Jared Crozier: Yea Or Nay - Kyle Turris Is Now A Legit #1C?

It's still too early to tell if he's a #1 center. When Stone is on the ice Turris is more of a threat. Without him he appears less effective.

Is Turris as good or better than some 1c's in the league? Sure. He's definitely a step improvement over anyone the leafs have that's for sure. .
Is he good enough to be front line guy on a winner? Not so sure about that one.

Question comes down to, what are you building for.
If your trying to build a championship team, then I think you better set the bar for your 1c back up to a ppg.

Spezza...still up there...

One thing not accounted for in that set of rankings/graphs is his age compared to the others on the list. I would guess based on the other people listed that he is among the lower end of the age spectrum, which can only mean good things as his career progresses into his prime years. He is the definition of an 'appreciating asset' if you want to think of hockey players as commodities instead of people as most GMs tend to do.

Also, I think it is beyond dispute that in terms of value for money, Turris is among the top producers, and we have him under contract for another couple of years at the current rate. Best contract signing by Murray (except for maybe Karlsson's extension) in his tenure as GM here.

Is Turris as good or better than some 1c's in the league? Sure. He's definitely a step improvement over anyone the leafs have that's for sure. .
Is he good enough to be front line guy on a winner? Not so sure about that one.

Question comes down to, what are you building for.
If your trying to build a championship team, then I think you better set the bar for your 1c back up to a ppg.
- B-Wforever

There have been only 29 PPG seasons from centres, (min 40 GP/season) since 2010. Less than 6 per season. That isn't a fair bar any more given where offense is in this league.

Is Turris as good or better than some 1c's in the league? Sure. He's definitely a step improvement over anyone the leafs have that's for sure. .
Is he good enough to be front line guy on a winner? Not so sure about that one.

Question comes down to, what are you building for.
If your trying to build a championship team, then I think you better set the bar for your 1c back up to a ppg.
- B-Wforever

Toews begs to differ...

Yes

*drops mike and leaves stage*

There is this false narrative out there that #1 centers must be Elite centers...This is just not the case for most teams and indeed players like Turris are legit #1 centers but, like you said are not it that elite category.

Being a Rangers fan I see 2 centers Brassard and Stepan that produce in a similar fashion to Turris.

He and Deharnais are in the same boat... so what does that tell you?

I think Turris is a very good centre. I don't think people take into account simply playing in a 1C role inflates ones value. Turris has also benefited from playing with fantastic wingers in his career in Ottawa. Starting with Alfie when he arrived to playing with Hoffman and Stone regularly the last couple of seasons.

To me, a true first line centre has the ability to reach a point per game pace over 82 games. That won't happen every year, but the ability to do it is important I feel. That probably fills into the "elite centre" category, but that's what a true first line centre should be.

I've been adamant that we need a guy to play in front of Turris. You would not see his production go down in light of this. I think Turris is upgrade over every Senators centre in team history, excluding Spezza. And that's a whole that's still available. Very difficult to replace. The team needs to decide whether they will try to Boston model of having 3 or 4 solid centres and role those lines evenly for a strong attack or try the traditional model of having a franchise player at the centre position. At this point in time, the Boston model seems most feasible with the players we have currently and the window available for them to win.

In the end, Turris is technically a number 1 centre in the position he is in, but he's certainly doesn't hold a candle to the true top centres in the game.

Spezza...still up there...

One thing not accounted for in that set of rankings/graphs is his age compared to the others on the list. I would guess based on the other people listed that he is among the lower end of the age spectrum, which can only mean good things as his career progresses into his prime years. He is the definition of an 'appreciating asset' if you want to think of hockey players as commodities instead of people as most GMs tend to do.

Also, I think it is beyond dispute that in terms of value for money, Turris is among the top producers, and we have him under contract for another couple of years at the current rate. Best contract signing by Murray (except for maybe Karlsson's extension) in his tenure as GM here.
- ahjnkn

Definitely true there. Great deal. When his contract is up in a few year though, it will be and interesting negotiation.

He and Deharnais are in the same boat... so what does that tell you?
- mlindsay

I think Turris and Plekanec are more of a comparable, good offensively, solid defensively, good on draws. Not elite centerman and more of a real dependable #2 but still the type of players you need on your team to win

If you think a #1C is just the centre that plays on the top line, then Turris is a #1C.

If you think a #1C is a top-30 centre in the league, then Turris is an average #1C.

If you think, for whatever reason, that the only true #1C is a centre who gets approximately a point-a-game, then he's not.

But why would we define a #1C as being a ppg+ player when we have a perfectly good term (elite centre) available to us?

Turris is a #1 Center. He is not a franchise center you build your team around, but he does what you ask of him. There are a number of teams that would like to see him as their top line center.

Turris is a #1 center and I would argue he is probably the most valuable center this team has ever had.

Why? If Turris went down with any sort of significant injury right now, the Sens would be screwed. Absolutely screwed. A Turris injury would be the difference between a playoff team and a bottom feeder.

When Spezza used to get hurt for 10-15 games every year, the Sens record was actually better than it was with him in the lineup.

Turris may not be a 'sexy' #1 center but in Ottawa, he is by far our most valuable forward and most valuable player after Karlsson.

Turris is first line, 1st line PP, one of the first PK units, solid in his own end, one of our fastest skaters and always a solid shootout guy.

