Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Who Will the Rangers Target At the Center Position this Summer?

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Bird Law said:
No. It's the exact definition of arbitrary since you are arbitrarily picking a fixed amount of players based on the teams in the league. Just because there are 30 teams does not mean there are 30 #1 centers.

That's the single laziest argument I have ever heard.

30 TEAMS MEANS 30 CENTER, BRAH.
Click to expand...
OK, even in your slanted re-telling, it doesn't meet the definition of arbitrary.

I'd love to hear the non-arbitrary definition of a number one center.

Little known fact about one: it's a number. How the criteria of what a number one center is wouldn't then be based on mathematics is beyond me.
 
BobMarleyNYR said:
Fair enough... then so are Krejci and Bergeron, right?
Click to expand...

Then so are they what? Capable #1s in the mold of Stepan? That I agree with.

I hate this #1 center argument so much because it boils down to a player having to have a ridiculous skill set that maybe 6 players in the league have. Elite skating, elite vision, an elite shot, elite defense, makes teammates better, wins a lot of draws, matches up against top competition. By that definition there's like 4 of those players.
 
Bird Law said:
Exactly.

And with Nash, I think the dude just lets **** get to him. I mean, it's no real excuse since I think he's a mentally weak player, but it's obvious the playoff disappointment label effects him. It does need to change, though.
Click to expand...

I feel as though Nash felt the backlash from 12-13's post playoff comments about him feeling like he played well (he didn't), and maybe he didn't mean it or didn't know what the NY media and fans would do to him, there isn't that scrutiny in Columbus.

I feel that maybe that weighed on him all year, then the concussion happened, and he showed up to do what ever he could in his controll to help the team win. Which he did. He was hitting, he was skating, he was shooting. Can't ask for more than that. If the puck doesn't go in, well "thems the breaks".

He was very good in the playoffs. And this is from someone who had been a critic of Nash. He really won me over with his effort in the playoffs. And i feel he learned what the NY fans and media expect. Effort. And if you fail, say you failed.

I think this coming season some if these guys will be playing with a chip on their shoulder. Nash being one of them.

Edit: side note, that is why i never have and never will like Gaborik. The guy is a tin man. He showed no motivation as a Ranger, he refused to move his feet and engage. He scored goals on sheer skill a lot of the time. Then he gets a golden ticket and rides Kopitar's coattails to a Cup. Pisses me off.

I take Nash (his effort and heart he showed in these playoffs) and deal with his lumps, over the tin man any day of the week.
 
-31- said:
OK, even in your slanted re-telling, it doesn't meet the definition of arbitrary.

I'd love to hear the non-arbitrary definition of a number one center.

Little known fact about one: it's a number. How the criteria of what a number one center is wouldn't then be based on mathematics is beyond me.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely arbitrary. Because your definition will instantly change if the league either expands or contracts.

It's both arbitrary and incredibly lazy. You can't even defend it.

A number one center is a subjective evaluation of a player. Not a math thing where any moron can count to 30.
 
Raspewtin said:
Then so are they what? Capable #1s in the mold of Stepan? That I agree with.

I hate this #1 center argument so much because it boils down to a player having to have a ridiculous skill set that maybe 6 players in the league have. Elite skating, elite vision, an elite shot, elite defense, makes teammates better, wins a lot of draws, matches up against top competition. By that definition there's like 4 of those players.
Click to expand...

It's possible that I am talking elite. I personally see Bergeron/Krejci as the best top-six tweeners around. Which present another question: what is good, better, best (-31-, please advise;).
 
Bird Law said:
It's absolutely arbitrary. Because your definition will instantly change if the league either expands or contracts.
Click to expand...
Of course it would. Why wouldn't it?

When the number of teams changes, would you disagree that level of play required to be an NHL-caliber player changes?
 
Come on guys. You're all intelligent.

#1 C means different things to different people. Just let it be. No sense in escelating it. Can we all agree that we need a competent center and call it a day?
 
-31- said:
Of course it would. Why wouldn't it?

When the number of teams changes, would you disagree that level of play required to be an NHL-caliber player changes?
Click to expand...

Your logic has nothing to do with the level of the play of the players, however. Your logic only takes into account how many teams there are in the league. The level of play and player are meaningless to you. Not even sure why you would bring that up since your "mathematical calculation" does not take that into account at all.

The weird thing that you somehow miss is that expanding the league would actually decrease the caliber of player yet somehow increase the amount of #1 centers. The opposite would happen under contraction.

It's quite simple. A #1 center is a subjective thing. It has nothing to do with how many teams there are in the league.
 
ElectrocutedCat said:
Come on guys. You're all intelligent.

#1 C means different things to different people. Just let it be. No sense in escelating it. Can we all agree that we need a competent center and call it a day?
Click to expand...

So far only one person's intelligence as been questioned, and I'll make you a believer by night's end :P
 
To me, a number 1 center has to excel in at least half of these 10 play-style characteristics.

-Elite skating
-Elite passing (his passing is VERY good, but wouldn't say elite yet)
-Defensive acumen
-Drawing Top Matchups
-Makes their wingers better
-Can be relied on to play 18+ minutes a night
-Having a multi-faceted offensive skillset
-Use in all situations
-Season to season consistency
-High hockey IQ

The more traits you excel in, the "better" of a #1 center you are. I bolded Stepan's qualities. Stepan barely qualifies, but qualifies.
 
BobMarleyNYR said:
So far only one person's intelligence as been questioned, and I'll make you a believer by night's end :P
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think it takes zero intelligence to put forward the claim that there are 30 teams so there have to be 30 number one centers. It's the opposite of an intelligent argument to me. And this is coming from someone that generally likes -31-'s posting.
 
Raspewtin said:
To me, a number 1 center has to excel in at least half of these 10 play-style characteristics.

-Elite skating
-Elite passing (his passing is VERY good, but wouldn't say elite yet)
-Defensive acumen
-Drawing Top Matchups
-Makes their wingers better
-Can be relied on to play 18+ minutes a night
-Having a multi-faceted offensive skillset
-Use in all situations
-Season to season consistency
-High hockey IQ

The more traits you excel in, the "better" of a #1 center you are. I bolded Stepan's qualities. Stepan barely qualifies, but qualifies.
Click to expand...

But you'd have to weight some criterion.
 
Bird Law said:
Frankly, I think it takes zero intelligence to put forward the claim that there are 30 teams so there have to be 30 number one centers. It's the opposite of an intelligent argument to me. And this is coming from someone that generally likes -31-'s posting.
Click to expand...

I disagree also... doesn't make him unintelligent, though.
 
I think it's funny that everyone's getting hung up on the exact measurement of what a number one center is and whether Stepan qualifies. The problem isn't Stepan's level. The problem is that we have no one else on his level or better to pair with him. We'll be able to hang with anyone if we add someone to play Bergeron to Stepan's Krejci.
 
Bird Law said:
Well, we did it this past season. Stepan is our top center and we went to the Cup finals. I'm more worried about the depth than I am getting a true #1 center.
Click to expand...

That's my point. The team can win even though Stepan is not a true #1. You don't need a team with a few superstars, you need a TEAM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom