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

Our Centre situation for the future [ALL CENTRE DEPTH DISCUSSION]

View Poll Results: What do we do?
Draft a number one center and trade Plekanec for a key missing piece? 31 41.33%
Draft a number one center and trade Eller? 2 2.67%
Draft a number one center and trade Desharnais? 10 13.33%
Draft a number one center and shift Deshairnais to wing? 20 26.67%
Keep our existing centers and draft a winger or defenseman? 12 16.00%
Voters: 75. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-29-2012, 05:49 PM
  #201
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwang View Post
I just don't know where to begin with your argument. Just because Pleks is "our" number one centre, does not make him "a" number one centre in the league. That's the point. Also, his production, while not totally his fault, is FAR from that of a number one, elite centre. A career best 71 points is not gonna cut it.

We have the wingers, but we still have no elite centre. Hell, not since Pierre bloody Turgeon!
Raw points is a primitive statistic, kind of like hits in baseball. Too many factors beyond a player's actual offensive skill involved. But if that's the metric you want to use, Plekanec was 24th among centers in pts last season - if there are 30 #1 centers, he's in there.

Kind of beside the point, but do you really believe Turgeon was more "elite" than Koivu?

Roulin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 06:35 PM
  #202
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 32,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclones Rock View Post
I just can't see Edmonton going for that. They've committed to rebuilding via the draft and a guy like Plekanec fits more of a solid missing piece type of player than what Edmonton might get out of their high 1st round pick.

A lot of Carter talk on this board..... I don't think he's anything special.

Jeff Carter's contract is an albatross...makes Gomez's look good by comparison. He also wasn't highly beloved in Philly and his stay in Columbus has been nothing shy of a complete disappointment. The line of Carter, Nash and Prospal has been a major league bust.

Carter has a great wrist shot, but he's not a great playmaker. He's ok in that department. The only checking he does is at the bank. His contract is a complete deal breaker. Plus, he just seems like the kind of guy who looks at himself way too much in the mirror
I'm not a big Carter fan, but saying his contract is worst than Gomez's is beyond ridiculous.

His cap hit is barely above 5 mil(5.27) and he produces at a 6 mil level, Yeah it's long but he signed it in his prime, 11 years at 26 and the last 3 years are a low salary so it costs little to trade or waive him if his game goes to crap. Gomez was overpaid the minute he signed at almost 7.4 mil, the last 2 years salary is friendliER but at this point maybe nobody will want him.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 06:38 PM
  #203
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 32,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwang View Post
I just don't know where to begin with your argument. Just because Pleks is "our" number one centre, does not make him "a" number one centre in the league. That's the point. Also, his production, while not totally his fault, is FAR from that of a number one, elite centre. A career best 71 points is not gonna cut it.

We have the wingers, but we still have no elite centre. Hell, not since Pierre bloody Turgeon!
Go do the stats, how many centers have outproduced him the last 2 1/2 years? ...and that doesn't take into consideration the fact that he is well above average defensively, durable and plays a ton on PK.

In terms of overall production, he is in the top 25 in the NHL.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 09:17 PM
  #204
Schwang
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Kingston, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Raw points is a primitive statistic, kind of like hits in baseball. Too many factors beyond a player's actual offensive skill involved. But if that's the metric you want to use, Plekanec was 24th among centers in pts last season - if there are 30 #1 centers, he's in there.

Kind of beside the point, but do you really believe Turgeon was more "elite" than Koivu?
Well, what determining factor would you like to use? Is he a game breaker? Has he led us to any great playoff success? A cup perhaps? Has he helped form a formidable top line which teams fear? Has he achieved a point a game season or better? Has he won any awards? Any 30 or 40 goal seasons? Has his point production steadily increased? He's not a star, number one centre. I like the guy, but if he's our number one, we're going no where.

And yes, Turgeon was a hell of a lot more elite than koivu. I loved the guy, but please!
Sorry, but points and goals matter. The fourth liners can worry about the other crap needed to win games.

