Team Cores Power Rankings

[MrDanglez67]

Note:Each core includes 1 Forward 1 Defenseman and 1 Goaltender as well as 2 other skaters.

 

1.Pittsburgh:Crosby,Malkin,Kessel,Letang,Murray

2.Chicago:Toews,Kane,Keith,Seabrook,Crawford

3.Washington:Ovechkin,Backstrom,Kuznetsov,Carlson,Holtby

4.SanJose:Thornton,Pavelski,Couture,Burns,Jones

5.TampaBay:Stamkos,Kucherov,Johnson,Hedman,Vasilevsky

6.LosAngeles:Kopitar,Toffoli,Carter,Doughty,Quick

7.Montreal:Pacioretty,Galchenyuk,Gallagher,Weber,Price

8.Dallas:Benn,Seguin,Sharp,Klingberg,Lehtonen

9.Nashville:Johansen,Forsberg,Josi,Subban,Rinne

10.Florida:Barkov,Huberdeau,Trochek,Ekblad,Luongo

11.NYR:Nash,Kreider,Brassard,McDonagh,Lundqvist

12.Calgary:Gaudreau,Monahan,Giordano,Brodie,Elliott

13.StLouis:Tarasenko,Schwartz,Pietrangelo,Parayko,Allen

14.Boston:Bergeron,Marchand,Krejci,Krug,Rask

15.Winnipeg:Laine,Scheifle,Wheeler,Byfuglien,Hellebucyk

16.Colorado:Mackinnon,Duchene,Landeskog,Johnson,Varlamov

17.Buffalo:Eichel,O'Reilly,Okposo,Ristolainen,Lehner

18.Edmonton:McDavid,Lucic,Puljujarvi,Larsson,Talbot

19.Anaheim:Getzlaf,Perry,Vatanen,Lindholm,Gibson

20.Philadelphia:Giroux,Schenn,Simmonds,Gostisbehere,Mason

21.Minnesota:Parise,Granlund,Suter,Spurgeon,Dubnyk

22.NewJersey:Hall,Henrique,Palmeri,Severson,Schneider

23.NYI:Tavares,Ladd,Strome,Hamonic,Halak

24.Ottawa:Turris,Stone,Hoffman,Karlsson,Anderson

25.Arizona:Domi,Duclair,Doan,OEL,Smith

26.Colombus:Atkinson,Saad,Jones,Murray,Bobrovsky

27.Toronto:Matthews,Marner,Rielly,Gardiner,Andersen

28.Detroit:Zetterberg,Larkin,Tatar,Kronwall,Mrazek

29.Vancouver:Sedins,Eriksson,Horvat,Hutton

30.Carolina:Skinner,Rask,Faulk,Hanifin,Ward

[yave1964]

Interesting list, I would disagree with Carolina so low, Faulk is more or less Karlsson lite when healthy and is becoming a force. I saw my Wings listed 28th and my initial thought was to puff up my chest and say hey, no way they are that low but then I looked at everyone else and had to sigh.

 

  I would probably rate the 'Yotes as dead last, smith has been awful ever since he signed that contract and Doan is like one hundred and fifty years old, and other than OEL the kids are conjecture.

[MrDanglez67]

1 hour ago, yave1964 said:

Interesting list, I would disagree with Carolina so low, Faulk is more or less Karlsson lite when healthy and is becoming a force. I saw my Wings listed 28th and my initial thought was to puff up my chest and say hey, no way they are that low but then I looked at everyone else and had to sigh.

 

  I would probably rate the 'Yotes as dead last, smith has been awful ever since he signed that contract and Doan is like one hundred and fifty years old, and other than OEL the kids are conjecture.

I get your point but I feel as though the supporting cast around Faulk is very weak and OEL is just as good if not better than Faulk. Doan can still score 20+ goals at his age and the kids had 40-50+pts and are on the rise. However maybe they could go a spot or two down because Smith is a very weak goalie there is no denying that.

[ruxpin]

Good list. 

 

As a flyer fan I'm actually okay with where you placed them.   It was curious to me,  though, that Voracek wasn't listed as core.  I'm not actually sure I disagree, but given his contact I found it curious. 

