Tkachuk and Lindholm as co-1C

[PepsiFree]

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.

I know many didn't label O'Reilly/Schenn as a "really strong 1-2 punch down the middle" until they actually went out and won a cup. Some did, of course, but some others had Schenn slotted above ROR and called ROR a "solid second line centre."

I think part of the issue is that winning a cup can really dictate and even change how certain players are viewed, even beyond their play. A lot of teams that win the cup have obviously great centres, or wingers, or goaltenders, or defencemen... but some of those players only became obviously great when they won a cup. So, looking back, it's harder to model a team based on Stanley Cup winners, because the result colours how you view those players.

[Enoch Root]

Until he got a ring last year, I would bet that the majority of fans around the league would have ranked Monahan ahead of O'Reilly

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by kurwamac

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

Yeah....I don't think "Beta" is as cutting as you think it is.

Here's the thing, most people aren't going to be too concerned about being called "Beta".
This is mostly because most people aren't too concerned about the opinions of the type of people who use "Beta" as an insult.

[DoubleF]

I think Tkachuk can be a good insulation for a centre in the same way Frolik was a good pairing with Backlund. But as a co-centre? Not really.

I agree with the comments about the Blues. If we cannot get an elite 1C we should instead look to upgrade C depth to outplay other team's bottom 6.

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.

If you have a completely new idea, you have to let people stress test it to see if its foundation is solid enough to build upon. You basically abandoned your idea before anyone said anything. It's not that new ideas or dissenting ideas are frowned upon. It's that no one seems to ever spend the time to prove it's a concept building on and abandons it before it can grab traction.

Not to pile on, but foundation wise, I don't think Tkachuk as a shared 1C role makes any sense conceptually.


Something that I was curious about in the past (when a Neal+ for Turris idea was potentially viable) was whether acquiring Turris and doing something like Backlund/Turris shared C - Tkachuk could be a viable option. However, it seems that in actuality, Backlund and Turris both are terrible wingers for some odd reason and play their best as pure C. So conceptually it doesn't seem to work.

The idea you did touch upon that might be worth salvaging (albeit not totally new) is centre depth. Currently, Monahan/Lindholm are kinda used as Co-1C with Backlund/Ryan rounding out our top 9. I think adding a 2C makes sense and it kinda goes along with the Kadri trade idea that fell through. If the Kadri trade had been consummated, we'd have a very strong top 9 centre corps and Ryan would also be above average for a 4C. This would be kinda like an emulation of the centre strength of the Blues centre corp:

Lindholm/Monahan co-1C vs ROR
Backlund vs Schenn
Kadri vs Thomas
Ryan vs Bozak/Sundqvist

Even if you argue the Blues corp is stronger in this theoretical scenario, I think it's arguable it's within range and a foundation that might have merit.

As such, maybe a better concept is to target a strong 2C to power up the top 9 centre core vs worrying about a 1C? It also seems be in line with moves that Treliving has contemplated in the past.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by kurwamac

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

Lol

[Classic_Sniper]

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.

when I think of Monahan's ice time, I see him skating up ice with the puck on Gaudreau's stick (which got there either from the defenseman or from Monahan immediately passing it to him early in the rush), and then looking for undefended space in the slot to pull off a quick shot if Johnny can get the puck there. that's nearly the opposite of the traditional centre - winger relationship, and it basically means your actual #1 C is 5' 9" and 150 pounds. that's why shutting down the Flames offense has become awfully simple this past year.

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.

Agree with a lot of your points. The Flames have a very unique situation which has worked for a while, but the biggest problem is it can be very easy to shut down when things tighten up because wingers can easily be trapped along the wall, whereas a center can go virtually any direction up the middle. That’s why having an elite #1 center is so important to winning a Stanley Cup.

It’s a big reason why I believe James Neal failed here. Monahan and Neal are too similar in that they need someone to do the work to get them the puck and that’s a difficult thing to do. Neal has had success with centers who are puck dominant and can distribute to him where he can unleash his shot. Without that type of centerman, he was completely lost.

Don’t agree with those that think Monahan has untapped puck carrying skills though. If he had them, we would’ve seen it in the 500+ games he’s played. It’s a fundamentals problem in my opinion for him. He doesn’t skate exceptionally fast, I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. But the other problem is he doesn’t protect the puck particularly well either. He doesn’t utilize his big frame like a Draisaitl or a Kopitar can where they hold onto the puck for long stretches and draw defenders to him opening up space for his wingers. Monahan’s game is too cerebral, you stick a guy on him and he’s neutralized. So unless Gaudreau can make things happen, the line is shut down and it’s been the same story of this duo every time they struggle.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Until he got a ring last year, I would bet that the majority of fans around the league would have ranked Monahan ahead of O'Reilly

Fair point even if it wasn't true, although I think (correct me if I'm wrong) advanced stats folk have always been high on ROR.

Fans on the other hand notoriously underrate their teams players, so I trust Monahan is viewed more favorably by other teams fans than by us.

[PepsiFree]

The Boston Bruins are another team that won without an elite 1C. I’ve always thought Monahan and Krejci were fairly similar in talent as a center when you compare them by age, and Krejci was Boston’s #1.