Schwang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 09:21 PM
  #205
Schwang
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Kingston, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Go do the stats, how many centers have outproduced him the last 2 1/2 years? ...and that doesn't take into consideration the fact that he is well above average defensively, durable and plays a ton on PK.

In terms of overall production, he is in the top 25 in the NHL.
Just cause the guy plays on your top line and gets 60 points a year does not make him a number one centre in the league! He's there by default! We have no one else! Oh, btw. I must have missed him at the all star game. How did he do?

And that's one reason why the Habs are among the top 26 teams in the NHL right now!

See what I did there?

Schwang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 10:10 AM
  #206
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwang View Post
Sorry, but points and goals matter. The fourth liners can worry about the other crap needed to win games.
Oh, I wasn't aware of that rule. So, if your 1st line gets outscored, you still win the game as long as there are a lot of points involved? Goal differential only applies to the 4th line? In that case, bring in the Schremps, let's win some games 5-12!

In the hockey I've been watching, the determining factor is goal differential. Preventing goals against has exactly the same impact on the result of a game as creating goals for. That goes for every player on the ice, regardless of line. The only exception might be for a PP specialist, but the Habs don't have any of those. Whether a player is high or low event might affect your opinion of whether the player is "elite" or a "star," but IMO the player's contribution to wins is more important.

Goal differential, over a large enough sample size of games, is most accurately measured by shot differential or scoring chance differential. By either metric, Plekanec has done well, playing against top lines, with a variety of (usually weaker) linemates, starting shifts in the D-zone more often than in the O-zone. He has also devoted ice time to playing on the PK, where his speed and intelligence pressures opposing dmen.

Plekanec could be playing with Pacioretty and Cole, taking as many O-zone faceoffs as the Sedins. The coach could be sneaking him on the ice against rookies. He could spend PK's resting, and then play the entire 2 minutes of PP's, like Kovalchuk. I bet he'd be putting up a lot more points. So would the opposition. But I'm glad the priority for both coach and player is winning games.

I'm all for upgrading at center. I'm also for upgrading at the wings if a good deal is available. I'm mostly for upgrading the D (which would be a huge help to Plekanec, IMO). But I think making an upgrade at center into a must-do, #1 priority, based on Plekanec not being flashy enough around the net, would be pressuring ourselves into a mistake.

Roulin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 10:48 AM
  #207
Schwang
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Kingston, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Oh, I wasn't aware of that rule. So, if your 1st line gets outscored, you still win the game as long as there are a lot of points involved? Goal differential only applies to the 4th line? In that case, bring in the Schremps, let's win some games 5-12!

In the hockey I've been watching, the determining factor is goal differential. Preventing goals against has exactly the same impact on the result of a game as creating goals for. That goes for every player on the ice, regardless of line. The only exception might be for a PP specialist, but the Habs don't have any of those. Whether a player is high or low event might affect your opinion of whether the player is "elite" or a "star," but IMO the player's contribution to wins is more important.

Goal differential, over a large enough sample size of games, is most accurately measured by shot differential or scoring chance differential. By either metric, Plekanec has done well, playing against top lines, with a variety of (usually weaker) linemates, starting shifts in the D-zone more often than in the O-zone. He has also devoted ice time to playing on the PK, where his speed and intelligence pressures opposing dmen.

Plekanec could be playing with Pacioretty and Cole, taking as many O-zone faceoffs as the Sedins. The coach could be sneaking him on the ice against rookies. He could spend PK's resting, and then play the entire 2 minutes of PP's, like Kovalchuk. I bet he'd be putting up a lot more points. So would the opposition. But I'm glad the priority for both coach and player is winning games.

I'm all for upgrading at center. I'm also for upgrading at the wings if a good deal is available. I'm mostly for upgrading the D (which would be a huge help to Plekanec, IMO). But I think making an upgrade at center into a must-do, #1 priority, based on Plekanec not being flashy enough around the net, would be pressuring ourselves into a mistake.
Ok so I was on a bit of a rant. My example was a bit extreme. However, speaking of goal differential and goals against, yes it's everyone's responsability, but that duty does not typically fall to the top line. A top lines' main job is to score. If you outscore your opponent, you win.

