Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Question: Why is Backlund always penciled in at the number two slot?
I really don’t understand the logic behind it as the second line should be about generating offense. I see Backlund as a great third line center playing in a shutdown down role and chipping in 30-35 points a season from that position. On the second line, I see him holding players back more than making them better. He isn’t a great distributor of the puck and he isn’t overly creative. He hustles and plays a great north-south game, but he isn’t a classic scoring center. I could see a possible Selke candidate, but only if he was relied upon to focus on the defensive side of the puck and allow the offense to come on its own. I see him more of a square peg on the 2nd line.
I think the 2nd line center role is ultimately more about Tkachuk than it is about anything. If Tkachuk gets saddled with a north-south center he’s going to top out as a 50 point player. Get him a guy that can create open ice and make some plays, and Tkachuk is going to thrive and become a big time scorer. I don’t think Backlund is a good fit there.
|
I appreciate that Backlund is a polarizing player - not usually flashy, and to a degree because of the role that he plays - but I disagree with much of this take.
Your characterization of line responsibilities seems antiquated. Lines don't tend to have singular responsibilities anymore. The second line isn't just responsible for creating offense. You need someone in your top 6, ideally, who is capable of limiting chances against and will typically outscore the opposition at 5 on 5 in a PVP scenario. Monahan/Gaudreau aren't great at this, as they score a lot in aggregate, but struggle to limit chances and goals against, especially against the top offensive lines in the league.
Backlund's line, on the other hand, can get buried with D-zone starts and handle those heavy minutes while still creating offense and usually - the last 20 games of last season notwithstanding - outscore the opposition. No one else on the team can do what Backlund does despite circumstances. Kind of tough to say he's "holding people back" in that role when ultimately, you win games by scoring more than the bad guys. I would also disagree that he isn't a good distributor. The eye test should speak for itself, but 3M has consistently been a top line in xGF% and high danger scoring chances. The problem last year was turning chances into goals.
As for your Tkachuk comments: I understand people love big numbers, but Tkachuck is the type of excellent two-way player who, especially when paired with another excellent two-way forward, can play tough minutes at even strength against anyone and still put up numbers 5 on 5. Keep in mind that he wasn't used on the top PP until December last season and was still on pace for ~60 points. With some natural progression and better special teams utilization, he could presumably put up 60-70 points next season in basically the same role he had after the new year. Plus, his nose for the net and creativity elevates the Backlund line offensively at even strength while still allowing them to do the things they are good at. However, Frolik for all his hard work and defensive acumen is an even worse finisher than Backlund and a significantly inferior distributor than he or Tkachuk. Keeping Backlund/Tkachuk together, knowing they can play against anyone, but adding Neal, for example, a proven finisher, will help that line with the one thing they didn't do well/were unlucky at last year: putting pucks in the net.
Finally, a Selke cadidate with ~35 points? Should probably take a look at the offensive numbers of guys who tend to place high in the voting. The 35 point defense-first forward gets little to no love, for right or wrong.