[MrDanglez67]

1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

Good list. 

 

As a flyer fan I'm actually okay with where you placed them.   It was curious to me,  though, that Voracek wasn't listed as core.  I'm not actually sure I disagree, but given his contact I found it curious. 

Actually I had him in the core originally but I wasn't sure if you guys still considered him core after his down year this past season.

Do u think he is still core because I'm not a flyers fan and if he's core who should he replace Schenn or simmonds? Thx!!!!!!!

[ruxpin]

Just now, MrDanglez67 said:

Actually I had him in the core originally but I wasn't sure if you guys still considered him core after his down year this past season.

Do u think he is still core because I'm not a flyers fan and if he's core who should he replace Schenn or simmonds? Thx!!!!!!!

That's my problem. I don't know who I replace on your list.  I think it would be Schenn if I had to.  Only because he really hasn't broken out for a whole season. 

 

Long term it could be Schenn. But given the monster contact I really have to hope on Voracek. 

[MrDanglez67]

1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

That's my problem. I don't know who I replace on your list.  I think it would be Schenn if I had to.  Only because he really hasn't broken out for a whole season. 

 

Long term it could be Schenn. But given the monster contact I really have to hope on Voracek. 

Ah ok thx I would have to agree with that!!!!!!

[WordsOfWisdom]

On 7/18/2016 at 5:23 PM, MrDanglez67 said:

Note:Each core includes 1 Forward 1 Defenseman and 1 Goaltender as well as 2 other skaters.

 

1.Pittsburgh:Crosby,Malkin,Kessel,Letang,Murray

2.Chicago:Toews,Kane,Keith,Seabrook,Crawford

3.Washington:Ovechkin,Backstrom,Kuznetsov,Carlson,Holtby

4.SanJose:Thornton,Pavelski,Couture,Burns,Jones

5.TampaBay:Stamkos,Kucherov,Johnson,Hedman,Vasilevsky

6.LosAngeles:Kopitar,Toffoli,Carter,Doughty,Quick

7.Montreal:Pacioretty,Galchenyuk,Gallagher,Weber,Price

8.Dallas:Benn,Seguin,Sharp,Klingberg,Lehtonen

9.Nashville:Johansen,Forsberg,Josi,Subban,Rinne

10.Florida:Barkov,Huberdeau,Trochek,Ekblad,Luongo

11.NYR:Nash,Kreider,Brassard,McDonagh,Lundqvist

12.Calgary:Gaudreau,Monahan,Giordano,Brodie,Elliott

13.StLouis:Tarasenko,Schwartz,Pietrangelo,Parayko,Allen

14.Boston:Bergeron,Marchand,Krejci,Krug,Rask

15.Winnipeg:Laine,Scheifle,Wheeler,Byfuglien,Hellebucyk

16.Colorado:Mackinnon,Duchene,Landeskog,Johnson,Varlamov

17.Buffalo:Eichel,O'Reilly,Okposo,Ristolainen,Lehner

18.Edmonton:McDavid,Lucic,Puljujarvi,Larsson,Talbot

19.Anaheim:Getzlaf,Perry,Vatanen,Lindholm,Gibson

20.Philadelphia:Giroux,Schenn,Simmonds,Gostisbehere,Mason

21.Minnesota:Parise,Granlund,Suter,Spurgeon,Dubnyk

22.NewJersey:Hall,Henrique,Palmeri,Severson,Schneider

23.NYI:Tavares,Ladd,Strome,Hamonic,Halak

24.Ottawa:Turris,Stone,Hoffman,Karlsson,Anderson

25.Arizona:Domi,Duclair,Doan,OEL,Smith

26.Colombus:Atkinson,Saad,Jones,Murray,Bobrovsky

27.Toronto:Matthews,Marner,Rielly,Gardiner,Andersen

28.Detroit:Zetterberg,Larkin,Tatar,Kronwall,Mrazek

29.Vancouver:Sedins,Eriksson,Horvat,Hutton

30.Carolina:Skinner,Rask,Faulk,Hanifin,Ward

 

Since "core" is a subjective term, I'd like to see all 30 teams ranked by what I consider to be the single most important factor in determining success: TOP 6. 