The Krejci/Bergeron 1-2 still makes me think a Monahan-Lindholm 1-2 could win you a cup, we just don’t have the kind of support they would need outside of that, but it’s not far off.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The Boston Bruins are another team that won without an elite 1C. I’ve always thought Monahan and Krejci were fairly similar in talent as a center when you compare them by age, and Krejci was Boston’s #1.

The Krejci/Bergeron 1-2 still makes me think a Monahan-Lindholm 1-2 could win you a cup, we just don’t have the kind of support they would need outside of that, but it’s not far off.

Don’t forget about Seguin as the number 3 center who won them the conference finals.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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.

And if you look back, the Flames might have been able to snap up both. Is this team better off with Schenn instead of Hamonic the last 3 seasons?

What about ROR instead of Valimaki, plus whatever else they were probably asking in return? Probably Bennett and a 1st, etc....plus trading for ROR would have resulted in no Neal signing.

Gaudreau - Monahan - Lindholm
Tkachuk - O'Reilly - Schenn
Mangi - Backlund - Dube

Thats C depth. At least 5 of them in your top 9 lol

No Bennett, Valimaki, Hamonic, Lucic maybe Janko, pretty much a lot of things that really havent been much help the last couple seasons. Its impossible to know exactly all the pieces that would have gone the other way but damn what a line up haha

[Strange Brew]

For me, I need to see Lindholm play as C in the playoffs before I count him as part of the Center depth. He played on a line with Monahan against them Avs last year and on day 1 of this mini camp, he was again on a line with Monahan.

Things can change but if two guys play on the same line I wouldn’t consider them our first and second line centers.

[GS Skier]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The Boston Bruins are another team that won without an elite 1C. I’ve always thought Monahan and Krejci were fairly similar in talent as a center when you compare them by age, and Krejci was Boston’s #1.

The Krejci/Bergeron 1-2 still makes me think a Monahan-Lindholm 1-2 could win you a cup, we just don’t have the kind of support they would need outside of that, but it’s not far off.

Since the 1900s its a copycat league. Its silly to suggest that the ONLY way to win a cup is to have 3 x 30 goal scorers down the middle.

I can toss out the strange but true fact that of the last dozens cup winners every teams goalie but 1 or 2 was drafted or aquired from europe and were developed by that teams system. Doesn't mean you can never win with a goalie you traded for (but over the cap era its been rare.)

Pits and Washington won with firepower, LA and St Lou with defense and Chicago with both.

BTW Wheeler and Kane are great winger playmakers in the league now. Monahan has 6 straight 20 goal and far better seasons. So what if currently Gaudreau is the disher.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

For me, I need to see Lindholm play as C in the playoffs before I count him as part of the Center depth. He played on a line with Monahan against them Avs last year and on day 1 of this mini camp, he was again on a line with Monahan.

Things can change but if two guys play on the same line I wouldn’t consider them our first and second line centers.

Whether we play him there at even strength or not, Lindholm has proven to be a good center, that means he’s part of our center depth. He’s not our second line center, that’s Backlund, but he’s also one of our top two centres.

Right now our center depth is a comparative strength, and our RW depth is a comparative weakness, which is one of the reasons you see a guy like Lindholm move to RW at even strength and share faceoff duties with Monahan. He can handle both roles easily. You really believe the go-to center shorthanded (and go-to Forward for that matter) isn’t part of our center depth? What are they doing giving him that responsibility then?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The Boston Bruins are another team that won without an elite 1C. I’ve always thought Monahan and Krejci were fairly similar in talent as a center when you compare them by age, and Krejci was Boston’s #1.

The Krejci/Bergeron 1-2 still makes me think a Monahan-Lindholm 1-2 could win you a cup, we just don’t have the kind of support they would need outside of that, but it’s not far off.

Bergeron isn’t an elite #1 centre?

Who knew....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The Boston Bruins are another team that won without an elite 1C. I’ve always thought Monahan and Krejci were fairly similar in talent as a center when you compare them by age, and Krejci was Boston’s #1.

The Krejci/Bergeron 1-2 still makes me think a Monahan-Lindholm 1-2 could win you a cup, we just don’t have the kind of support they would need outside of that, but it’s not far off.

As much as I'd like to believe in this comparison, neither one of our guys are nearly as good as Bergeron. PB doesn't put up gaudy offensive numbers, but he's a respectable 0.8ppg for his career but is an outstanding 2 way player.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Bergeron isn’t an elite #1 centre?

Who knew....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't thi k he was in 2011. He is a hell of a lot better more recently.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[kurwamac]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Yeah....I don't think "Beta" is as cutting as you think it is.

Here's the thing, most people aren't going to be too concerned about being called "Beta".
This is mostly because most people aren't too concerned about the opinions of the type of people who use "Beta" as an insult.

you should look in the mirror and worry about yourself.. you fight for scraps in Canada - I've got it made keep tap dancing for a bunch of guys son - I've got it good where it counts boy

[AC]

Lol.

[AustinL_NHL]

Originally Posted by kurwamac

you should look in the mirror and worry about yourself.. you fight for scraps in Canada - I've got it made keep tap dancing for a bunch of guys son - I've got it good where it counts boy

[ComixZone]