Suzuki vs Caufield - Pick one to build with

[Banjo Cat]

What makes a player a superstar is when they can do things others can't.

I understand that is the definition. But is a superstar really more valuable. I mean if we are going on the assumption that one turns out to be a 40 - 50 goal scorer, while the other turns out be 30 - 40 but also drives the play and handles other tasks can it not be argued that that is just as valuable?

I mean in the end this is all based on a certain projection anyway. Right now I see Suzuki with one less goal, setting up Caufield's goals, and a two way player. But assuming Caufield does become the 50 goal guy, while Suzuki is a 90 point guy with 30 or 40 playing a 200 foot game... to me that is just as valuable. Whether we call that a superstar or not.

 

[expy]

Suzuki hands down.

 

[Miller Time]

Well, don’t forget that I thought Chris Higgins was going to be a 40 goal guy so it’s not like I haven’t been really wrong before.

But CC has a pedigree that is outstanding and he’s already producing at 21. I think at minimum he’ll have a few 50 goal years.

Many players take a big jump when they hit 23, 24. I see no reason why CC wouldn’t be significantly better two seasons from now. He’s nowhere near his prime yet.

Higgins...

That guy could & should've been a perennial 40g player. Probably would've been if he had CC or Suzuki's passion for the game and getting better.

Agree with everything you said about CC, but it's quite odd you don't apply similar reasoning to Suzuki. The 18 month age gap is hardly grounds to make a case that CC has far more room to grow (impact wise

I don't think Suzuki is near his prime yet either.

What we do know is that right now, Suzuki is the more impactful of the two, matching the goal scoring output while contributing significantly more in basically every other area... & He's doing that while carrying the pressure of being Captain of the Habs.

Preference is preference, but on paper (& on the ice), there's really no case to be made that CC, as great an asset as he is, is a better piece to build around as per the hypothetical question you posed.

Time will always tell, odds are that injury or other issues will derail and plateau the ceiling of either player rather than both maxing out their full potential... Which is why we're lucky to have both!

 

[BehindTheTimes]

I would expect Suzuki to outpace him. Suzuki is entering his prime. CC is going to be much better at 23 than he is now. And he’s already pacing for 40+ goals.

And in no way do I want to diminish Suzuki. I like him a lot. But I don’t see superstar there. I could absolutely be wrong on that but I think he’s going to be a legit top line center - not superstar.

As for his 60 points, he obviously was hampered by DD. But people keep saying he’s already a superstar… I don’t see it. He hasn’t proven this at all.

CC on the other hand has a lot of history behind him and - as he’s done his whole life - is now putting pucks in the net. There’s elite talent there.

Neither are superstars. Your posts are just a bunch of gibberish. Caufield is not a superstar and Suzuki is not a superstar. Caufield is an elite goal scorer. Nick is more instrumental in winning games. I don’t see this changing in Caufield’s favour.

 

[JianYang]

Higgins...

That guy could & should've been a perennial 40g player. Probably would've been if he had CC or Suzuki's passion for the game and getting better.

Agree with everything you said about CC, but it's quite odd you don't apply similar reasoning to Suzuki. The 18 month age gap is hardly grounds to make a case that CC has far more room to grow (impact wise

I don't think Suzuki is near his prime yet either.

What we do know is that right now, Suzuki is the more impactful of the two, matching the goal scoring output while contributing significantly more in basically every other area... & He's doing that while carrying the pressure of being Captain of the Habs.

Preference is preference, but on paper (& on the ice), there's really no case to be made that CC, as great an asset as he is, is a better piece to build around as per the hypothetical question you posed.

Time will always tell, odds are that injury or other issues will derail and plateau the ceiling of either player rather than both maxing out their full potential... Which is why we're lucky to have both!

I don't think Higgins was ever the same after Colin white sent him tumbling into the boards.

He suffered a high ankle sprain and was out a long time. Those injuries can be a real hindrance.

He had some really good wheels, and I felt like he lost some of that after that play.

It seems like alot of my bad hockey memories go back to the new Jersey devils.

He got a bum wrist later on as well, but evolved his game to become a good checker for a while.

