Scouts quick take on Dylan Cozens

[dudacek]

4 hours ago, Curt said:

So I ask, what are people’s yardsticks for being a 1C?

I'll bite

A guy who is capable of giving you 70-plus points and 17-plus minutes a game, who matches up well against any player the opposition puts out there.

• Clear-cut 1Cs include: Draisaitl, McDavid, McKinnon, Matthews, Eichel, Malkin, Schiefele, Zibenajad, Aho, Pettersson, Stamkos, Point, Barkov, Tavares, Barzal, Bergeron, Crosby
• Guys who might be include: Kopitar, O'Reilly, Toews, Couturier, Seguin, Larkin, Kuznetsov, Backstrom,

I've probably overlooked a few, but it's interesting that my list basically says there are probably enough "1Cs"  to go around the league, but your GM might be looking to upgrade if he's "stuck" with someone in the bottom 1/3.

Edited September 19, 2020 by dudacek

[klos1963]

14 hours ago, tom webster said:

Yeah, can you imagine a front court of Malone, Shumate and McAdoo along with Randy Smith in the backcourt. Ernie D was done in by injury but they could have found another PG.

Dantley would have been great as well.

[Curt]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

I'll bite

A guy who is capable of giving you 70-plus points and 17-plus minutes a game, who matches up well against any player the opposition puts out there.

• Clear-cut 1Cs include: Draisaitl, McDavid, McKinnon, Matthews, Eichel, Malkin, Schiefele, Zibenajad, Aho, Pettersson, Stamkos, Point, Barkov, Tavares, Barzal, Bergeron, Crosby
• Guys who might be include: Kopitar, O'Reilly, Toews, Couturier, Seguin, Larkin, Kuznetsov, Backstrom,

I've probably overlooked a few, but it's interesting that my list basically says there are probably enough "1Cs"  to go around the league, but your GM might be looking to upgrade if he's "stuck" with someone in the bottom 1/3.

Thanks for participating.

I think your definition runs closer to my thought that the “best” 31 C’s in the league should be considered 1Cs.  And I agree that it makes total sense that a team without an “elite” 1C may not consider it a team strength.  Not every 1C is going to be someone that you actually WANT to be your best C.

After a quick glance, one guy that I would add to your list is Hertl.  I think he has met your criteria over the past couple years.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

4 minutes ago, Curt said:

Thanks for participating.

I think your definition runs closer to my thought that the “best” 31 C’s in the league should be considered 1Cs.  And I agree that it makes total sense that a team without an “elite” 1C may not consider it a team strength.  Not every 1C is going to be someone that you actually WANT to be your best C.

After a quick glance, one guy that I would add to your list is Hertl.  I think he has met your criteria over the past couple years.

I'm surprised when I see these lists that there's never any love for Giroux.

[Thorner]

8 hours ago, Curt said:

I don’t know what others consider to be a 1C.  And as of yet, no one has taken up my question.

For example:  IMPO, if Cozens hits near his ceiling, 60+ pt, 2-way C who can play in any situation, I think that is a 1C.  It seems most disagree, and would call that a 2C.

So I ask, what are people’s yardsticks for being a 1C?

Cozens would indeed be a first line centre with those attributes. But not a "One See".

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

I'll bite

A guy who is capable of giving you 70-plus points and 17-plus minutes a game, who matches up well against any player the opposition puts out there.

• Clear-cut 1Cs include: Draisaitl, McDavid, McKinnon, Matthews, Eichel, Malkin, Schiefele, Zibenajad, Aho, Pettersson, Stamkos, Point, Barkov, Tavares, Barzal, Bergeron, Crosby
• Guys who might be include: Kopitar, O'Reilly, Toews, Couturier, Seguin, Larkin, Kuznetsov, Backstrom,

I've probably overlooked a few, but it's interesting that my list basically says there are probably enough "1Cs"  to go around the league, but your GM might be looking to upgrade if he's "stuck" with someone in the bottom 1/3.

