Who would be a superstar?

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I didn't say he would be a better overall player than any of them. I was challenged with the point that centers are supposed to be extremely responsible defensively. I used them as examples of top-line centers who range from slightly above average to well below average defensively. Am I wrong? Do those players not fall into that category?

As I said, put Hudler between two physical wingers who have capable shots and you'll have a very good line. I guess my question is... how can you consider guys like Scott Gomez or Antoine Vermette top line centers if you can't consider Hudler one?

I don't consider Vermette or Gomez top line centers anymore than I would consider Hudler one. Which is why I didn't refer to either of their names in any of my responses.

Hudler has no business being mentioned with the likes of Kopitar, Staal, Lecavalier, probably even Ribeiro (is he a #1? not sure about that).

IMO, the fact that some teams are not so deep that they have guys like Gomez or Vermette as top line centers is sort of a farce. And so would sticking Hudles into their spot and calling him a #1 center.

It's like that joke about what do you call the guy who finished dead last in his class at medical school.

Answer = Doctor

I will be totally honest and admit I don't watch enough of any of the other guys you mentioned to be able to say definitively if Hudler is crappier, just as crappy or less crappy defensively than any of those guys. But it's a fallacy to lump him in with names like Thornton or other guys who are perennial 70-80-90-100+ point players. You want to mention him with guys like Gomez and Vermette, fine. But look at Gomez and Vermette, they're the weakest of the weak when it comes to 1st line centes. They really shouldn't be first line centers. So your comparison of them to Hudler is sort of like spinning your wheels. What's the point? Huddles would merely be the best option on a crappy team, thus he'd be forced into the role of #1 when he really shouldn't be a #1. I'd have definitely left the elite centermen off of your comparison.

[Mitchmac33 103]

I'm sure Datsyuk and Zetterberg would hardly be getting 100 points anywhere else. I know dats has had a couple 97 point seasons and at least one of those years he was playing on a line with zetterberg. Find it hard to believe if both of them could get 100 elsewhere they couldn't do it together.

And with the whole kopitar not getting better defensively. I also find taht hard to believe. NHL players are constantly improving their games. Why is it that only red wing players seem to develop defensively but no one else can? I'm just saying that seems to be the attitude of some ppl on here

[Dave 324]

I'm sure Datsyuk and Zetterberg would hardly be getting 100 points anywhere else. I know dats has had a couple 97 point seasons and at least one of those years he was playing on a line with zetterberg. Find it hard to believe if both of them could get 100 elsewhere they couldn't do it together.

And with the whole kopitar not getting better defensively. I also find taht hard to believe. NHL players are constantly improving their games. Why is it that only red wing players seem to develop defensively but no one else can? I'm just saying that seems to be the attitude of some ppl on here

Are you retarded?

You don't think Datsyuk...focusing 100% on offense couldn't get 100 pts? When he got 97, being the selke winner both seasons?

I'm just saying, the attitude around here is you're ridiculous, and should go away.

[SweWings 45]

I don't consider Vermette or Gomez top line centers anymore than I would consider Hudler one. Which is why I didn't refer to either of their names in any of my responses.

Hudler has no business being mentioned with the likes of Kopitar, Staal, Lecavalier, probably even Ribeiro (is he a #1? not sure about that).

IMO, the fact that some teams are not so deep that they have guys like Gomez or Vermette as top line centers is sort of a farce. And so would sticking Hudles into their spot and calling him a #1 center.

It's like that joke about what do you call the guy who finished dead last in his class at medical school.

Answer = Doctor

I will be totally honest and admit I don't watch enough of any of the other guys you mentioned to be able to say definitively if Hudler is crappier, just as crappy or less crappy defensively than any of those guys. But it's a fallacy to lump him in with names like Thornton or other guys who are perennial 70-80-90-100+ point players. You want to mention him with guys like Gomez and Vermette, fine. But look at Gomez and Vermette, they're the weakest of the weak when it comes to 1st line centes. They really shouldn't be first line centers. So your comparison of them to Hudler is sort of like spinning your wheels. What's the point? Huddles would merely be the best option on a crappy team, thus he'd be forced into the role of #1 when he really shouldn't be a #1. I'd have definitely left the elite centermen off of your comparison.