I know we agree we need to upgrade, so don't take this the wrong way. But when you mention the priority is to win games and shut down top players, and goal differential, I wonder what games you've been watching. Aside from a handfull of games, this has not been happening. How many times has this team sat back and blown leads? This team struggles to score. If Pleks is a top centre, then where is he when we need goals? Answer, he's defending the lead and killing penalties. Not the typical duties of elite, star forwards. Yes, he's a top 2WAY Centre in the league, but NOT a number one, elite centre.

Schwang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 10:56 AM
  #208
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,893
vCash: 500
It's interesting to see that, in the last 11 years, the Stanley Cup winner had AT LEAST one top-ten center the year they won the Cup. Look at:

2000: New Jersey - Arnott / Gomez
2001: Colorado - Sakic / Forsberg
2002: Detroit - Yzerman / Fedorov / Datsyuk
2003: New Jersey - Nieuwendyk / Gomez
2004: Tampa Bay - Lecavalier / Richards
2005: lockout
2006: Carolina - Staal / Brind'Amour
2007: Anaheim - Getzlaf
2008: Detroit - Zetterberg / Datsyuk
2009: Pittsburgh - Crosby / Malkin
2010: Chicago - Toews
2011: Boston - Krejci / Bergeron

If they didn't have a top ten center, they had an elite team to surround the centers - a more difficult job because you have to invest in more players - wingers and defensemen.

Digging deeper, most, if not all, of these teams had three players who played at superstar calibre during the playoff run. That means you need three elite, or borderline elite, players who rise to the occasion. We don't have anybody who loves the spotlight. Cammalleri was one.

We potentially have that for the future in Price, PK and Pacioretty but we currently don't have the team to surround them with, nor do they have the experience.

We have a lot of work to do and it starts with elite players.

Ginu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 02:33 PM
  #209
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwang View Post
Ok so I was on a bit of a rant. My example was a bit extreme. However, speaking of goal differential and goals against, yes it's everyone's responsability, but that duty does not typically fall to the top line. A top lines' main job is to score. If you outscore your opponent, you win.

I know we agree we need to upgrade, so don't take this the wrong way. But when you mention the priority is to win games and shut down top players, and goal differential, I wonder what games you've been watching. Aside from a handfull of games, this has not been happening. How many times has this team sat back and blown leads? This team struggles to score. If Pleks is a top centre, then where is he when we need goals? Answer, he's defending the lead and killing penalties. Not the typical duties of elite, star forwards. Yes, he's a top 2WAY Centre in the league, but NOT a number one, elite centre.
Not to single you out or anything but its amazing how archaic a lot of fan's opinions on line strategy is. This isn't the eighties anymore, the era of two-lines offense, two-lines hitting and defense is obsolete. Since the defensive revolution in the nineties the chief value of a team's best players is the ability to counter the other teams best players. Either by matching up against them directly like Montreal or Detroit, San Jose, Boston does, or by a "trading queens" strategy of having them rampage against lesser opponents to counter the advantage that the other team gets by sending their good players against your lesser ones, Vancouver and Chicago being the principle examples.

Plekanec is a first line center in the strongest sense. That he can be the centerpiece of a line you can match against other top lines and expect him to manage a positive or at least neutral result. Much like Bergeron in Boston (who has the huge advantage of Chara's support behind him) or Backes in St. Louis. Kesler, Datsyuk and Kopitar being the elite versions of this kind of player.

Talks to Goalposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 02:37 PM
  #210
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
Not to single you out or anything but its amazing how archaic a lot of fan's opinions on line strategy is. This isn't the eighties anymore, the era of two-lines offense, two-lines hitting and defense is obsolete. Since the defensive revolution in the nineties the chief value of a team's best players is the ability to counter the other teams best players. Either by matching up against them directly like Montreal or Detroit, San Jose, Boston does, or by a "trading queens" strategy of having them rampage against lesser opponents to counter the advantage that the other team gets by sending their good players against your lesser ones, Vancouver and Chicago being the principle examples.