There will be some discrepancy, Scheifele is quite poor defensively, a hypothetical two-way 60 point getter would probably be the better all around player. ROR and Couturier I would argue are definitely better players. Scheifele also plays with exceptional linemates at all times given their very deep stable of wingers, and his high PP time, inflating his offensive numbers. 

This isn't to say I don't consider him in the category, just that if he's in, those other two should be ahead. 

If we are talking first line centre (representing an average) 60 points should definitely qualify. If we are using the traditional definition for what people "mean" when they say "1C", ya you'd need closer to 70 points or so. 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Thorny

[tom webster]

1 hour ago, klos1963 said:

Dantley would have been great as well.

What an amazing front court that would have been. Malone and Dantley dominating inside, McAdoo running free outside. What a match up nightmare. The small forward a baby bull, the power forward a gazelle and they were 21, 21 and 25 years old with a 22 year old Shumate able to backup both at center and power forward and I think Jack Marin would have backed up AD.

[Curt]

24 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

I'm surprised when I see these lists that there's never any love for Giroux.

He plays wing now, I’m quite sure, but if he was still playing C, I would agree.

[Curt]

23 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Cozens would indeed be a first line centre with those attributes. But not a "One See".

There will be some discrepancy, Scheifele is quite poor defensively, a hypothetical two-way 60 point getter would probably be the better all around player. ROR and Couturier I would argue are definitely better players. Scheifele also plays with exceptional linemates at all times given their very deep stable of wingers, and his high PP time, inflating his offensive numbers. 

This isn't to say I don't consider him in the category, just that if he's in, those other two should be ahead. 

If we are talking first line centre (representing an average) 60 points should definitely qualify. If we are using the traditional definition for what people "mean" when they say "1C", ya you'd need closer to 70 points or so. 

There is a difference between saying that a player is a first line C quality player and saying that he is a 1C quality player?????  🤯

-First Line Center Quality Player

-1C Quality Player

Isn’t that just two ways of typing the exact same thing?

[Thorner]

39 minutes ago, Curt said:

There is a difference between saying that a player is a first line C quality player and saying that he is a 1C quality player?????  🤯

-First Line Center Quality Player

-1C Quality Player

Isn’t that just two ways of typing the exact same thing?

I mean, without the context of my posts on it ad nauseam yesterday, I can see where the confusion comes in. 

[Curt]

22 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I mean, without the context of my posts on it ad nauseam yesterday, I can see where the confusion comes in. 

No, no, no.  I wasn’t trying to distort, or be a jerk.

So we are dealing with two concepts here.

Concept 1) Every team has a first line C, by default, even if they are not 1C quality.

Concept 2) A player has to be (insert personal criteria) good in order to be considered a 1C.

Still on the same page?

 

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Cozens would indeed be a first line centre with those attributes. But not a "One See".

This is where I got confused.

Because if he is on a team with an elite C, like Eichel, he won’t qualify for the above concept (1), because would obviously be the 2C on that team, so I figured you weren’t talking about that.

So that leaves concept (2), but two different tiers of it???  That’s what I thought you meant.

In this post what’s the difference between “a first line center” and “a One See”?

If I am missing something obvious and you are thinking that I am screwing with you because no one can possibly be this dumb, I assure you that I am this dumb.  I ask only for you patience.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Curt

[gilbert11]

On 9/17/2020 at 10:25 AM, tom webster said:

Thank you for the Bob Kaufman reference. Still miss the Braves and still believe if they had the right ownership they would have been Buffalo’s first “major” sport champion.

Different paths change the outcome, but the franchise just reached it’s 50th year without ever making it to the conference championship.   Recently, details were posted of what really happened.  Canisius College’s basketball team had #1 priority on dates at the Aud and weren’t going to give it up.  I don’t know that a different owner would’ve made any difference.  Perhaps one that was rolling in dough could’ve provided Canisius with some financial incentive but we’ll never know.