 

Show me the best LW, C, RW, LD, RD, and G that the team can put on the ice. If a team has two good centers (like Pittsburgh) too bad, pick your best and that's what we evaluate. In Pittsburgh's case, they have the best in Crosby. The team that can ice the strongest 6-man unit is going to be the best team in the NHL because everyone else is just an interchangeable part in a parity driven league. You win or lose based on how good your best players are, not based on how good your 4th line is. 

 

My two cents...

 

 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

Using TOP-6, when analyzing Toronto last season it would be:

 

• LW: Van Riemsdyk
• C: Kadri
• RW: Komarov
• D: Gardiner
• D: Rielly
• G: Reimer

Now if one stacks that up to a team like Pittsburgh, it becomes obvious why the Penguins were #1 and the Leafs were #30. 

 

Crosby > Kadri

Kessel > Komarov

.

.

.

 

and so on.  

[mojo1917]

@MrDanglez67

I think you have the NY Rangers , St Louis Blues, Boston Bruins ,Nashville Predators and Calgary ranked too high.

The Rangers suck, i hate them, plus they to a man looked overwhelmed by the Penguins in the playoffs. Krieder's picture is in the dictionary beside "overrated".  He's stupid and heartless. Nash is not a playoff performer.  Only Lundquist can be considered elite, Brassard is a 100ft player, MacDounagh is always hurt and may have serious concussion issues. 

 

All those Boston players are on the downswing of nice careers, the Calgary players have done nothing, I really like Giordano but he's never all the way healthy either. 

St Louis's core continues to find ways to not win...now maybe some of that is on the horrible coaching job Hitchock did this year, and I love Pietrangelo and Tarasenko, perhaps i'm being too hard on the players but under Hitch they never got "there"

[MrDanglez67]

1 hour ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Since "core" is a subjective term, I'd like to see all 30 teams ranked by what I consider to be the single most important factor in determining success: TOP 6. 

 

Show me the best LW, C, RW, LD, RD, and G that the team can put on the ice. If a team has two good centers (like Pittsburgh) too bad, pick your best and that's what we evaluate. In Pittsburgh's case, they have the best in Crosby. The team that can ice the strongest 6-man unit is going to be the best team in the NHL because everyone else is just an interchangeable part in a parity driven league. You win or lose based on how good your best players are, not based on how good your 4th line is. 

 

My two cents...

 

 

 

Can't say I agree basically you are saying if you had two superstars at a position like Crosby and Malkin then one is not part of your core?!?! A core is your best players that you build your team around and isn't Malkin one of the best players on the pens who they built their cup championship team around?

 

P.S No hate just love brother

[MrDanglez67]

1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

@MrDanglez67

I think you have the NY Rangers , St Louis Blues, Boston Bruins ,Nashville Predators and Calgary ranked too high.

The Rangers suck, i hate them, plus they to a man looked overwhelmed by the Penguins in the playoffs. Krieder's picture is in the dictionary beside "overrated".  He's stupid and heartless. Nash is not a playoff performer.  Only Lundquist can be considered elite, Brassard is a 100ft player, MacDounagh is always hurt and may have serious concussion issues. 

 

All those Boston players are on the downswing of nice careers, the Calgary players have done nothing, I really like Giordano but he's never all the way healthy either. 

St Louis's core continues to find ways to not win...now maybe some of that is on the horrible coaching job Hitchock did this year, and I love Pietrangelo and Tarasenko, perhaps i'm being too hard on the players but under Hitch they never got "there"

Maybe but then who would u rank ahead of them? Looking back though the Rangers could have been lower but again besides those other teams you mentioned there is no better core.......

[WordsOfWisdom]

45 minutes ago, MrDanglez67 said:

Can't say I agree basically you are saying if you had two superstars at a position like Crosby and Malkin then one is not part of your core?!?! A core is your best players that you build your team around and isn't Malkin one of the best players on the pens who they built their cup championship team around?

