Curt

Yeah, sure, I would say most NHL coaches do deploy their lines in terms of matchups, or at least take matchups strongly into consideration. But Krueger isn’t going to deploy Lazar exactly the same as he would Larsson, just because they are both on a checking line. McCann could also be centering a line with defensive/checking utility, and replace some of those mins/matchups. And having an acceptable 2C changes how the 2nd best scoring line might be used. Krueger only had 2 lines that were fulfilling their role last season. If he had more, maybe he would have used them differently.

This made me laugh because it’s very professionally, sharply written with lots of professional businessy phrases. Then you ended it with more smartly. Lol Also, I disagree that the future is now, because although time is a construct, it’s one of the basic rules that we live by. Now is now, the future is the future. If you are taking assets from the future and using them now, it leaves less for the future.

I know I caused a major tangent. It wasn’t personal, but I acknowledge that it probably did take away a little from your thread. I do want to take a second to say thank you for bringing this to the board. We/I do value people who hear directly from interesting sources “on the inside” and take the time to share it here. I am glad that your scout friend thinks so highly of Cozens. It echoes what most scouting sources have been saying, so it’s encouraging. When he was drafted, I had some concerns about his ultimate upside as a playmaker, and even wondered if he may end up being better suited as a RW. He is more a straight ahead, direct player than creative playmaker. I think he has improved as a playmaker/passer a little, though he probably will always be a bit more of a direct, shoot first guy. Cozens is definitely big, very good skater, plays 200 ft game, high compete, very good shot. Passing/playmaking I still think are the question marks. Will they be just ok, good, or very good? Either way, the total package is looking good.

Got it. 1Cs are elite C’s, or very good C’s who are clutch for your favorite team. 😁 I challenge the board to tell me, who are the #1Cs in the league? And/Or, What makes a player qualify as a #1C? Because I guess I just don’t know.

Compared to Cirelli and Tierney? Would be very surprised if the puck at 8 OA is in the lineup

I’m actually going to say that high quality players who have a high work ethic and work to keep themselves in top shape into their 30’s very rarely have a dramatic drop off in ability, but rather that a slow decline is the norm.

Sure, but Larsson didn’t play normal 4C minutes. Lazar probably would. Stall/McCann would take up a lot of those mins that Larsson played.

Looks like a franchise starting QB or elite 1C to me. He can be whatever he wants to be looking like that.

Are Brees and Flacco still good, who is Keenum. I don’t know fooseball.

My opinion, McCann. Young, 200 ft player, upside for more offense. Could possibly be 2C/middle-C and take on a reduced 3C role if/when Cozens really gets going. Long term piece.

This isn’t what everyone keeps telling me though. I keep hearing that only the 10-12 elite C’s in the league are 1Cs. Let me ask this then, and I do it in the heart of friendly discussion, really, how can I tell if a player is 1C quality? How many 1Cs are there in the league right now?

Taro brought up the QB thing, so I just went with it. Its fine. It’s just a pet peeve of mine. I am sure that most scouts would dismiss my opinion. It’s the lexicon that they use and it works for them, but it’s also not at all intuitive or logical. I honestly think that it is just carryover from a much smaller league. They probably just kind of kept characterizing player quality using the same terms. I think it is out of date.

I’m not saying that elite C’s or Franchise QBs don’t exist. Im saying that it is silly to say that Trent Dilfer wasn’t a starting QB, because scouts say there are only 10 starter level QBs in the league. Would it make sense to call the 10 franchise QBs, starting QBs, and call the next 20 best QBs backups? Because that’s basically what’s happening with 1Cs here. Im saying that some of those very good, but not elite C’s are also 1C caliber players. Just not elite 1Cs. If you mean elite C, just say elite C. Not all good 1C qualify as elite (top 10-12), but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t 1Cs.

Well maybe “perception” should get in line with reality, because if you can be a real cup contender without a 1C, then I question the utility of the term.

Yeah, he was maybe playing injured (played 79 games) the year he scored 17, but that’s exactly the problem with him and why he was declining. His body is not holding up.

Yeah, scouts may talk like this, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to use those terms for those player groups. It just seems like an antiquated holdover from a time when the league was much smaller. With these definitions, you apparently don’t even need a 1C quality player on your team in order to win a Cup. Neither WCF teams have one.

I understood what he meant, because he had to included a paragraph to explain the term instead of just using a term that is more intuitive. Scouts very well may use terms in this way, that doesn’t make it smart or intuitive.

I will argue about it, with the scouts too if given the chance. 😉 I don’t think so. I’m just asking that people should say what they mean and not twist the meaning of another term into an unrecognizable definition completely separated from the textbook meaning of the term.

You are misunderstanding my point. Im not saying that there is a clear difference in talent level between the 31st 1C and the first 2C (32). If you want to say that there is not much difference between a low end 1C (~20-31) and a high end 2C (~32-45), that’s fine. It’s a reasonable argument. The the point that I’m trying to make is that if you are going to use those positional delineations (1C, 2C, 3C) to separate players, don’t create some arbitrary cutoff point which could be different for each person. Use the actually numbers that exist in the NHL. If you want to describe the 10-12 best C’s in the world, 1C is not the tag to use, because there are more than 10 1Cs in the NHL. Just say elite C’s, or all-star C’s or something, or even top-10. Say what you mean.

See above comment. Whichever 31 Cs are the best, those are the #1Cs. There are not 12 #1Cs, 30 #2Cs, and 45 #3Cs...........That’s just arbitrary.

It’s fine to say the Sabres #1 is not an NHL starter quality player. But somewhere out there, there are the 31 best goalies in the league. Those are the starting caliber players. There are not 10 #1 quality goalies, and 50 #2 quality goalies.

This drives me completely crazy. Do words have no meaning!? I reject this purposeful misuse of words. If you just used the words that you really mean, you wouldn’t need to write this disclaimer in your post.

If money was a primary concern, then it’s $1M more feasible than it was yesterday.

Hmm, I wouldn’t think so. Copp at 2C over Staal?

I think it’s just that former Penguins Assistant GMs are genetically predisposed to trading for Marcus Johanssons and believing that they can be top-6 C’s. Don’t forget Terry. Arguably an even less important opinion.