Would many argue that David Krejci is a bona-fide # 1 center?

It's still too early to tell if he's a #1 center. When Stone is on the ice Turris is more of a threat. Without him he appears less effective.
- AlfieFever

Name one 1C who doesn't play with effective linemates.

Name one 1C who doesn't play with effective linemates.
- TheCalSen

I think the question is does Turris make his wingers better or does his wingers make him better? Personally, at this point in time, I think it's a little of both.

I do think Stone is close to being a guy you can put on any line and expect results from. I wouldn't say that for any other singular forward on the team right now.

Would many argue that David Krejci is a bona-fide # 1 center?
- Charliebox

Same pool as Turris. Good centre.

When you look at the Sens roster, there is no doubt Turris is a 1st line centre. When you just look at this roster, it's an alright roster. However, when you compare the group to other teams, you will notice the differences. With Turris, the opposing centres are either better or on the same level. It's about 50/50 in that regard. He will either get out played by an opposing centre (elite guys) or have a decent battle with the others (the other 1As). So I guess he's a 1st line centre, technically. If people are satisfied with that, great. We need Zibby to then come on as a legit 1A centre as well if we aren't going to get a guy in the elite status.

Same pool as Turris. Good centre.

When you look at the Sens roster, there is no doubt Turris is a 1st line centre. When you just look at this roster, it's an alright roster. However, when you compare the group to other teams, you will notice the differences. With Turris, the opposing centres are either better or on the same level. It's about 50/50 in that regard. He will either get out played by an opposing centre (elite guys) or have a decent battle with the others (the other 1As). So I guess he's a 1st line centre, technically. If people are satisfied with that, great. We need Zibby to then come on as a legit 1A centre as well if we aren't going to get a guy in the elite status.
- Gord_Wilson_2.0

Elite centres:
Crosby
Toews
Malkin
Tavares
Stamkos
Giroux
Backstrom
Seguin
Kopitar
Getzlaf
H. Sedin


Who are we getting from this list? And also, notice that there are only 5 'elite' centres in our conference, and two of them play on teams in the same level as Ottawa. I realise the goal is, if possible, to have more talented players than every other team at every position. But if your 'average' first-line centre happens to be good at defence (as Turris is), that centre's relatively lower offensive production is not as much of an issue in head-to-head scenarios.

Case in point, neither Krecji nor Bergeron is or ever was better than either of Crosby or Malkin. That's two '1A' centres against two 'elite' centres. Who swept whom?

I would say he shows the signs and has moments of skill to be a 1C but over all I still think he plays his best hockey as a 2C. Especially comparing him to Toews and the elite C's of the league. But I do think there are moments we can put in as a 1C to rill that roll until we develop or find someone who is a legit 1C

Elite centres:
Crosby
Toews
Malkin
Tavares
Stamkos
Giroux
Backstrom
Seguin
Kopitar
Getzlaf
H. Sedin


Who are we getting from this list? And also, notice that there are only 5 'elite' centres, and two of them play on teams in the same level as Ottawa. I realise the goal is, if possible, to have more talented players than every other team at every position. But if your 'average' first-line centre happens to be good at defence (as Turris is), that centre's relatively lower offensive production is not as much of an issue in head-to-head scenarios.

Case in point, neither Krecji nor Bergeron is or ever was better than either of Crosby or Malkin. That's two '1A' centres against two 'elite' centres. Who swept whom?
- Mr_Clean

I've hit this point already. If you want to do the "Boston model" then fine. I'm supportive of that. But it requires a 4 line attack with at least 3 solid centres. Right now we don't have that or an elite centre. The Boston model is most feasible for the Sens, but unless Zibby makes a step and Pag/Lazar/Smith/etc provide solid secondary scoring, we aren't getting anywhere. Either way you look at Turris, we need more support. Whether thats a better centre than him or a couple of guys close to the same level as him.

Being a huge Senators and Jets fan. If Bryan Little is a number one center, then for sure Turris is one too. In the Central Division, there are not too many franchise centers, only two that come to mind are Seguin and Toews (honorable mentions: Duchesne, Spezza, MacKinnon). Turris in the toughest division in hockey would be on many first lines. So the answer is simple, he is a first line center.

I've hit this point already. If you want to do the "Boston model" then fine. I'm supportive of that. But it requires a 4 line attack with at least 3 solid centres. Right now we don't have that or an elite centre. The Boston model is most feasible for the Sens, but unless Zibby makes a step and Pag/Lazar/Smith/etc provide solid secondary scoring, we aren't getting anywhere. Either way you look at Turris, we need more support. Whether thats a better centre than him or a couple of guys close to the same level as him.
- Gord_Wilson_2.0

You did, but another argument you made is that a player such as Turris will necessarily be outplayed by more offensively gifted opponents.

My point is that Boston was inferior in each one of their top-3 centre positions.

If 2 elite centres can be beaten by two good two-way centres, then 1 elite centre can be beaten by one good two-way centre... No?

So your point about us 'always getting outplayed' by teams with more offensively talented centres is problematic. If your only point is to say we could use more offensive depth, then I tend to agree. But the idea that we can't hope to outplay/neutralize other team's top lines because Turris doesn't score as many points as Seguin or Sedin is wrong, because that completely ignores the defensive aspects of the game.

and to think Gretzky nearly destroyed the guys career in Phoenix...