Monahan has all the tools to be a top flight #1 centre, without the recent blemishes on his record.
We all know its a knee jerk reaction to trade him, like was suggested immediately post playoffs. I think the organization has recognized they need him to reach another level, not coast along as the player he is right now. Thankfully he's at the perfect stage in his career to add elements to his game.
He's not going to start throwing his body around, thats not his game and it never will be. But he's a big guy. He's really bulked up even since his back injuries. He needs to learn to lean, and lean hard on guys. Like the Thornton's, the Getzlafs and the Kopitars. None of those guys have the low centre of gravity, so they have to use their size to their advantage. When Jagr was here, he should have been working every day with Monahan.
As well, I don't know how he finds it, but he needs to learn to find that extra gear X factor when the games get tough. It comes naturally to some guys, like MacKinnon did against us. Like Iginla did in his heyday. But Monahan needs to learn it.
I think he said this season, post Allstar game that he lost a lot of his confidence and it put him in a funk. This happens to probably everyone at some point, but in the stretch drive thats concerning for your top center.
I really think Monahan has the ability to reach that next level, not just a regular season reliable stat machine. The team needs to work with him to accomplish that. Without being too melodramatic, I think the success of this iteration of the franchise depends on that. As St Louis proved, you don't necessarily need a Crosby or Malkin to win it all. But you still need more than what we've seen from Monahan thus far.
Are Point, Barzal and Pettersen projects as well?
Monahan is a 5-11 180 lb high skilled player trapped in the body of a 6-2 215 player. I am pretty sure that when Monahan and Dube look at each other they figure that they are pretty much the same size.
Appreciate Monahan for what he is not for what his stature suggests he might be.
Here are some side-by-side comparisons that I found interesting:
Monahan drives offensive play at a much better rate than Ryan O'Reilly, who outclasses him defensively (but hey, he's not the Selke winner for no reason). Monahan is more proficient offensively than O'Reilly, with similar numbers in shot assists (passes that set up shots) but much better numbers for zone entries.
Here's the 1C from another recent SCF team:
Monahan is as good or much better at driving play in basically every way.
Once again, very comparable offensively, but in this case, Monahan is much, much better at generating plays from the defensive zone.
The much more experienced Giroux is slightly better at driving play in the offensive zone and at breaking out from the defensive zone, but it's not a league of difference by any means.
This is the best comparable, I think. Both players have displayed killer instincts in the playoffs in the past, and both players drive play at an almost identical rate in the offensive zone, with Monahan faring ever-so-slightly better. But Monahan's two-way play is substantially better than Couture's, here. He generates breakouts at a substantially higher rate.
Monahan is not some sad-sack outlier who refuses to drive play while all of his peers outclass him in that regard. Just simply stating that he "doesn't drive play" without citing any reasons for why isn't a compelling argument. Monahan is part of a very vast tier of centremen who are a shade below the elites (Crosby/Malkin, McDavid, Aho, Scheifele, MacKinnon) but who still can drive play very well and put up big numbers.
And it's not like the Flames are stuck in neutral until they find a better centre, because Gaudreau is one of the very, very best play-drivers in the entire NHL, up there with all of the guys listed in the elite tier above.
This looks like a giant cherry picking excercise to me and comes across as super disingenuous to me.
There are 19 guys on that top 20 list not named monahan.
There are 15 players from that list that are hands down better at driving play than Monahan. Your side by side examples included 0 of 15 of them. Do a side by side example of Monahan vs anyone of the guys below.
Players in the top 20 list that are hands down better two way players (but not better play drivers). Your examples of Monahan being a better play driver included 1 of 2 of these elite two way players, which is a bad example, because even if Monahan was better at driving play, he's can't hold a cancel to their two way game.
16) O'Reilly
17) Bergeron
Centers in the top 20 list marginally better at driving play. Your examples included two of two of them. Seems cherry picked to me
17) Seguin
18) Giroux
Centers not included in the top 20 list that are substantially better at driving play than monahan. Your examples included 0 of 6.
19) getzlaf
20) dubois
21) kopitar
22) kreijci
23) toews
24) duchene
Guys on the top 20 list that are worse at driving play. Your examples included 1 of 1. Again, seems cherry picked to me.
1) Couture
The bottom line is that, if Monahan is a top 20 center, he's at the bottom of the list (and arguably shouldnt be on it at all) and he's not on the list because of his two way play or his ability to drive play. He's basically on it because he puts up a lot of points.
The Following User Says Thank You to GullFoss For This Useful Post:
Points are an important aspect. Very important. There are other aspects of course, but no one is good at everything (except maybe Crosby). As you get down the list, it's a matter of give and take.
