Tkachuk and Lindholm as co-1C

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Not stupid. Petulant.

Whatever. I posed a question. Got mocked. Got annoyed at the mocking. It is difficult to express yourself around here if you have a dissenting opinion. It is what it is.

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

my opinion is that Monahan certainly produces points like a #1 centre, but to my eye doesn't play like one (counter-intuitive I know). when I think of those other centres you listed, they spend a good chunk of their ice time bullying guys off the puck, carrying it into the offensive zone, and being the focal point for defenders to chase, leaving his linemates open for prime scoring chances if he decides not to take one himself.

lots of people here believe that Mony's got untapped puck carrying skills in him. if he does, I will rejoice but until then, the way he currently plays puts a significant cap on this team's true potential.

I know I am cherry picking here but after coaching hockey for 10+ years and playing Division 1 hockey for 6 years (inserted so I don't get a hockey knowledge attack thrown my way) if a center was every "bullying" a player off the puck or in puck pursuit in any area but out front of the net/short side in the defensive zone I have been taught and teach that he's centering wrong. There is always exceptions (like McDavid) but the center should be the player with the greatest focus on gap control and always be aware of the puck going the other way.

In my opinion Monahan is not the problem, the makeup of line 1 is the problem. Because of Monahans foot speed he should have a fast winger that can gap control (Lindholm is that person) and a winger that can get low (Johnny is not that person). I am not an NHL coach and i understand that the 1st line is created on the premises that good defense is a strong offense but i think everyone can agree that watching line 1 get hemmed in their zone for 2 minutes is not enjoyable.

Disclaimer: I am not disagreeing; I agree with you in the sense that his utilization doesn't seem to be optimal to his strengths.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Whatever. I posed a question. Got mocked. Got annoyed at the mocking. It is difficult to express yourself around here if you have a dissenting opinion. It is what it is.

I don’t want to drag this on too much but that gif is the first image that pops up on google if you type “square peg round hole gif”. There were no implications of you being childish in the use of the gif in my opinion. It takes guts to start a thread (hell, I’ve never done it), but I think you jumped ahead and read too much into it. Just a silly “square peg round hole” image that has snowballed into where we are now.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

The way this team is built bugs the hell out of me. There is no 1C and you can't win without one. Our three best forwards are wingers. 1C's are impossible to acquire unless you are a lottery team. What does BT do? I've posted a lot on this topic but the answer might be right in front of us or maybe I'm thinking too far out of the box, I don't know. My idea hinges on signing Hall or getting a fast north/south LW with skill, but why not try Tkachuk at 1C? I know these things rarely work out (think Tanguay and Cammalleri as 1C) but I think he has most of the tools. Probably not faceoffs but his eye-hand is elite so you never know. You could put Lindholm as his RW and have him take strongside faceoffs and help shoulder the load, defensively and offensively. Cammalleri and Tanguay were doomed because Cammi was too small and a sniper and Tanguay was uncomfortable at the position but probably too soft and defensively weak too. If Tkacuk is interested I think he has most of the tool required.

Matty pros

Elite playmaker
Down low force/strong
Big enough
Skill in spades
Vision/cerebral combined with a power game
Elite hockey IQ
Eye-hand for tip ins and garbage plays

Matty cons

Slow
Faceoffs probably

He would be better than Monahan because his hockey IQ and playmaking are better. Monahan is the perfect 2C.

Just thinking out loud. Tell me why this wouldn't work. I think Tkachuk and Lindholm could thrive in this setup. Plus we all know 1C and #19 go together like peanut butter and jam

Hall Tkachuk Lindholm
Mangiapane Monahan Dube
Lucic Backlund Ryan
Bennett Jankowski Phillips

Not really crushing the cap numbers but wondering if something like that could work. I think Monahan would do very well against lesser competition and I really believe in Dube and Mangiapane as top 6 options. Puts Backlund and Ryan together to create a true shutdown line. Bennett and Jankowski might have to be punted for cap reasons. In that case sub in two 700k vets.

I too am equally annoyed at not having that elite center, but Tkachuk at center seems like a project that this team doesn’t really have time for right now. I don’t think this team will ever have that true #1 center until we completely bottom out.

But I will say that Lindholm has some qualities I like as a #1 pivot minus the fact that he’s not 6’4, 220. But he, Backlund and Ryan are a solid trio up the middle and this team could make due with that for now.

What the Flames really need is another power forward type player who has a right shot who can dominate play down low, cycle the puck and who can also drive play. That would be more realistic than hoping and praying for an elite centerman to fall into our laps.

[Wastedyouth]

I think we should move Giordano to Center. I mean, he puts up points and is clearly very strong in his own zone...

[FanIn80]

lol. Lemme see if I've got this straight.

Option 1: Turn our second-line LW into our first-line C.
Option 2: Suck at hockey for all eternity.

[AustinL_NHL]

Or... hear me out... with Gio getting up there in age...

Tkachuk as our new #1D.

