Give me 48 centers youd take over sam bennett. Theres been absurd takes on this board but trying to argue sam bennett isnt a 2C is beyond absurd
Can we agree that these are the goal posts? Because it makes total sense that you want a top 16 C and a top 48 C as your 1C/2C combo. We see eye to eye on that premise. It's a good premise.
I just went back to check my "broad brush" stat check. Initially using all C's for the past two seasons. Then only counting F that took over 600 FO in just this past season. This removes 15C's, and adds three listed W's that easily clear 600 FO like Byfield.
Your 1C is ideally going to be around a P/GP or better. Even though raw stats aren't the definitive bar, the top 16 Centers set it pretty cleanly.
Your 2C in that case is going to be around .667 P/GP (55P) or better. I swear I didn't orchestrate that the bar would be just above Sam's season! He was over 60th in the quick and dirty math, and I thought he would be more like 50th if you eliminated 10 guys that aren't actually a C.
The guys that clear top 48 just ahead of him:
Cooley
Byfield
McTavish
Stephenson
Zacha
Cirelli
PLD
All of them have a better career season than Sam's current best, and two guys with two cups a piece. Some great young pieces without one yet. And Zacha... LOL
49, Boone Jenner whose body cannot keep up with his game. Doesn't count.
49 instead; Sam Bennett. I shit you not. And I respect it. If you'd rather have him than PLD or Zacha since he brings vibes, then cool. That's worth it to you having roughly 10% less production than the actual 48th C last season, this season, and likely next season as well. Money aside, that's not unreasonable at all.
He is the 6th F on his team currently, but that's only because I'm a Lundell believer. And Lundell missed out on the top 50!
Being the "perfect fit of a PITA 6th F" is the calling card of the NHL Middle 6er with just enough offense to get by, but all of the intangibles that you crave. Electrolytes. That's what he is.
For the last two seasons, he's been the 6th F on a great team. Saying he's been the 2C doesn't automatically prove your point if there were "5 better F on his own team." He can be the current 2C on a very good team and still accurately be called a "2.5C."
We're saying similar things. I'm saying my thing is a slightly more accurate version of yours. Raw stats, fancy stats, eye test, & potential all considered.
I'm not saying you're crazy, but if you think I'm crazy, you're crazy. =)