Monahan's points and offensive touch are elite. Some other aspects aren't as strong. That puts him at 19. Sounds about right to me.
The bottom line is that, if Monahan is a top 20 center, he's at the bottom of the list (and arguably shouldnt be on it at all) and he's not on the list because of his two way play or his ability to drive play. He's basically on it because he puts up a lot of points.
Oh, like at number 19. Fancy that.
And saying he's "basically on it because he puts up a lot of points" is true. Which is a good thing. We like points. In the NHL, if you score more points than the other team, you win the game. And if you win a lot of games, you're really good.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
This looks like a giant cherry picking excercise to me and comes across as super disingenuous to me.
There are 19 guys on that top 20 list not named monahan.
There are 15 players from that list that are hands down better at driving play than Monahan. Your side by side examples included 0 of 15 of them. Do a side by side example of Monahan vs anyone of the guys below.
Players in the top 20 list that are hands down better two way players (but not better play drivers). Your examples of Monahan being a better play driver included 1 of 2 of these elite two way players, which is a bad example, because even if Monahan was better at driving play, he's can't hold a cancel to their two way game.
16) O'Reilly
17) Bergeron
Centers in the top 20 list marginally better at driving play. Your examples included two of two of them. Seems cherry picked to me
17) Seguin
18) Giroux
Centers not included in the top 20 list that are substantially better at driving play than monahan. Your examples included 0 of 6.
19) getzlaf
20) dubois
21) kopitar
22) kreijci
23) toews
24) duchene
Guys on the top 20 list that are worse at driving play. Your examples included 1 of 1. Again, seems cherry picked to me.
1) Couture
The bottom line is that, if Monahan is a top 20 center, he's at the bottom of the list (and arguably shouldnt be on it at all) and he's not on the list because of his two way play or his ability to drive play. He's basically on it because he puts up a lot of points.
So put your money where your mouth is and show comparisons of Monahan with some of the others. The other poster did a very good job of showing that Monahan is right there with a lot players people view as top centres. So you can't really just come in here and list a bunch of guys that are "for sure" better than Monahan with no stats to back it up.
Everyone knows Bergeron is better than Monahan but when Duchene is on your list of guys who are "for sure" better it gets pretty suspect.
The Following User Says Thank You to BigErnSalute_16 For This Useful Post:
This looks like a giant cherry picking excercise to me and comes across as super disingenuous to me.
There are 19 guys on that top 20 list not named monahan.
There are 15 players from that list that are hands down better at driving play than Monahan. Your side by side examples included 0 of 15 of them. Do a side by side example of Monahan vs anyone of the guys below.
Players in the top 20 list that are hands down better two way players (but not better play drivers). Your examples of Monahan being a better play driver included 1 of 2 of these elite two way players, which is a bad example, because even if Monahan was better at driving play, he's can't hold a cancel to their two way game.
16) O'Reilly
17) Bergeron
Centers in the top 20 list marginally better at driving play. Your examples included two of two of them. Seems cherry picked to me
17) Seguin
18) Giroux
Centers not included in the top 20 list that are substantially better at driving play than monahan. Your examples included 0 of 6.
19) getzlaf
20) dubois
21) kopitar
22) kreijci
23) toews
24) duchene
Guys on the top 20 list that are worse at driving play. Your examples included 1 of 1. Again, seems cherry picked to me.
1) Couture
The bottom line is that, if Monahan is a top 20 center, he's at the bottom of the list (and arguably shouldnt be on it at all) and he's not on the list because of his two way play or his ability to drive play. He's basically on it because he puts up a lot of points.
Very impressive post.
Is there a way to analysis the quality of opposition? My unsubstantiated theory says that Monahan does not play against the other 1C players as much as the other guys do.
It would be interesting in seeing what sort of match-ups Point gets relative to Stamkos. Are Point's stats inflated by playing against lower quality players?
How much are Monahan's stats impacted by having Backlund-Tkachuk having such a great year? Gio-Brodie 111 points as a pair must be in the elite level of defense scoring and be a boost to the stats of the guys they play with.
So put your money where your mouth is and show comparisons of Monahan with some of the others. The other poster did a very good job of showing that Monahan is right there with a lot players people view as top centres. So you can't really just come in here and list a bunch of guys that are "for sure" better than Monahan with no stats to back it up.
Everyone knows Bergeron is better than Monahan but when Duchene is on your list of guys who are "for sure" better it gets pretty suspect.
The list of guys that were included in just better than Monahan were O'Reilly and Bergeron.
Duchene was on a list of guys who were "substantially better at driving play"
I don't get why people are so focused on Monny's ability to drive the play. He literally plays on a line with probably one of the top three playmakers in the world.