Way to to. You picked the one part of Eva's argument where you could bash him.

By the way, going with the 'compare with the right players'-argument that you put forward: how well do you think Hudler would do if you put a guy like Rick Nash and Huselius on his wings or Cammalleri and Gionta?

For me there's a lot to be said about opportunity - in Detroit he's not going to become the 1st line center and therefore get those kind of minutes and wingers because of a guy like Datsyuk. If you actually become objective for a minute - do you really think that Hudler wouldn't improve upon the 57 points he had last time he was in Detroit if he played more minutes? Would he get better results than Lecavalier, Kopitar, Staal, etc. do when they're at their best - no. Would he get better than Vermette and Gomez - yes.

[SweWings 45]

And with the whole kopitar not getting better defensively. I also find taht hard to believe. NHL players are constantly improving their games. Why is it that only red wing players seem to develop defensively but no one else can? I'm just saying that seems to be the attitude of some ppl on here

Because with some teams developing a defensive skill-set is not merely encouraged. In Detroit, and a few other places, being defensively skilled and responsible quickly becomes a requirement. Why? Because the coach wants it, the system the Red Wings plays demands it and the talent on the team allows for it. That means that there's a lot of pressure to learn, but also a lot of people who can teach you and a lot of people who will try to help you. Beyond that I would guess that Zetterberg and Datsyuk are also very talented in that area.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Way to to. You picked the one part of Eva's argument where you could bash him.

By the way, going with the 'compare with the right players'-argument that you put forward: how well do you think Hudler would do if you put a guy like Rick Nash and Huselius on his wings or Cammalleri and Gionta?

For me there's a lot to be said about opportunity - in Detroit he's not going to become the 1st line center and therefore get those kind of minutes and wingers because of a guy like Datsyuk. If you actually become objective for a minute - do you really think that Hudler wouldn't improve upon the 57 points he had last time he was in Detroit if he played more minutes? Would he get better results than Lecavalier, Kopitar, Staal, etc. do when they're at their best - no. Would he get better than Vermette and Gomez - yes.

Of course there's a lot to be said for opportunity. But you're reaching. For example, would Darren Helm do better if his wingers were Nash and Huselius? Probably. If he had a different role, different linemates, different opportunity, more playing time, more PP time, etc....of course his numbers would probably get better. Did I ever say that Hudler's numbers wouldn't get better if he had better linemates? No, I didn't. So bark up another tree with that one.

But you admit it yourself, would he be a Lecavalier, Staal level player? No, he wouldn't. Why? Because he's not a #1 center.

This isn't really a fair analogy to Hudler's talent level but if you polish a turd, it's still a turd. You can slot Hudler into a #1 center spot and call him that but it doesn't exactly make it so. He'd be one of the weakest all around 1st line centers in the league.

And frankly, FU. "objective" You don't even know me. I've seen Hudler player for years. There's nothing left to be objective about. We know what he can do. We know what his strengths and weaknesses are. He's not a true #1 center. If you don't like that fact I suggest you find a way to cope with it instead of suggesting I be objective. Just b/c you say i'm not being objective doesn't make it any more so than you thinking Hudler can be a #1.

And yes, I picked apart Eva's list b/c it was ridiculous. And he knows it. You can see it in the way he backpedaled from it. Especially after HaroldSnepsts called him out for it.

You say Hudler won't get the opportunity in Detroit. Well, duh. It's because he ain't Z or Dats, real #1 centers. Would he get his opportunity in Anaheim, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Carolina, New York, New Jersey, Vancouver, Washington, Dallas, San Jose, Colorado, Buffalo, Ottawa, Calgary, etc....No. For the same reasons he can't get the opportunity in Detroit. There are at least 1, if not 2 better centerman on many of those teams.

So basically you're left with the notion that Hudler could be a #1 center on the league's bottom 1/3 of teams. If that's your argument then yippee for you. You're right. Now you can go gloat.

[egroen 384]

I suppose if the NHL was a 16 team league, Hudler would not have a chance on the first line - but the fact is it is a 30 team league and he produced in the Top 90 for forwards his last year here, playing 3rd line minutes.

Secondary scoring really was lacking in the last playoff run, with hardly anyone outside of the top 2 lines scoring -- we really missed players like Samuelsson and Hudler. Hopefully this year we can see some guys like Hudler, Bertuzzi, Filppula and Cleary on the lower lines potting goals regularly.

A full season of Franzen, Kronwall and Hudler will also be huge for the 2nd PP unit - which really sucked all year (when we had players like Eaves filling in constantly).

As to the OP, there is no doubt in my mind Datsyuk would pot 110+ pts if given less defensive and PK responsibilities. Players like Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin and Thornton get a lot more even strength time and more than twice the PP time (where Datsyuk consistently scores at a greater clip)... Playing the PK and backchecking like he does is exhausting.

Zetterberg would be a consistent 100 pt player, but Lidstrom is the guy who would really benefit from it: For years now he has been primarily paired with an offensive defenseman (Rafalski, Schneider, Murphy, Coffey) - and had more defensive responsibilities. He has the ability to jump up into plays, and paired with a stay-at-home player could do so much more often, and his output would skyrocket.

Everyone in the world knows Lidstrom has been a better all-around defenseman than Mike Green the past two years - which makes the fact Green finished ahead of him *twice* for the Norris a complete joke. Put Lidstrom on that top line in Washington and they would probably be playing for the Cup right now.

[13dangledangle 968]

We have better centers than him and are loaded at that position.

Besides, he's not in the same class of player offensively as most of the guys you mentioned. A superstar center can get away with being bad defensively. Hudler is not a superstar.

As for guys like Antropov, they're a joke, so let's not compare him to anyone like that. That's not what we need.

This is true, not to mention Eva you put Crosby and Vermette on your list? Crosby (as much as I dislike him) has really added the defensive side to his game, and Vermette has been a line 3 shutdown for a big part of his NHL career.

[w00p33 2]

before reading replies (may have more to offer after) I'd like to point out how well Kopecky has done for himself. Outside the obvious - Dats and Zet, I think of Franzen as kind of a Camalleri or Kopitar maybe PHX/COL Mueller type, a roll player who happens to have a ton more offensive upside than anyone expected. Filp, in the right system could be a 25-35+ scorer on a first line.

But that's kind of the beauty of Det's system, they don't need supoerstars

They don't need a Nash, Ovie, Crsoby. I'd point to how little Hossa helped last year, fantastic in the season not much in the playoffs, and despite the big goal last night he's not much for the Hawks this postseason too...

That said, despite a down season for Lids, he still outplayed a good deal of the league's best d-men even at his advanced age and would be a stud d-man on at least half the teams out their, maybe closer to 2/3...

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I suppose if the NHL was a 16 team league, Hudler would not have a chance on the first line - but the fact is it is a 30 team league and he produced in the Top 90 for forwards his last year here, playing 3rd line minutes.

Secondary scoring really was lacking in the last playoff run, with hardly anyone outside of the top 2 lines scoring -- we really missed players like Samuelsson and Hudler. Hopefully this year we can see some guys like Hudler, Bertuzzi, Filppula and Cleary on the lower lines potting goals regularly.

A full season of Franzen, Kronwall and Hudler will also be huge for the 2nd PP unit - which really sucked all year (when we had players like Eaves filling in constantly).

As to the OP, there is no doubt in my mind Datsyuk would pot 110+ pts if given less defensive and PK responsibilities. Players like Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin and Thornton get a lot more even strength time and more than twice the PP time (where Datsyuk consistently scores at a greater clip)... Playing the PK and backchecking like he does is exhausting.

Zetterberg would be a consistent 100 pt player, but Lidstrom is the guy who would really benefit from it: For years now he has been primarily paired with an offensive defenseman (Rafalski, Schneider, Murphy, Coffey) - and had more defensive responsibilities. He has the ability to jump up into plays, and paired with a stay-at-home player could do so much more often, and his output would skyrocket.