Plekanec is a first line center in the strongest sense. That he can be the centerpiece of a line you can match against other top lines and expect him to manage a positive or at least neutral result. Much like Bergeron in Boston (who has the huge advantage of Chara's support behind him) or Backes in St. Louis. Kesler, Datsyuk and Kopitar being the elite versions of this kind of player.
Absolutely not.

Pleks is a good two way center. That doesn't mean that he's a strong 1st line guy. Legit 1st line centers are guys who can carry the offense. Pleks cannot really do this. He's a solid player but he's much better suited towards the 2nd line.

He's versatile in that he can be used in a checking role but he's a poor 1st line center. He only has the role here because we have no one who's better. He's nowhere close to a Kopitar (who is much younger) or a Datsyuk. Those guys are legit first line centers.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 02:49 PM
  #211
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Absolutely not.

Pleks is a good two way center. That doesn't mean that he's a strong 1st line guy. Legit 1st line centers are guys who can carry the offense. Pleks cannot really do this. He's a solid player but he's much better suited towards the 2nd line.

He's versatile in that he can be used in a checking role but he's a poor 1st line center. He only has the role here because we have no one who's better. He's nowhere close to a Kopitar (who is much younger) or a Datsyuk. Those guys are legit first line centers.
that's laughable.


it's one thing to, correctly, point out that Pleks isn't in the caliber of the elite first line centre's in the game today, but to argue that he's a "poor" 1st line centre is ridiculous.

a C who can reliably play 20+min/game in all situations, is legitimately one of the top 10 defensive centres in the league, and who is good for ~.7ppg+ (~55+pts/season), can hardly be considered a "poor" first line centre.


problem is of course that it's a semantic debate. there is no "definitive" criteria for a first line centre, let alone for classifying them as elite, strong, average or poor...

but even still, to call Plekanec "poor" as a first line centre is WAY off imo. Even looking at just pts this year, in a year where the habs are once again struggling as a team to produce offensively, Pleks is right there in pts production with guys like Getzlaf, Richards, Kesler...

and his defensive game and PK contributions are certainly among the best in the game at his position.


nothing "poor" about that.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 02:55 PM
  #212
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,893
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
that's laughable.


it's one thing to, correctly, point out that Pleks isn't in the caliber of the elite first line centre's in the game today, but to argue that he's a "poor" 1st line centre is ridiculous.

a C who can reliably play 20+min/game in all situations, is legitimately one of the top 10 defensive centres in the league, and who is good for ~.7ppg+ (~55+pts/season), can hardly be considered a "poor" first line centre.


problem is of course that it's a semantic debate. there is no "definitive" criteria for a first line centre, let alone for classifying them as elite, strong, average or poor...

but even still, to call Plekanec "poor" as a first line centre is WAY off imo. Even looking at just pts this year, in a year where the habs are once again struggling as a team to produce offensively, Pleks is right there in pts production with guys like Getzlaf, Richards, Kesler...

and his defensive game and PK contributions are certainly among the best in the game at his position.


nothing "poor" about that.
Regardless of the argument, we're going nowhere with Plekanec as our 1st line center if we can't surround him with franchise players. He's not a top 15 center in the NHL.

Ginu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 02:58 PM
  #213
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Absolutely not.

Pleks is a good two way center. That doesn't mean that he's a strong 1st line guy. Legit 1st line centers are guys who can carry the offense. Pleks cannot really do this. He's a solid player but he's much better suited towards the 2nd line.

He's versatile in that he can be used in a checking role but he's a poor 1st line center. He only has the role here because we have no one who's better. He's nowhere close to a Kopitar (who is much younger) or a Datsyuk. Those guys are legit first line centers.
Strongest sense as in meeting the most sensible definition. Not meaning he's an exceptionally strong first line center.

Who is a first line center should be defined by value not necessarily role. Plekanec's non-offensive value is massive.

Now he isn't an elite first liner, no doubt about that. But having him play there means you don't have a hole in that position. He can be upgraded upon or better surrounded by having an equally or almost equally good center behind him but he isn't something that absolutely must be replaced for a team to win.