 

Okay perhaps I'll amend slightly: The TOP 6 players you can ice at the same time. So for Pittsburgh, they could ice Crosby, Malkin, and Kessel as their forwards. A center can always play wing, but a winger can't necessarily play center.

 

[MrDanglez67]

1 hour ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Okay perhaps I'll amend slightly: The TOP 6 players you can ice at the same time. So for Pittsburgh, they could ice Crosby, Malkin, and Kessel as their forwards. A center can always play wing, but a winger can't necessarily play center.

 

There that's better?

[ruxpin]

12 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Since "core" is a subjective term, I'd like to see all 30 teams ranked by what I consider to be the single most important factor in determining success: TOP 6. 

 

Show me the best LW, C, RW, LD, RD, and G that the team can put on the ice. If a team has two good centers (like Pittsburgh) too bad, pick your best and that's what we evaluate. In Pittsburgh's case, they have the best in Crosby. The team that can ice the strongest 6-man unit is going to be the best team in the NHL because everyone else is just an interchangeable part in a parity driven league. You win or lose based on how good your best players are, not based on how good your 4th line is. 

 

My two cents...

 

 

 

 

I think I want to disagree with this.  I think what you state gets you in contention mode.  But when you get up to the elite teams and elite top six, the difference is marginal.  You have reasonably close top 6's, then the difference becomes coaching and bottom 6 (3rd line and 2nd pairing D, in particular).   The same elite 6 on the Penguins flatly sucked up until the coaching change.  And as good as the top 2 lines on the Pens were, the difference in several series was the depth.  And the backup goalie gets a shout out.

 

And the other difference is honestly the bottom six.  Did the organization spend so much on that top 6 that they neglected the bottom 6?  Does team X have a system and a roster, top to bottom, that compliments each other better than team Y.

 

You can't contend without the top 6.  I agree.  If you don't have elite players at the top, I don't care what the role players look like, you're not contending.   But what makes the difference once you get to that level, what gets you a Cup--and this year's Pens and the Hawks' Cups and the Kings Cups are glaring examples--is the third line, the second pair of defense, etc.   

[WordsOfWisdom]

11 hours ago, ruxpin said:

 

I think I want to disagree with this.  I think what you state gets you in contention mode.  But when you get up to the elite teams and elite top six, the difference is marginal.  You have reasonably close top 6's, then the difference becomes coaching and bottom 6 (3rd line and 2nd pairing D, in particular).   The same elite 6 on the Penguins flatly sucked up until the coaching change.  And as good as the top 2 lines on the Pens were, the difference in several series was the depth.  And the backup goalie gets a shout out.

 

And the other difference is honestly the bottom six.  Did the organization spend so much on that top 6 that they neglected the bottom 6?  Does team X have a system and a roster, top to bottom, that compliments each other better than team Y.

 

You can't contend without the top 6.  I agree.  If you don't have elite players at the top, I don't care what the role players look like, you're not contending.   But what makes the difference once you get to that level, what gets you a Cup--and this year's Pens and the Hawks' Cups and the Kings Cups are glaring examples--is the third line, the second pair of defense, etc.   

 

I think the case of Pittsburgh was one of chemistry and coaching. It took them awhile to gel as a team and it didn't help that they had a coach who refused to unleash that offensive power that they had. The new coach "got it" and put together a system that made the most out of what they had. The rest is history as they say.

 

As for the other stuff, I would have agreed with you 20, maybe even 10 years ago that the depth guys truly matter... because they certainly used to. Today, the parity in the league is so prominent that there's nothing to pick between one team's third line and another's. They're just guys and they all post roughly the same numbers + or - a bounce here or a post there. Most teams have three lines of forwards that are "just guys". Most teams have two defensive units that are "just guys". Every backup goalie in the NHL is just a guy. All easily replaceable parts that you don't lose sleep over. The top line is where the money is, and that's where it's at (to me). The Cup finals was Crosby vs Thornton for example, and Crosby was better. (To cite one matchup.)

 

In fact, I'd be curious to see how the Sharks measured up to the Penguins comparing each team's TOP-6.