Quote:
Originally Posted by gradin-23
I guess we've lost something in the definition...
|
So, what is your definition, then?
I would argue that there is a difference between a "top line" centre and a "franchise" centre. Most teams have the former. The Flames, Predators, Blue Jackets, Devils, Panthers, and Jets do not. Although Monahan, Barkov, and Scheifele are all good bets to become "top line" centres. That is, centres that do everything very well, but are hampered by a minor flaw in their game (usually either a lack of size or foot-speed that keeps them out of the "franchise" conversation). All three could also become "franchise" centres. Nugent-Hopkins is a "top-line" centre who will never be a "franchise" centre because of his size and strength, which seem to consistently hold him back. Duchene is not a big player, but his exceptional vision, skating, and hockey smarts compensate for his smaller stature. Joe Thornton is slow, but might be the best puck distributer of the last two decades. Toews' hockey IQ, strength, and tenacity qualify him as a franchise centre, despite the fact that he is consistently under a point/game every season. Kessel was drafted as a centre, but his team seems better suited to the wing, which keeps him out of the franchise conversation.
"Franchise" centres are exceptional in almost every area, or have off-the-charts skills in one area that help to compensate for other "weaknesses"—hence, the examples of Thornton, Duchene, and Toews. I would argue that Kopitar is a franchise centre. He does everything very well, but his size and strength thrust him into this category. It is more of an impressionistic category, and one that is difficult to quantify.
I think Monahan could become a "franchise" centre without ever hitting the point/game mark, much like Toews or Bergeron (although, I don't consider Bergeron a franchise centre).