The real hole on this team is defensemen 3 through 4, plus a functional power play (they have the horses for that one so I suspect that is a coaching issue). If they had that they'd be in a pretty strong position to be competitive in the East.

Talks to Goalposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 03:02 PM
  #214
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Raw points is a primitive statistic, kind of like hits in baseball. Too many factors beyond a player's actual offensive skill involved. But if that's the metric you want to use, Plekanec was 24th among centers in pts last season - if there are 30 #1 centers, he's in there.

Kind of beside the point, but do you really believe Turgeon was more "elite" than Koivu?
Not to throw this thread off track, but hits isn't really a primitive stat. Hits is still a good stat, it's over shadowed by other statistics now, but probably shouldn't be, a hit is more likely to lead to runs than a walk or other measures that lead to a higher on base %. A hit>walk.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 03:04 PM
  #215
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
Regardless of the argument, we're going nowhere with Plekanec as our 1st line center if we can't surround him with franchise players. He's not a top 15 center in the NHL.
Point getter yes i agree, he is not. But he's arguably a top 15 center because of his 2-way game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Not to throw this thread off track, but hits isn't really a primitive stat. Hits is still a good stat, it's over shadowed by other statistics now, but probably shouldn't be, a hit is more likely to lead to runs than a walk or other measures that lead to a higher on base %. A hit>walk.
i dont think he meant its not a good stat. There are no good/bad stats. I think primitive as in its easily identifiable, like a goal, is a primitive stat.


Last edited by uiCk: 01-30-2012 at 03:11 PM.
uiCk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 03:05 PM
  #216
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
It's interesting to see that, in the last 11 years, the Stanley Cup winner had AT LEAST one top-ten center the year they won the Cup. Look at:

2000: New Jersey - Arnott / Gomez
2001: Colorado - Sakic / Forsberg
2002: Detroit - Yzerman / Fedorov / Datsyuk
2003: New Jersey - Nieuwendyk / Gomez
2004: Tampa Bay - Lecavalier / Richards
2005: lockout
2006: Carolina - Staal / Brind'Amour
2007: Anaheim - Getzlaf
2008: Detroit - Zetterberg / Datsyuk
2009: Pittsburgh - Crosby / Malkin
2010: Chicago - Toews
2011: Boston - Krejci / Bergeron

If they didn't have a top ten center, they had an elite team to surround the centers - a more difficult job because you have to invest in more players - wingers and defensemen.

Digging deeper, most, if not all, of these teams had three players who played at superstar calibre during the playoff run. That means you need three elite, or borderline elite, players who rise to the occasion. We don't have anybody who loves the spotlight. Cammalleri was one.

We potentially have that for the future in Price, PK and Pacioretty but we currently don't have the team to surround them with, nor do they have the experience.

We have a lot of work to do and it starts with elite players.
Yep, good offensive teams win cups, and it usually starts at the centre position. I've been saying this all along. The message here is your last sentence, the team is a long way off, it will take time to do what needs to be done, and that is only if all the right moves are made. I don't think many are confident that the current GM can architect a winning team, no use keeping him around much longer to fumble and bumble.

Agnostic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 03:08 PM
  #217
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
Regardless of the argument, we're going nowhere with Plekanec as our 1st line center if we can't surround him with franchise players. He's not a top 15 center in the NHL.
I'm not sure I agree. The problem is the 2nd and 3rd line centers leave a huge gap. Pleks is suitable with upgrades to other positions. He can't carry the offense on his own, but with the proper supporting cast he can contribute successfully to a winning team. He's better than Krecji/Bergeron both. imo. the problem is Boston has 3 centers equally as good.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 03:10 PM
  #218
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
that's laughable.


it's one thing to, correctly, point out that Pleks isn't in the caliber of the elite first line centre's in the game today, but to argue that he's a "poor" 1st line centre is ridiculous.

a C who can reliably play 20+min/game in all situations, is legitimately one of the top 10 defensive centres in the league, and who is good for ~.7ppg+ (~55+pts/season), can hardly be considered a "poor" first line centre.