I also actually think if we re-sign Talbot not as a goalie, but as a C, he has the potential to take over the #1C role.

[Monahammer]

"How can I make our best player much worse??"

[Buff]

I think this team would do well with Monahan and Lindholm as the top two centers but the RW depth is severely lacking to effectively use them in that manner. Either find a #1 RW or trade a LW for a #1 C or RW and sign another top line forward. Easy for me to say.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

I think we should move Giordano to Center. I mean, he puts up points and is clearly very strong in his own zone...

Oh the sweet dopamine rush!

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

I know I am cherry picking here but after coaching hockey for 10+ years and playing Division 1 hockey for 6 years (inserted so I don't get a hockey knowledge attack thrown my way) if a center was every "bullying" a player off the puck or in puck pursuit in any area but out front of the net/short side in the defensive zone I have been taught and teach that he's centering wrong. There is always exceptions (like McDavid) but the center should be the player with the greatest focus on gap control and always be aware of the puck going the other way.

In my opinion Monahan is not the problem, the makeup of line 1 is the problem. Because of Monahans foot speed he should have a fast winger that can gap control (Lindholm is that person) and a winger that can get low (Johnny is not that person). I am not an NHL coach and i understand that the 1st line is created on the premises that good defense is a strong offense but i think everyone can agree that watching line 1 get hemmed in their zone for 2 minutes is not enjoyable.

Disclaimer: I am not disagreeing; I agree with you in the sense that his utilization doesn't seem to be optimal to his strengths.

Interesting perspective. Would Tkachuk be the 'guy' for your construct in this situation? Or, even generally, how would you like to see the lines work?

[canadiancactus]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Whatever. I posed a question. Got mocked. Got annoyed at the mocking. It is difficult to express yourself around here if you have a dissenting opinion. It is what it is.

Your participation trophy is in the mail

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Whatever. I posed a question. Got mocked. Got annoyed at the mocking. It is difficult to express yourself around here if you have a dissenting opinion. It is what it is.

This is part of the community experience though, if you present a dissenting opinion you best be ready to defend it in detail and not get frustrated easily when people choose to mock it.

Not apples to apples, but imagine standing up in parliament and proposing to end universal healthcare in Canada. You would get mocked. If you really believe it is the right course, you could probably hold in your indignance over this mockery and realize that it will be difficult to convince people to join your cause if they think you're not mature enough to defend it properly.

[blankall]

The idea that you absolutely need your best players to be centres, has been horribly skewed by the Crosby-era. You need playmakers. Johnny is a playmaker, but he's way too small to be a centre. We don't need a high end #1 centre to play with him. We just need someone capable of handling the centre duties, while he's on the ice.

If you actually look at the teams who've won over the past 20 years, not named the Penguins, they are all over the place in terms of team build. Yes it's great to have a #1 franchise type centre, and most high end players end up as centres, as they get more playing time generally and have more duties. However, sometimes you have an amazing player with a deficiency that doesn't allow them play centre, example Johnny and his size. That doesn't stop them from leading a team.

[kurwamac]

I'm not a fan of the nasty replies, very immature and beta

[CF84]

Originally Posted by New Era

Oh the sweet dopamine rush!

I am specifically not going to thank you for this gif because I think you are in need of a dopamine detox.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by kurwamac

I'm not a fan of the nasty replies, very immature and beta

Noted.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by blankall

If you actually look at the teams who've won over the past 20 years, not named the Penguins, they are all over the place in terms of team build.

Perhaps the team build idea is true, but the last team standing has still always had a really strong 1-2 punch down the middle.

Blackhawks are the one team you could argue were built more from the outside in, but playing guys like Bolland or Sharp (more ideally a winger) at 2C is still better than what Calgary has had, and bolstered by having a top 3 winger of this generation on that line.

Not sure who played 2C for the '08 Red Wings, but they are the only other team without a pretty obvious 1-2 punch.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Perhaps the team build idea is true, but the last team standing has still always had a really strong 1-2 punch down the middle.

Blackhawks are the one team you could argue were built more from the outside in, but playing guys like Bolland or Sharp (more ideally a winger) at 2C is still better than what Calgary has had, and bolstered by having a top 3 winger of this generation on that line.

Not sure who played 2C for the '08 Red Wings, but they are the only other team without a pretty obvious 1-2 punch.

The Blues is the one that irks the crap out of me.

They traded for their 1-2 punch during back to back off seasons, each time with an eastern team moving one of their Cs out west.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

The Blues is the one that irks the crap out of me.

They traded for their 1-2 punch during back to back off seasons, each time with an eastern team moving one of their Cs out west.

I think they have the best C group in the league actually.

ROR
Schenn
Thomas

and then for "4th" line guy they can choose from Bozak or Sunqvist...who have 13 and 12 goals respectively.

Thats some serious depth even without an elite guy though ROR may be one of the most complete players in hockey doing everything well if not great.

Lots to be envious of for sure.