Everyone in the world knows Lidstrom has been a better all-around defenseman than Mike Green the past two years - which makes the fact Green finished ahead of him *twice* for the Norris a complete joke. Put Lidstrom on that top line in Washington and they would probably be playing for the Cup right now.

Sure, there are 30 teams. And on a technicality, essentially you could slot him into one of the weaker teams as a #1. However, people seem to forget that Hudler produces fairly well with a limited roll. But he also does it on man advantages and against weaker defensive pairings.

Everyone just assumes Huddles would be so much better getting top line minutes. I guess we're also assuming he'd be so much better if he had to face Seabrook and Keith all night. Or Pronger, Lidstrom, Niedermayer, Chara, Weber and other top shutdown defenders.

Sure, Huddles could produce some points as the feature center on a weak team. Just look at guys like Weiss or Vermette. Of course when your #1 center is Jiri Hudler, my guess is your team has bigger problems.

[egroen 384]

Babcock literally never gave Hudler top 2 line minutes more than two games at a time. I'm hoping he gets more of an opportunity this year, and can earn a stay.

He is pretty much at the same age now when Datsyuk and Zetterberg went from bottom line players to top line players (and had their point totals explode), so being optimistic at this point is not necessarily idiotic. I'm just curious if the year in the KHL has helped or hindered his game... at the very least, he was playing those extra minutes and used to being counted on to produce (which he did).

[eva unit zero 271]

I pointed out that Hudler would be a top line center on a lot of teams. Despite the absolute negative response that I have received on that opinion, everyone seems willing to admit that Hudler would be the top line center on about half the teams in the league, give or take. Maybe that doesn't make him a superstar. But if you look back to my original post, it said 'put Hudler in the right position with the right wingers' so it's not just saying 'give him a ton of ice time. Joe Thornton and Marc Savard are very good centers; but their effectiveness is very limited if they don't have a finishing winger on their line. A Maltby/Thornton/May line would be physically intimidating, but would score maybe 20 goals. Same if you put Savard in the middle. Those two are prime examples of centers who are incredibly effective playmakers who are shut down if you take away their finisher.

Give Hudler a #1 line with Ryan Clowe and Bobby Ryan. That's a 100+ goal line. Hudler might be overrated by this, but he would be considered one of the top centers in the league centering that line.

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

I pointed out that Hudler would be a top line center on a lot of teams. Despite the absolute negative response that I have received on that opinion, everyone seems willing to admit that Hudler would be the top line center on about half the teams in the league, give or take. Maybe that doesn't make him a superstar. But if you look back to my original post, it said 'put Hudler in the right position with the right wingers' so it's not just saying 'give him a ton of ice time. Joe Thornton and Marc Savard are very good centers; but their effectiveness is very limited if they don't have a finishing winger on their line. A Maltby/Thornton/May line would be physically intimidating, but would score maybe 20 goals. Same if you put Savard in the middle. Those two are prime examples of centers who are incredibly effective playmakers who are shut down if you take away their finisher.

Give Hudler a #1 line with Ryan Clowe and Bobby Ryan. That's a 100+ goal line. Hudler might be overrated by this, but he would be considered one of the top centers in the league centering that line.

That sounds like a Bettman quote....

Phoenix is about breaking even, give or take....

Who said he'd be a top center? for what teams? He's not center material to begin with for any NHL team.

As to the rest of the post... Please continue to point out fictional pairings, that no one can compare or relate to, just to justify your Hudler stiffy. I love how you indirectly compare Hudler to Thornton.

Talking to Eva about Hudler is like talking to Carman about Crosby.

Edited June 2, 2010 by CaliWingsNut

[Z and D for the C 712]

he produced in the Top 90 for forwards his last year here, playing 3rd line minutes.

He was 74th in points last year, but also 75th in PP TOI in his last season here. He played third line ES minutes, but on the PP he had TOI like a first line player. This argument means nothing.

everyone seems willing to admit that Hudler would be the top line center on about half the teams in the league

L.

O.

L.