problem is of course that it's a semantic debate. there is no "definitive" criteria for a first line centre, let alone for classifying them as elite, strong, average or poor...

but even still, to call Plekanec "poor" as a first line centre is WAY off imo. Even looking at just pts this year, in a year where the habs are once again struggling as a team to produce offensively, Pleks is right there in pts production with guys like Getzlaf, Richards, Kesler...

and his defensive game and PK contributions are certainly among the best in the game at his position.

nothing "poor" about that.
There are at least 20 better centers in the league. That makes him a poor first line center. I'm sorry man, but he's not a first line center. Never was. We just used him as our first because it was him or Gomez.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
Strongest sense as in meeting the most sensible definition. Not meaning he's an exceptionally strong first line center.

Who is a first line center should be defined by value not necessarily role. Plekanec's non-offensive value is massive.

Now he isn't an elite first liner, no doubt about that. But having him play there means you don't have a hole in that position. He can be upgraded upon or better surrounded by having an equally or almost equally good center behind him but he isn't something that absolutely must be replaced for a team to win.

The real hole on this team is defensemen 3 through 4, plus a functional power play (they have the horses for that one so I suspect that is a coaching issue). If they had that they'd be in a pretty strong position to be competitive in the East.
He's a good player. Not a strong first line center. Those are two different things.

Stamkos, Malkin, Toews, Sedin, Datsyuk... those are strong 1st line centers. Pleks is a great 2nd line center but a 1st? No. He's not a strong first line center sorry.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 03:12 PM
  #219
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
Regardless of the argument, we're going nowhere with Plekanec as our 1st line center if we can't surround him with franchise players. He's not a top 15 center in the NHL.
sure, but that doesn't make him a "poor first line centre" now does it?


that we need to complement him, or more specifically, our roster, with better talent isn't a negative reflection on him imo.

had Cammalleri been the 6M$/ppg winger he was brought in to be...
if Markov was healthy and back at his top-10 level...
if we had 7.4M$ better invested than in Gomez...

then there wouldn't be any conversation around wether or not Plekanec is a good enough option as our #1 centre

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 03:14 PM
  #220
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
sure, but that doesn't make him a "poor first line centre" now does it?
Yes, it does. "Poor" is a comparative term. If there are 20 other centers that are better then yes, he's a "poor" first line center.

That doesn't mean he's a terrible player but to call him a "strong 1st line center" is way off the mark.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 03:25 PM
  #221
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
There are at least 20 better centers in the league. That makes him a poor first line center. I'm sorry man, but he's not a first line center. Never was. We just used him as our first because it was him or Gomez.

He's a good player. Not a strong first line center. Those are two different things.
name them...



and again, "strong first line centre" is a purely subjective opinion, not some objective fact.

not to mention that it is a pretty big stretch to go from "not a strong first line centre" to "poor first line centre"


Plekanec was a perfectly fine first line centre in 08, when he-kost-kovalev combined to be one of the better lines in the league.

Plekanec did just fine as the first line centre (or most used Centre) for the Czech republic at the most recent world championships/olympics


I'm sorry, but it's just hyperbole to argue he's not a first line centre just because he isn't one of the elite/top-10 centres in the game.

don't buy that he isn't top-20 at all, assuming we are talking about current ability/level of play...

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 03:26 PM
  #222
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Yes, it does. "Poor" is a comparative term. If there are 20 other centers that are better then yes, he's a "poor" first line center.

That doesn't mean he's a terrible player but to call him a "strong 1st line center" is way off the mark.
almost, but not quite, as far off the mark as calling him a "poor" first line center.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 03:30 PM
  #223
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,124
vCash: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
It's interesting to see that, in the last 11 years, the Stanley Cup winner had AT LEAST one top-ten center the year they won the Cup. Look at:

2000: New Jersey - Arnott / Gomez
2001: Colorado - Sakic / Forsberg
2002: Detroit - Yzerman / Fedorov / Datsyuk
2003: New Jersey - Nieuwendyk / Gomez
2004: Tampa Bay - Lecavalier / Richards
2005: lockout
2006: Carolina - Staal / Brind'Amour
2007: Anaheim - Getzlaf
2008: Detroit - Zetterberg / Datsyuk
2009: Pittsburgh - Crosby / Malkin
2010: Chicago - Toews
2011: Boston - Krejci / Bergeron

If they didn't have a top ten center, they had an elite team to surround the centers - a more difficult job because you have to invest in more players - wingers and defensemen.