 

[Banjo Cat]

Neither are superstars. Your posts are just a bunch of gibberish. Caufield is not a superstar and Suzuki is not a superstar. Caufield is an elite goal scorer.

Yeah. That's a good point. I don't want to count Caufield out but that's how I see him, too. If Caufield was scoring more goals like that one against Vegas where he blew by the defender after tipping the puck by him... he'd be a superstar.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

At 17 months older, Suzuki is pacing the same goal total and 25 more points (~100 vs 75).

Completely moot beyond personal preference.

Breaking junior point records is about as reliable as draft position for predicting superstar status... Where were the two drafted again

We know why Caufield was drafted so late...

Thank you Philadelphia.

Weird take.

Now do 98pt/45g 2 way C's

I could be wrong on Suzuki. If he's got another level that's awesome. And that may well be the case. But I don't project him to be a superstar.

I understand that is the definition. But is a superstar really more valuable. I mean if we are going on the assumption that one turns out to be a 40 - 50 goal scorer, while the other turns out be 30 - 40 but also drives the play and handles other tasks can it not be argued that that is just as valuable?

I mean in the end this is all based on a certain projection anyway. Right now I see Suzuki with one less goal, setting up Caufield's goals, and a two way player. But assuming Caufield does become the 50 goal guy, while Suzuki is a 90 point guy with 30 or 40 playing a 200 foot game... to me that is just as valuable. Whether we call that a superstar or not.

A superstar is more valuable. I'd define as a rare offensive talent. In terms of forwards the point or goal totals would be near best in the league consistently. They are rare and thus more valuable.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Higgins...

That guy could & should've been a perennial 40g player. Probably would've been if he had CC or Suzuki's passion for the game and getting better.

Agree with everything you said about CC, but it's quite odd you don't apply similar reasoning to Suzuki. The 18 month age gap is hardly grounds to make a case that CC has far more room to grow (impact wise

I don't think Suzuki is near his prime yet either.

What we do know is that right now, Suzuki is the more impactful of the two, matching the goal scoring output while contributing significantly more in basically every other area... & He's doing that while carrying the pressure of being Captain of the Habs.

Preference is preference, but on paper (& on the ice), there's really no case to be made that CC, as great an asset as he is, is a better piece to build around as per the hypothetical question you posed.

Time will always tell, odds are that injury or other issues will derail and plateau the ceiling of either player rather than both maxing out their full potential... Which is why we're lucky to have both!

I really like Suzuki. Legit number one for sure. As I said, hopefully another level. I wouldn't say he's got no chance, I'd just say I don't project him that way. I would love to be wrong and I might be.

Neither are superstars. Your posts are just a bunch of gibberish. Caufield is not a superstar and Suzuki is not a superstar. Caufield is an elite goal scorer. Nick is more instrumental in winning games. I don’t see this changing in Caufield’s favour.

Gibberish would be saying that we saved Price in the Vegas series. I mean that's just flat out dumb.

As for them being superstars... yep, neither are superstars right now. The question is whether or not they'll get there.

I don't think Higgins was ever the same after Colin white sent him tumbling into the boards.

He suffered a high ankle sprain and was out a long time. Those injuries can be a real hindrance.

He had some really good wheels, and I felt like he lost some of that after that play.

It seems like alot of my bad hockey memories go back to the new Jersey devils.

He got a bum wrist later on as well, but evolved his game to become a good checker for a while.

I think you're right. he was never the same.

But it was really weird. He had so many scoring chances but they just would not go in. It was the craziest thing I'd ever seen. But there's no doubt that ankle injury screwed him just as he was coming into his prime. A shame. I really thought he'd be a 40 goal guy but it just never happened.

 

[Banjo Cat]

A superstar is more valuable. I'd define as a rare offensive talent. In terms of forwards the point or goal totals would be near best in the league consistently. They are rare and thus more valuable.

Well, I think Behind The Times raised a good point, though. While we are debating over whether a superstar is more valuable (and I still disagree, I think there are more factors than goals), there is still the question over whether Caufield is one?