You're right. If he he was better at driving the play then he'd be ranked much higher on the list of "Best Centers in the NHL." Of course, he'd also be playing somewhere else then, because you can't have two guys fighting for the same puck, and the chances of him being a better playmaker than Johnny are slim to none, so we'd just replace him for a different center whose skillset is closer to what Monny's is now...
...BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CENTER POSITION ON JOHNNY'S LINE ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CENTER POSITION ON MOST OTHER LINES.
For the love of God, people. You can't have an "elite, play-driving #1C" on the same line as Johnny Gaudreau. Instead, you'll just have to settle for the elite, play-FINISHING #1C that we already have.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FanIn80 For This Useful Post:
To be fair, to the poster who said I was cherry-picking the list, the only things I know about the list are that Monahan is 19th and McDavid is first.
__________________
"This has been TheScorpion's shtick for years. All these hot takes, clickbait nonsense just to feed his social media algorithms." –Tuco
The list of guys that were included in just better than Monahan were O'Reilly and Bergeron.
Duchene was on a list of guys who were "substantially better at driving play"
ya, cool, says who? my point that you must have been trying to miss was one poster brought legit comparisons where the other just said player x is better than player y, with no actual stats to back it up.
The Following User Says Thank You to BigErnSalute_16 For This Useful Post:
Okay. Discussing which centres drive play was fun.
I can’t wait for the D rankings, so we can hear who ‘makes a good first pass’
It would be more like pairing Giordano and Regehr, and then complaining non-stop about how Regehr doesn’t drive the play from the backend any time someone lists him as one of the top defenders in the game.
The Following User Says Thank You to FanIn80 For This Useful Post:
I don't get why people are so focused on Monny's ability to drive the play. He literally plays on a line with probably one of the top three playmakers in the world.
You're right. If he he was better at driving the play then he'd be ranked much higher on the list of "Best Centers in the NHL." Of course, he'd also be playing somewhere else then, because you can't have two guys fighting for the same puck, and the chances of him being a better playmaker than Johnny are slim to none, so we'd just replace him for a different center whose skillset is closer to what Monny's is now...
...BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CENTER POSITION ON JOHNNY'S LINE ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CENTER POSITION ON MOST OTHER LINES.
For the love of God, people. You can't have an "elite, play-driving #1C" on the same line as Johnny Gaudreau. Instead, you'll just have to settle for the elite, play-FINISHING #1C that we already have.
Sorry, but I disagree with you thoroughly and strongly.
Playing on a line with one of the top three playmakers in the world doesn't absolve him of a need for being a strong playmaker. When prepared teams focus on details in containing them, the Gaudreau-Monahan-X line has consistently lacked a counterattack option. It might work for much of the regular season, but when checking gets tight we've seen how easy they are to contain as a unit.
We saw it when Tanev and Edler shut Gaudreau-Monahan-Hudler down for the vast majority of the Canucks series. It wasn't until game 6, when the team was already down multiple goals and Hartley did some blender magic with Ferland while the Canucks completely collapsed in on themselves that that line started producing. Take away game 6 and you have what?
Monahan - 1 PP goal, 1 PP assist in the first five games
Gaudreau - 1 PP goal, 2 PP assists in the first five games
They were shut down at ES. It was a miracle, mostly due to the play of the Stajan and Backlund lines, that we took the lead in that series. Credit to them for their play in game six, no doubt, but it could easily have been too little, too late by then.
The next series wasn't much better
Gaudreau - 1 EV goal, 1 PP goal, 1 EV assist in five games
Monahan - 1 EV goal in five games
the next series was also a case of powerplay foolsgold, they were all goal-less at even strength
Gaudreau - 2 PP assists in four games
Monahan - 4 PP goals, 1 PP assist in four games
this year's series
Gaudreau - 1 EV assist in five games
Monahan - 1 EV goal, 1 EV assists in five games
^^ and that was against an Avs team that barely scraped into the playoffs, who were even rolling a rookie defenseman for half the series.
These are small sample sizes and it's possible it's all just confirmation bias. I get it. I'm not using it as evidence of anything - goal scoring events are highly random as it is (even I would tell you that Gibson robbed them a few times in the 2017 series). But I think when you're talking about your absolute best offensive line, even if the checking is tight, there are certain expectations, no? if Tanev and Edler know how to contain Gaudreau, shouldn't we have another option?
That brings me to your primary tenet - "you can't have two guys fighting for the same puck".
This is hockey, a necessarily team sport. This isn't Russell Westbrook hogging a basketball for dubious triple doubles. Gaudreau is an elite hockey player. The idea that he's ever had to or ever will need to fight a linemate for the same puck is absolutely WRONG. He's worked with all kinds of players.
Look at one of my favourite Gaudreau goals. He makes a neutral zone breakup, his center Bennett picks up the loose puck, quick pivot and head up to Gaudreau for a quick pass to spark the entry, trails the play to get the drop pass back from Gaudreau, Gaudreau darts to the net for a tapin that relies on Bennett being able to thread the pass through:
Where are they "fighting for the same puck"?
And this is Sam Bennett, who according to CP has no vision, can't use his linemates, isn't a center, etc etc etc etc etc. It's not a former cup winner #1C like Toews or Kopitar or Kuznetsov, guys you are implying wouldn't work with Gaudreau as well as Monahan.
It's reductionist, ridiculous, and revisionist to think Gaudreau wouldn't benefit from a dynamic playmaking center. Did you not see the profound chemistry he had with Auston Matthews back on Team North America? Or with Nathan MacKinnon (though he was playing RW at the time)?
Good lines are able to take what the defense gives them. And I am not convinced the Gaudreau - Monahan combination is capable of that, because they are extremely one-dimensional in their attack. Gaudreau trying to wait out and fake out the defense until Monahan is open, and then Monahan shoots from the slot. Take that away and what really do they have?
You can never have enough playmakers. Especially not when we are talking about the center position - the position on the ice that gets the most space on the ice to actually make plays. Especially not on your top line that sees the other team's best shutdown players over a six, seven game playoff series with the preparation to key in on tendancies. The only time in recent memory that I've seen one playmaker carry a line to the extent that you describe was Evgeni Malkin making something out of nothing. But even that has an asterisk - Malkin typically played on his team's second line and typically saw secondary coverage. The same applies to Patrick Kane on most of his great playoff runs when not with Toews - the Saad-Toews-Hossa combination took a lot of the serious coverage, so Kane ran wild with the freedom that allowed. That first line was able to continue to produce because they had a very versatile attack.
Any way I look at it, our top line is inherently flawed if they are expecting Gaudreau to do all the work. That extends to Lindholm too, I don't see him as a very dynamic playmaker. I don't think your vision of what a center for Gaudreau needs to do is fair to Gaudreau at all - it's far too simplistic and optimistic.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
Last edited by GranteedEV; 08-09-2019 at 11:29 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GranteedEV For This Useful Post:
Monahan is an elite #1 center and we're lucky to have him. List just proves that league thinks the same.
Too bad that Bennett never ended up being the #1a or 2nd line center he was projected to be. Maybe Lindholm can eventually be that. Best to have Backlund as our #3 center. Would be ideal to have Monahan, Lindholm, Backlund as our center depth eventually.
So put your money where your mouth is and show comparisons of Monahan with some of the others. The other poster did a very good job of showing that Monahan is right there with a lot players people view as top centres. So you can't really just come in here and list a bunch of guys that are "for sure" better than Monahan with no stats to back it up.
Everyone knows Bergeron is better than Monahan but when Duchene is on your list of guys who are "for sure" better it gets pretty suspect.
These were just a few guys that came to mind. Monahan's 49th percentile zone exit stat means that he's almost exactly league average for forwards in terms of recovering the puck in his own zone and breaking it out. He's not spectacular when adjusting for system (that is, compared to his own team mates) either.
It's not a sterling stat for a top line centre, even less for a supposed top-20 centre.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jore For This Useful Post:
I just can't bring myself to definitively judge this guy without first seeing him enter a post season fully healthy.
I don't think we've seen that yet, given that he's been nursing something for the better part of a few years, finally gets healthy but then breaks a thumb in the spring.
He always looks FAR better in the first 3-4 months of the season than the last 3-4 because of, I imagine, something that's nagging coming up.
Him and Gaudreau typically get league wide recognition and enter conversations for one of the tops in the league every fall to christmas, but then the chatter fades away later on as they do.
I really want to see these guys stay healthy and confident down the stretch to gauge what their actual potential is.
These were just a few guys that came to mind. Monahan's 49th percentile zone exit stat means that he's almost exactly league average for forwards in terms of recovering the puck in his own zone and breaking it out. He's not spectacular when adjusting for system (that is, compared to his own team mates) either.
It's not a sterling stat for a top line centre, even less for a supposed top-20 centre.
Keep in mind that Gaudreau is a pretty big liability with respect to zone exits. Sure, if they can get the puck to him in the neutral zone, then he is elite at zone entries. But having him on your line, with respect to zone exits, is a liability.
This is an example of why stats have to be taken in context.