Digging deeper, most, if not all, of these teams had three players who played at superstar calibre during the playoff run. That means you need three elite, or borderline elite, players who rise to the occasion. We don't have anybody who loves the spotlight. Cammalleri was one.

We potentially have that for the future in Price, PK and Pacioretty but we currently don't have the team to surround them with, nor do they have the experience.

We have a lot of work to do and it starts with elite players.
If we can't get a top flight elite center then Plekanec could be part of a great top2 duo if we can find someone else of that level. He's really not far from some guys you listed.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 03:54 PM
  #224
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
It's interesting to see that, in the last 11 years, the Stanley Cup winner had AT LEAST one top-ten center the year they won the Cup. Look at:

2000: New Jersey - Arnott / Gomez
2001: Colorado - Sakic / Forsberg
2002: Detroit - Yzerman / Fedorov / Datsyuk
2003: New Jersey - Nieuwendyk / Gomez
2004: Tampa Bay - Lecavalier / Richards
2005: lockout
2006: Carolina - Staal / Brind'Amour
2007: Anaheim - Getzlaf
2008: Detroit - Zetterberg / Datsyuk
2009: Pittsburgh - Crosby / Malkin
2010: Chicago - Toews
2011: Boston - Krejci / Bergeron
2000 - Scott Gomez was 12th among NHL centres in scoring, Arnott was 30th.
2001 - 2 elite centres, no doubt. (Forsberg injured all year, but I'm gonna give you that he was still a top centre).
2002 - Fedorov 11th among NHL centres in scoring, Yzerman 42nd, Datsyuk 73rd
2003 - Gomez 55 pts - 30th among NHL centres, Nieuwendyk 50th
2004 - 2 elite centres.
2006 - Staal 3, Brindamour 21
2007 - McDonald 14th, Getzlaf 32nd among NHL centres
2008 - elites
2009 - elites
2010 - Toews 18th, Sharp 21st
2011 - Kreijci 21st, Bergeron 26th


So no, all those teams did not have top 10 centres in the NHL.

*Plekanec 14th and Gomez 27th was comparable to the Blackhawks top 2 centres in terms of point production in 2010.

**Also, of note in 2011 was Plekanec (24th) was tied with Bergeron in pts but Pleks played 5 less games. Plek was 5 pts behind Kreijci.

Beakermania* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 06:29 PM
  #225
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commandant View Post
2000 - Scott Gomez was 12th among NHL centres in scoring, Arnott was 30th.
2001 - 2 elite centres, no doubt. (Forsberg injured all year, but I'm gonna give you that he was still a top centre).
2002 - Fedorov 11th among NHL centres in scoring, Yzerman 42nd, Datsyuk 73rd
2003 - Gomez 55 pts - 30th among NHL centres, Nieuwendyk 50th
2004 - 2 elite centres.
2006 - Staal 3, Brindamour 21
2007 - McDonald 14th, Getzlaf 32nd among NHL centres
2008 - elites
2009 - elites
2010 - Toews 18th, Sharp 21st
2011 - Kreijci 21st, Bergeron 26th


So no, all those teams did not have top 10 centres in the NHL.

*Plekanec 14th and Gomez 27th was comparable to the Blackhawks top 2 centres in terms of point production in 2010.

**Also, of note in 2011 was Plekanec (24th) was tied with Bergeron in pts but Pleks played 5 less games. Plek was 5 pts behind Kreijci.
I think we're a team that has to win by committee anyways. I think Pleks is more than adequate with proper support.

habsjunkie2* 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 11:55 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.