And while I originally agreed with your definition of a superstar, on rethinking it, I am not entirely sure that's entirely correct. A lot of players in the league considered superstars have not scored fifty. Crosby did it once. And aside from that he generally scored in the 30s and 40s. McDavid is likely going to score a lot this year but he has been scoring in the 30s and 40s so far. Who do you think is better, McDavid or Matthews?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Well, I think Behind The Times raised a good point, though. While we are debating over whether a superstar is more valuable (and I still disagree, I think there are more factors than goals), there is still the question over whether Caufield is one?

And while I originally agreed with your definition of a superstar, on rethinking it, I am not entirely sure that's entirely correct. A lot of players in the league considered superstars have not scored fifty. Crosby did it once. And aside from that he generally scored in the 30s and 40s. McDavid is likely going to score a lot this year but he has been scoring in the 30s and 40s so far. Who do you think is better, McDavid or Matthews?

Right now Suzuki is the better player, hands down.

The question is who would you want going forward? Totally different than what we're talking about today. Maybe neither will be superstars or both will be. Nobody can say for sure at this moment. But that's why this is an interesting topic to discuss right now.

And I never said that a superstar has to score 50 goals... I said they were near the top of goals/points consistently. Some are more playmaker some are goal scorers. I value goalscorers more than playmakers but there are other components of the game that are valuable as well. That's where the debate comes in. Howe or Gretzky... totally different players but both were legendary. Do Howe's intangibles make up for the point spread? I don't think so but...

 

[Banjo Cat]

Right now Suzuki is the better player, hands down.

The question is who would you want going forward? Totally different than what we're talking about today. Maybe neither will be superstars or both will be. Nobody can say for sure at this moment. But that's why this is an interesting topic to discuss right now.

And I never said that a superstar has to score 50 goals... I said they were near the top of goals/points consistently. Some are more playmaker some are goal scorers. I value goalscorers more than playmakers but there are other components of the game that are valuable as well. That's where the debate comes in. Howe or Gretzky... totally different players but both were legendary. Do Howe's intangibles make up for the point spread? I don't think so but...

Well see earlier in the thread someone mentioned Ovechkin vs Crosby. With Ovechkin being more the goal scorer and Crosby being considered the more rounded player. And here you mention Gretzky. But I think we might be making the wrong comparison here. Ovechkin and Gretsky were more than just goal scorers. Ovechkin was a force on the ice. Whether or not Crosby is more well rounded than Ovechkin (and whether that is more valuable is one thing). I think Ovechkin himself is a far more multidimensional player than Cole. Ovechkin was a truck.

We will see what the future brings. I probably am more of a Cole fan, actually. I just like him.

 

[CHwest]

Suzuki will be as valuable to us as Bergeron is to the Bruins. He does a lot of good things on both sides of the puck. I also believe Suzy will top out with more points, maybe a little weaker defensively but it is early to say that.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Well see earlier in the thread someone mentioned Ovechkin vs Crosby. With Ovechkin being more the goal scorer and Crosby being considered the more rounded player. And here you mention Gretzky. But I think we might be making the wrong comparison here. Ovechkin and Gretsky were more than just goal scorers. Ovechkin was a force on the ice. Whether or not Crosby is more well rounded than Ovechkin (and whether that is more valuable is one thing). I think Ovechkin himself is a far more multidimensional player than Cole. Ovechkin was a truck.

We will see what the future brings. I probably am more of a Cole fan, actually. I just like him.

As I said... the better comparison is Bossy. CC is in that mold of player.

To be clear, I don't expect him to be as good as Bossy (Bossy is an all-time great) but I think he'll be similar in that he has good offensive instincts, is creative, has some playmaking ability and a deadly shot. You won't get physical play out of either of them.

 

[Rapala]

As I said... the better comparison is Bossy. CC is in that mold of player.

To be clear, I don't expect him to be as good as Bossy (Bossy is an all-time great) but I think he'll be similar in that he has good offensive instincts, is creative, has some playmaking ability and a deadly shot. You won't get physical play out of either of them.

Nope Mike Bossy was not a peripheral goal scorer. He took abuse game in and game out in the pay zone for many if not the majority of his goals. It was well documented that this led to his back problems and was what essentially forced him into an early retirement. In what games have we seen Caufield doing that? CC's greatest attribute for me is his ability to score from the weeds. Brett Hull and even Max Patch were good that way.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Poll is lopsided enough that this thread shouldn’t even be open anymore. There is no contest here.