[tom webster]

16 minutes ago, gilbert11 said:

Different paths change the outcome, but the franchise just reached it’s 50th year without ever making it to the conference championship.   Recently, details were posted of what really happened.  Canisius College’s basketball team had #1 priority on dates at the Aud and weren’t going to give it up.  I don’t know that a different owner would’ve made any difference.  Perhaps one that was rolling in dough could’ve provided Canisius with some financial incentive but we’ll never know.

Fact of the matter is that Snyder actually saved the ownership early on when original owner bailed. It would have been great if he was able to foster a better relationship with Bob Rich or Seymour Knox.

Eddie Donovan has built a team ahead of its time and made some smart, savvy moves. He wasn’t afraid to take chances. He drafted McAdoo when everyone thought he was signed with ABA, even tried to draft Spencer Heywood and thought he deserved Artis Gilmore because of earlier trade with Bulls. There are still people that will tell you the Braves had a deal for Doctor J before Nets got him. They needed an owner with the same foresight. We will never know.

[gilbert11]

3 hours ago, klos1963 said:

Dantley would have been great as well.

Unfortunately the Braves’ management had no foresight.  They had traded away C Elmore Smith to allow Bob McAdoo to play center. Then, after acquiring Malone, an ABA All Star in his rookie year, they couldn’t promise him the playing time he wanted so they dealt him for two future 1st round picks that they later traded away.

[tom webster]

7 minutes ago, gilbert11 said:

Unfortunately the Braves’ management had no foresight.  They had traded away C Elmore Smith to allow Bob McAdoo to play center. Then, after acquiring Malone, an ABA All Star in his rookie year, they couldn’t promise him the playing time he wanted so they dealt him for two future 1st round picks that they later traded away.

Don’t forget, they didn’t draft Marques Johnson because they had Dantley and then traded Dantley for Billy Knight. They shot themselves in the foot a lot.

One thing to remember though, is that these were pre Bird/ Johnson days and the NBA was struggling. Their finals were even on tape delay. That made it difficult for Snyder to find a buyer.

Edited September 19, 2020 by tom webster

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

No, no, no.  I wasn’t trying to distort, or be a jerk.

So we are dealing with two concepts here.

Concept 1) Every team has a first line C, by default, even if they are not 1C quality.

Concept 2) A player has to be (insert personal criteria) good in order to be considered a 1C.

Still on the same page?

 

This is where I got confused.

Because if he is on a team with an elite C, like Eichel, he won’t qualify for the above concept (1), because would obviously be the 2C on that team, so I figured you weren’t talking about that.

So that leaves concept (2), but two different tiers of it???  That’s what I thought you meant.

In this post what’s the difference between “a first line center” and “a One See”?

If I am missing something obvious and you are thinking that I am screwing with you because no one can possibly be this dumb, I assure you that I am this dumb.  I ask only for you patience.

Haha this isn't necessary, and you exude intenlligence mr curt

- - - 

At any given time, if you take a net average of the quality of the centres all 31 NHL teams have lined up in the 1 hole, someone like the hypothetical 60 point Cozens is going to fit squarely in that group. Relative to the league as a whole, he'd be an appropriate first line C. 

I just used the term "One See" to pick a distinctive written term to differentiate between the AVERAGE first line C, league wide, and the general operating assumption for what fans mean when they use the term "1C". It can be confusing because I'm sure sometimes when people use 1C, they are doing so within the context of league average, but in my experience, 1C usually, in layman's terms, refers to the type of star C @dudacek referred to. 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Thorny

[Thorner]

If you ask hockey fans at large about if Eichel is a 1C, you are going to get a pretty unanimous answer. If you ask the same fans if William Karlsson is a 1C, I'd wager you get a lot of "no"s even though he's lined up in that spot for them. Clearly adequately. 

[klos1963]

3 hours ago, tom webster said:

Don’t forget, they didn’t draft Marques Johnson because they had Dantley and then traded Dantley for Billy Knight. They shot themselves in the foot a lot.

One thing to remember though, is that these were pre Bird/ Johnson days and the NBA was struggling. Their finals were even on tape delay. That made it difficult for Snyder to find a buyer.

We played games in Toronto.