Suzuki vs Caufield - Pick one to build with

[Miller Time]

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.

What's frivolous is to over exaggerate a relatively small variable and use that as grounds to build a specious argument on... But carry on, don't let me get in the way of the fun.

Words matter. Re-read the post you quoted and see if you can spot the important word you either intentionally or mistakenly failed to consider... And then perhaps you can dismantle your strawman.

 

[Rapala]

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.

I'm not saying Caufield can't be as prolific as Bossy. That is yet to be seen, but when comparing him to pure goal scorers I think more of a Brett Hull type who was one of the best as getting lost in the weeds and could score from just about anywhere.

 

[OldCraig71]

The Lane Hutson Height Watch is on the case.

People here are saying that it will be tough for him to be successful at the NHL level due to his lack of size, especially as a defenseman.

 

[Ozmodiar]

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

It’s more lopsided than the “kotkaniemi vs Suzuki” poll.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I'm not saying Caufield can't be as prolific as Bossy. That is yet to be seen, but when comparing him to pure goal scorers I think more of a Brett Hull type who was one of the best as getting lost in the weeds and could score from just about anywhere.

I see more Bossy in him. He’s more creative with the puck than Hull was. Hull was a shooter all day long. CC has a little more flare to his game.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

It’s more lopsided than the “kotkaniemi vs Suzuki” poll.

Yeah and that doesn’t make sense. CC is about to have a 40+ year as a 21 year old. That’s crazy.

As I said, my prediction is that in a few years if we re-run this poll, the results will be very different.

 

[Redux91]

It's basically impossible to compare until their careers are done essentially lol

Everytime I read "yeah but imagine Cole at Suzukis age(23)" I cant help but think yeah but imagine Suzuki at 25 lol..

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

It's basically impossible to compare until their careers are done essentially lol

Everytime I read "yeah but imagine Cole at Suzukis age(23)" I cant help but think yeah but imagine Suzuki at 25 lol..

Trust me bro… you’re going to be be in my camp in a few years. This kid is sick. He’ll be a legit star.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Yeah and that doesn’t make sense. CC is about to have a 40+ year as a 21 year old. That’s crazy.

As I said, my prediction is that in a few years if we re-run this poll, the results will be very different.

I wonder if the Avs are debating who's better to build around... Markar or MacKinnon?

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

I see more Bossy in him. He’s more creative with the puck than Hull was. Hull was a shooter all day long. CC has a little more flare to his game.

Bobby was a shooter, but Brett on the other hand scored a lot by deking despite being a fearsome shooter.

I wonder if the Avs are debating who's better to build around... Markar or MacKinnon?

I'd take Makar

 

[the valiant effort]

Makar definitely. Mackinnon is 27, he has what, 3 good months left? Assuming the old man even recovers from this current injury.

 

[Gaud]

Imagine what Caufield does without Suzuki and what Suzuki does without Caufield and you will get your answer.

Both to me are tracking 2nd tier star level at center and wing (notches below the top players in the NHL). You need them both to get the best out of each other and that is likely 80-100 pts range. Our best shot at the next 100 pt guys. It only took a few decades

The bold sums it up for me, along with there being a lot more to being a C than a W and because Suzuki is used up in a lot more situations than Caufield. Caufield is still integral to our core though.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Bobby was a shooter, but Brett on the other hand scored a lot by deking despite being a fearsome shooter.



I'd take Makar

I think Markar/Mackinnon is the better debate. Love Caufield but Suzuki has more value. Caufield's ability to score is rare but Suzuki's assets are rare too. Caufield needs a center like Suzuki more than Suzuki needs a winger like Caufield.

Interesting conversation but I'm not putting too much energy into it. Don't like the build around 1 narrative

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Bobby was a shooter, but Brett on the other hand scored a lot by deking despite being a fearsome shooter.



I'd take Makar

That’s not how I remember Brett. I remember him more as a guy who’d one time a pass into the net.

 

[Habs Halifax]

The bold sums it up for me, along with there being a lot more to being a C than a W and because Suzuki is used up in a lot more situations than Caufield. Caufield is still integral to our core though.

Voting is not always accurate but in this case, I think it is. Don't matter to me cause I don't even want to build around 2 players, let alone 1

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The bold sums it up for me, along with there being a lot more to being a C than a W and because Suzuki is used up in a lot more situations than Caufield. Caufield is still integral to our core though.

CC has scored anywhere he’s gone. I don’t think he’s going to have to rely on a great centre to put up big numbers in the future.

I used the example of Plekanec earlier. Solid number two who can play two way hockey. CC would light it up with him as well. Obviously he’ll produce more with a better centre but I donr think he’s be dependent on it.

 

[Gaud]

CC has scored anywhere he’s gone. I don’t think he’s going to have to rely on a great centre to put up big numbers in the future.

I used the example of Plekanec earlier. Solid number two who can play two way hockey. CC would light it up with him as well. Obviously he’ll produce more with a better centre but I donr think he’s be dependent on it.

I wasnt saying he was - i was saying Suzuki has a lot more responsibilities than just scoring, including PK

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

That’s not how I remember Brett. I remember him more as a guy who’d one time a pass into the net.

Perhaps towards the end of his career, but in his better days with Adam Oates, he'd often get breakaways and he'd deke. His last 50/50 was completed on a breakaway deke iirc. Hull had a complete arsenal like Cole. Wristers, slappers, one-times and dekes.

He was one of my favorite players growing-up.

 

[Rapala]

Perhaps towards the end of his career, but in his better days with Adam Oates, he'd often get breakaways and he'd deke. His last 50/50 was completed on a breakaway deke iirc. Hull had a complete arsenal like Cole. Wristers, slappers, one-times and dekes.

He was one of my favorite players growing-up.

Yeah he could score from just about anywhere. Later in his career he did rely more on his shot and finding those soft spots in the Ozone. The only thing I didn't like about Brett was when he went American on me.

 

[the valiant effort]

I like Curtis Joseph but he played that series like an idiot.

 

[barbu]

Statistical offensive peak is often between age 21 and 23. So they aren't outliers there and not much can be extrapolated

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Statistical offensive peak is often between age 21 and 23. So they aren't outliers there and not much can be extrapolated

Statistical peak usually happens after about five or six years in the league. CC is nowhere near his peak. He’s only got like 80 games of NHL experience.

 

[Miller Time]

Statistical peak usually happens after about five or six years in the league. CC is nowhere near his peak. He’s only got like 80 games of NHL experience.

123 actually. Suzuki 267.

by your "5-6 years" approximation, that works out to 400-500 NHL games... hence why it's a pretty thin case to make that CC has significantly more room to grow than Suzuki. Both players have, hopefully, quite some runway to continue improving, and both have shown strong evidence to suggest they are/will be the type of players with the work ethic and desire to improve that sustains ongoing development.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

123 actually. Suzuki 267.

by your "5-6 years" approximation, that works out to 400-500 NHL games... hence why it's a pretty thin case to make that CC has significantly more room to grow than Suzuki. Both players have, hopefully, quite some runway to continue improving, and both have shown strong evidence to suggest they are/will be the type of players with the work ethic and desire to improve that sustains ongoing development.

Suzuki is almost two seasons ahead of CC. I think both players will continue to improve but the gap right now is significant.

 

[Gillings]

Suzuki

I think both will produce around the same number of points in their prime, but Suzuki will contribute more than just points

What makes you think Cole won't contribute more than points. He is smart enough, Strong enough, Just need to get faster.