I agree, the term "5C" is not common parlance, but it's entirely clear in the way it was described and what it means. It's absolutely applicable to literal "Swiss Army Knife" utility players like Pius Suter.
It's not often described in common discourse because a lot of people seem to look at it with that overly simplistic mentality of the bolded. That idea that ignores what makes for an actually effective 4th liner. Suter doesn't really have that...which is where his better fit is either as a stopgap/fill-in middle-6 Center or as a Top-9 Winger.
But the user who threw out the term defined it. He defined 5C as someone who should only play C in a pinch. We don't have to guess what it means. I think ou're conflating what you think is an ideal player to play the position with a player who has successfully played the position. Suter has spent a substantial (I would say majority) of his time as a C in the NHL. He's listed as a C. I think most of us think management signed him to play the C position for the Canucks.
Like I said, there's nothing wrong with thinking Suter should only play C in a pinch. But are you saying that the Canucks signed a bottom 6 winger with the intention of slotting him in as a bottom 6 winger? For some reason you don't seem to want to answer this question.
Gaudette is also a player in the same mold as Suter...but much much worse. That same issue where he might be better as a C, but not good enough there to actually want to play him at C if you have a choice. Not really a 4th line player who can be effective crashing and banging and playing with energy...not a matchup player. Not skilled enough to want in your Top-6.
The difference in ability level makes Suter something like a Top-9W/5C type clearly NHL caliber utility player. Whereas Gaudette is an AHL journeyman fringe guy. But there are some parallels in the type of tweener player they are.
Is Yanni Gourde a tweener and does it matter? I get that you like having an old school top 6 bottom 6 but that doesn't take away from the fact that Suter is, at this point, a proven NHL C. It doesn't matter if Gaudette is stylistically similar. A generation of players model their game after [insert start player] and that means nothing.
And you left a key difference here. Gaudette's failure at C was his inability to defend. Suter defends well and coaches trust him to play in a variety of situations and on different lines.
Your stopgap argument is also irrelevant. Cole is a stopgap due to his age too that doesn't mean he's not expected to be a top 4 Dman. The Canucks targeted Suter and Blueger for their ability to play C, defend, PK, chip in offensively, and because they could be economical signings. Nothing wrong with having "stop gaps" when you don't have the ability to acquire a long-term solution.
The whole "takeaways" stat is one of the most overrated defensive metrics for me. For one thing, it's a bit like the "hits" statistic in that it can seem a little bit subjective to begin with. But also more importantly, guys who are racking up tons of "takeaways" are inherently players who didn't have the puck and keep the puck to begin with. Which is where smart, responsible puck management > "takeaways" for me.
The takeaway stat was in the context of posters claiming Aman is some sort of ferocious forechecker. By definition, you're forechecking because your team doesn't have the puck.
And we're not talking about comparing a player with 29 takeaways vs 34 or something like that. 9 takeaways is an glaringly low stat that catches attention.
I don't think that's true. Suter is capable of playing Center in the NHL. I just think he's a bit of an odd utility fit player. The sort of guy who you don't really want to have to deploy at any of your 4 "healthy roster" Center spots 1 through 4 because he's not really ideally suited to any of them on a strong team. Suter absolute can and has deployed as a Center, largely because he's spent his entire NHL career on teams that aren't ideally constructed and don't have better options. Vancouver is going to be no exception to this.
Your post is way too long for me to respond to everything. But your opinion above is fine. Then your opinion is that the Canucks signed a bottom 6 winger who really should fill in at C in a pinch?
