While I'm definitely hoping to see Suzuki reach a future production of a PPG, I suspect it won't be enough for you to agree that makes him a legitimate #1C on a contender.
The paradox you present is one of the modern fan, convinced it's a young man's league with players' production passed its prime by age 26. Yet, you also seem to adhere to the old mentality when it comes to the line breakdown for teams because of the quality of players you require in order to consider them legitimate in their role.
The Cap cost of the players you deem legitimate, alone, will force a two-line offensive deployment, at best, and a checking or energy line beyond that.
Ion the other hand, believe that a c-line with Suzuki as a two-way C (even at only a 75-point production), Dach as another two-way C, at or near a 70-point production and Beck (or some other C) around 50 points while also playing a shutdown role, would be sufficient of a C-Line to compete for and win a Cup.
The Cap room advantage over top-heavy teams will, enable a GM like Hughes to assemble more talented top-9 depth and better wingers, overall, that can help generate offense throughout the lineup, rather than relying on one or two lines.
TB, after winning the Stanley Cup, lost their starting G and became an easy team to contain as a one-line team without stellar goaltending to help steal some games.
The more modest offensive production of the Habs' C-line, described above, but with an added defensive acumen, would enable us to roll out our lines and still come up with a positive goal differential against more offensively potent teams during the regular season.
Positive goal differentials = wins.
The SCF run, even without a 75-point C (at that point), supported by a near 70-point C and a 50-point shutdown C, in that order, showed that Cs like Matthews could be contained. A bunch of previous years had also shown that both Tavares and Matthews could be contained, along with Marner, for that matter.
McDavid and Draisaitl, as brilliant as they might be, have also proven that they aren't mysteries that can't be solved come playoff time, given the remaining relative depth on their team.
Nobody can rightfully claim that a team with a crappy C-line will win the Cup, but establishing what constitutes a crappy C-line is a lot more subjective than what some are suggesting when they talk about PPG Cs as legitimate #1Cs for a contender, but really point to 100+ point Cs as the real criteria for #1 Cs needed to lead a contending team, if you analyze properly their arguments.
That's where the dishonesty resides.
There are many ways to build a contender. Sure, without superstar power, it requires more work and better balance, button a cap world, not dishing out 12.5M, or more, to superstars can also help assemble a different type of contender, and, no, that does nutmeat that it has tube a D-only team that plays an anti-hockey game plan and relies mostly, if not strictly, on its goaltending.
There is plenty of degrees between the Carey Price era as the lineup motif for the Habs and aligning three 100-point Cs like EDM did this past season.
In that range of degrees, IMO, given the Cap reality in the NHL, many possible lineups will have a far greater chance of winning the Cup than Edmonton has with three 100-point Cs and not much more.
Wasn't Danault the #1C back then?
