I would rather have segregated players, for more efficient use of ice time. But its nice to have a scoring threat on the pk, part of datsyuks defense is the threat of his ability to control the puck and create plays
Give me the two-way guy(s). I watched it work with the Stars in the late 90's-2000's and many other teams. When your best players are on the ice late in a game no matter what the situation you're in a good spot. I don't want to have to rely on my $1-2M players to preserve a lead in the playoffs.
Edit: OP should really change Bergeron to someone else more applicable, as he's basically a Datsyuk starter kit. The player you're really describing is more of a Kruger, Anisimov type.
Last edited by glovesave_35: 02-19-2014 at 06:12 PM.
I'd definitely want two good players over one good player, that's for sure.
Originally Posted by DatsyukianDeke
You take the best goal scorer, and a top 3 defensive player and combine them into one player, and compare them to Datsyuk?
Uhh.. huge Datsyuk fan but Ovi/Bergeron for me.
I'll let OP explain himself better but the way I understand it he wasn't asking if you want one do it all player and two players who are great at offense and defense, respectively. I thought he was asking for a more general philosophy of running a team. He also picked a terrible example of a "defensive" player with Bergeron.
I'd rather have Ovechkin on the ice over Datsyuk, if I was down a goal, and would rather have Bergeron on the ice over Datsyuk, if I was up a goal.
Essentially, you're asking if I would rather have a top 5 player in the NHL and a Selke winner on my team over a top 10 player in the NHL who plays Selke-level defense. Not sure how you can possibly go for Datsyuk, in this situation.
Your mistake is that you included Bergeron in this poll, rather than a guy like Jordan Staal. No GM in the league would trade OV/Bergeron for Datsyuk.
It really depends on your team. If you have a lot of depth then you want as many two way players as possible. if you dont then you want separated responsibilities.
It is much easier to find forwards who are good at defense than forwards who are good at offense. SO many busted first round picks have focused on defense in the later part of their careers in order to still stay in the league.
take into consideration that i may not understand op)))))))))))
Hard question because it depends on how many of those types of players i'd have. I'd rather have 3 offensive forwards and 3 defensive forwards than 6 two way forwards but i'd rather have 2 two way forwards than 1 offensive and 1 defensive
obviously every team needs a mix, but personally I'd build around two-way guys and supplement with specialists. I don't want Ovechkin/Kane/Stamkos types driving the team (though not to say I don't want them on the team) - I want Toews/Datsuyk/Hossa types that I can use in any situation, and add to them the offensive guys when it's advantageous to go on the attack
People got to learn how to use punctuation. On our radio ads the other day a black man's wallet was reported as missing. Instead of a man's wallet black in colour missing a black man's wallet is missing.
If you had to choose, what do you guys think is the better way of handling defensive and offensive responsibilities on an NHL roster?
Would you want one guy who can do it all, someone who shoulders the responsibility of scoring points AND shutting down the opposition's best players?
Or, would you want your defense and your offense segregated into two separate roster players, having better flexibility with lines, and try to focus on getting optimal matchups?
For sake of the comparison, let's assume that Bergeron is more of a 40-point player than a 60-pointer.
there is a huge flaw in your question though 1 Dats for 2 other top 6 forwards, a more fair question is do you want Dats and Zetts (2 guys that do it all) or a AO/Bergeron (as a 40 point guy which he isn't) combo right?
The answer is quite clear IMO (if Bergeron is a 40 point guy, he is really a 60 point guy so it becomes more of a tossup but still quite clear IMO..
also for the last 5 years (this year is a projection but pretty sure it's very doable) he has been an adjusted 56,61,70,60,61 point guy as well
I value complete, 200 ft players more than anything. Granted, my favorite team is the model for 2-way centers the past 20 years (Yzerman and Fedorov to Datsyuk and Zetterberg), but I still feel that way for players like Kopitar and Toews.
If a player like Ovechkin isn't scoring, what exactly is he doing? And if a defensive forward like McClement is getting scored on, how's he going to make up for that?
Meanwhile, a player like Toews can go through a scoring slump yet still contribute in so many other ways.