 

[bobholly39]

Caufield has a higher ceiling, but.....Suzuki. Simply put much safer choice, more important position, etc

Both are obviously great

 

[ReHabs]

One argument in favour of Caufield is that I really think he'd score next to anybody, he's that good. I know we're traumatized by a dearth of top6 C-men for years but if I'm running a dispersal draft I think I'd rank Caufield higher than Suzuki because there are many other Cs but not as many lethal goal scorers is my logic.

In any case it's a relief and a blessing to have both. I hope we can make a good run or two at it with them before it's too late.

 

[not quite yoda]

I will choose both. What a question.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

They are less than a year & 1/2 in age difference...

Almost 18 months, but the biggest difference is Suzuki has two seasons more of experience, which puts him at 300+ games if we include playoffs, while Caufield has barely 80 games. Those 18 months and 200+ games make a huge difference especially at that age and makes Suzuki much closer to his final product than Cole. Like I said earlier in the thread, the poll would be heavily biased towards age and experience which makes it pointless. Might as well make polls asking if it's better to be a center than a winger and another on whether having more experience is benefitial.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

You can't just build with one or the other. Hockey is a team game, see Colorado. If Slaf eventually gets his big head out of his ass and becomes a mix of Hossa and Lindros we will have something. We also need a Makar lite type of defender and then things can get serious.

The Lane Hutson Height Watch is on the case.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Agree on the last 2 points.

As for the Suzuki comment, I would bet that this was part of his offseason focus... Some improvements take longer than others to bear fruit.

Consistency and commitment to improvement and offseason work is what separates the progress players make through their 20's (& beyond)... Lots of evidence that Suzuki is cut from the mould of the very best in those departments, time will tell how much that translates to successive performance improvements. So far, so good.

St-Louis said he sees Caufield with the highest capacity to learn and desire to get better. Think he said something along those lines last year.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Agree with everything you said about CC, but it's quite odd you don't apply similar reasoning to Suzuki. The 18 month age gap is hardly grounds to make a case that CC has far more room to grow (impact wise

Modify that 18 month gap to include NHL games and you'll see how frivolous that comment is.

The highest curb of learning is in the first 200-300 games and Suzuki passed that point. Caufield has less than 100 games. Yes, it is easy to assume Caufield has more room to grow because he's still trying to adapt.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Nope Mike Bossy was not a peripheral goal scorer. He took abuse game in and game out in the pay zone for many if not the majority of his goals. It was well documented that this led to his back problems and was what essentially forced him into an early retirement. In what games have we seen Caufield doing that? CC's greatest attribute for me is his ability to score from the weeds. Brett Hull and even Max Patch were good that way.

Of course he took abuse. Bossy was a tough player in that sense - as was Lafleur btw - But he wasn’t out there throwing hits and fighting like Gordie Howe. He hated fighting and was outspoken against it. Hence why I say do not expect much in the way of physical physical play. Doesn’t mean they won’t fight for the puck but they aren’t power forwards.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Suzuki will be as valuable to us as Bergeron is to the Bruins. He does a lot of good things on both sides of the puck. I also believe Suzy will top out with more points, maybe a little weaker defensively but it is early to say that.

I wonder if Bruins fans ever believed Marchand would end-up beating Bergeron in the point collumn in the latter part of their career.

People are way too focused in the present and seem to think reality is a never ending repeating facsimile of the present.

Here's a novel idea: things evolve

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Almost 18 months, but the biggest difference is Suzuki has two seasons more of experience, which puts him at 300+ games if we include playoffs, while Caufield has barely 80 games. Those 18 months and 200+ games make a huge difference especially at that age and makes Suzuki much closer to his final product than Cole. Like I said earlier in the thread, the poll would be heavily biased towards age and experience which makes it pointless. Might as well make polls asking if it's better to be a center than a winger and another on whether having more experience is benefitial.

Nah. Of course a lot of people were going to take Zuki as he’s better now. Just surprised at the crazy ratio. But it’s worth seeing what people think at this point in time.