK09 View Post
A team needs a talented player to succeed, but they also need some balanced lines to backup the talents.
Having 6+ players that scores 20-25 goals is nice and all but we also need a player to count on during key situations
It's a fine balance between having stars and good depth that makes a team win.
Exactly. You need both. A superstar can't do it alone, but it's very difficult to do it without stars.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:55 PM
  #96
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
The OP was talking about the Habs scoring by committee, doesn't mean Plekanec is equal to White, or Markov is the an equal to Bouillon. There will always be a large variance.
Right, but some variances are larger than others.

Habs have a lot of balance, no one player stands out except Price.

Our 1st line is relatively weak, we have no stars in our top 6, but we have a very good 3rd line, and also no bums in our top 6.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:55 PM
  #97
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,070
vCash: 500
You need talent. Its always great to have a superstar or two.

The most important ingredient, as vokiel mentioned earlier, is a coach who is able to implement a system that exploits its strengths and is able to adjust that system to face a variety of different opponents with different styles.

That is why we lost to Philly. We could not/did not adjust.

Coaching matters. A lot more than what a lot of people are giving credit to.

Look at what Therrien is doing compared to Martin. And for real proof, look at what Carlyle is doing in Toronto.

And all it took for the Kings was to have their coach replaced and went from an 8th place finish to the Cup.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 10:57 PM
  #98
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
And for real proof, look at what Carlyle is doing in Toronto.

And all it took for the Kings was to have their coach replaced and went from an 8th place finish to the Cup.
Also the JVR and Carter trades gave those teams a missing ingredient.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:02 PM
  #99
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Also the JVR and Carter trades gave those teams a missing ingredient.
Agree.

The Leafs looked scary good last night. Lots of speed and lots of toughness. And they are taking aggressive hockey to the next level. Almost to the point of making the Bruins look like a passive team.

Carlyle is taking full advantage of who he has on his bench.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:07 PM
  #100
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 9,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Agree.

The Leafs looked scary good last night. Lots of speed and lots of toughness. And they are taking aggressive hockey to the next level. Almost to the point of making the Bruins look like a passive team.

Carlyle is taking full advantage of who he has on his bench.
And they fired the guy that built them up to that point. Glad Burke is gone so I can start liking him again.

hockeyfan2k11 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 02:32 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.