Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Dan Marino Starting College For Developmentally Disabled

What is a Top 6 forward?

"Kessel is the only Leafs player who can even remotely be considered a top-six forward"

Jeff Blair in the Globe

Star-divide

Just what kind of standard is Blair applying for Top 6 forward?  The usual standard is offensive production.  After Phil Kessel, the Leafs have 4 forwards averaging between .72 ppg (Matt Stajan) and .61 ppg (Jason Blake) (and this doesn't include Alex Ponikarovsky, who topped .63 ppg in 2 of the past 3 years).  So apparently that's not good enough.  To be a "Top 6" forward you have to average more than .72 ppg.  Want to know how many forwards of the defending Cup champion Penguins average over .72 ppg?  Two.  The Sharks are tied for the lead league in goals.  They have only 3 forwards who average over .62 ppg (the Leafs have 4).  In fact, the only team with at least 6 forwards averaging .72 ppg or better is the Capitals (with 7 actually), and their forwards are an offensive wasteland after those top 7.

The point isn't that the Leafs are anywhere near as good as those teams.  They aren't.  The point is that the Leafs problem isn't a lack of mythical "top 6 forwards", it's a lack of top 3 forwards.  Right now we have one.  We need two more out of Nazem Kadri, Viktor Stalberg, Tyler Bozak, or a UFA (I don't see Christian Hanson as being more than 2nd line material).  With a true top line, we'd be fine with a second line made up of some combination of Mikhail Grabovski, Niklas Hagman, Ponikarovsky, Stajan, Hanson or even Nikolai Kulemin.

Saying we have only one Top 6 forward is ludicrous and suggests we are light years from competiveness.  We aren't.  We're a couple top players away, because adding players at the top pushes everyone else down to a level at which they look a lot better.  Didn't Burke once say something like that?

PensionPlanPuppets.com is a fan community that allows members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Toronto Maple Leafs and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editor of PensionPlanPuppets.com.

Comment 25 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from Pension Plan Puppets

Get Ready For The Big House

Feb 2012 by JP Nikota - 558 comments

Do The Leafs 'Give Up' on Grabbo?

Feb 2012 by SkinnyFish - 755 comments

Rebuild Coming Along

Feb 2012 by JP Nikota - 898 comments

Movin' on up

Feb 2012 by birky - 323 comments

Lock & Load

Feb 2012 by birky - 93 comments

Comments

Display:

Hagman – 11 goals. How many teams have 6 Forwards scoring like Hagman?

by general borschevsky on Nov 27, 2009 8:35 AM EST reply actions  

Blair has replaced Cox in my books as “moronically pessimistic Toronto columnist”. My crayons are still in the crayon box and the parade route remains unplanned but Blair would have you think we’re like the Detroit Lions of hockey.

by The '67 Sound on Nov 27, 2009 8:48 AM EST up reply actions  

Blair is always grumpy.

Life as a Toronto Sports Fan?... *sigh*... It is what it is...

by JohnnyG on Nov 27, 2009 8:56 AM EST up reply actions  

Good Post

Direct and to the point and using numbers to make reporters look ridiculous.

When they argue about “Top Six” they are always talking in a subjective manner.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Nov 27, 2009 9:22 AM EST reply actions  

The grass is always greener on the other team for them.

We are two top forwards short. Put two stars at the top and everything else falls into place. The rest turns on the development of Monster and the D. If they don’t progress, we’re doomed to mediocrity. If they do, look out.

by The '67 Sound on Nov 27, 2009 9:31 AM EST up reply actions  

Exactly

That was one of the big things I focused on when Burke was coming in. Earl Sleek at the Battle of California made a note of saying that Burke’s strategy was to fill out the top end so that players are in their proper roles.

Basically what you wrote is what he does.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Nov 27, 2009 10:04 AM EST up reply actions  

I knew I had heard that somewhere—thanks for the source. It always seemed to me one of those incredibly obvious points that somehow always get missed when the media talks about team depth, etc.

by The '67 Sound on Nov 27, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Me and my roommate were talking about this the other day. The problem with this thinking come’s from Cliff Fletcher saying that Antropov was the only top-six forward on the team. Although he claimed he had acquired one more in Stempniak. Wrong! I really like Cliff, but I think he screwed up pretty bad in his short time as the interim GM. Burke did say that Stajan is a top-six forward and I also think that Blake, Hagman, Poni, and Grabo are too. But you’re right we don’t have the first line talent other than Kessel.

by moimoi28 on Nov 27, 2009 9:44 AM EST reply actions  

Welcome

Thanks for joining.

I don’t think that that trade was that bad. We gave up two guys that could definitely be termed as first-round busts and the team wasn’t likely to re-sign them or get anything back for them. Stempniak’s having trouble finishing but he’s displaying the work ethic the team needs to follow. I could see him getting a prominent role on the third line going forward.

His big mistakes were the draft picks for Hollweg and Mayers.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Nov 27, 2009 10:07 AM EST up reply actions  

Kessel

WOW are you freakin` kidding me? Top 6 doesn`t mean good enough for the top two lines. Top 6 froward means the best six forwards in the LEAGUE!!( offensively). Kessel is the only leaf who could possibly claim to be in that list (POTENTIALY). Seriously you can`t be this dumb.

by voidhelix on Nov 27, 2009 12:08 PM EST reply actions  

I think you are 180 degrees wrong on this.

Blair doesn’t say ‘Top 6 forward in the league.’ He is obviously talking about the standard of play for a player on the top two lines of a team.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

Albert Einstein

by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Nov 27, 2009 12:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Kessel is the only Leafs player who can even remotely be considered a top-six forward, so in other words this was a deal that Burke was going to have to make at some point this season or next season. He was not going to be able to draft two top lines or even sign two top lines in free agency.

by general borschevsky on Nov 27, 2009 12:54 PM EST up reply actions  

louddd

and wrong.. top six definitely refers to the top 2 lines on a hockey club.. recently its been used by Leafs GM Brian Burke to describe his ideal team breakdown of 6 skill guys and 6 lunchboxes (top 6 – bottom 6)..

Seriously you can`t be this dumb.

The choo-choo train left right on time. A ticket costs only your mind.
The driver said, "Hey, man, we go all the way. Of course we were willing to pay.

- My name is Jonas (Gustavsson)- - - Weezer are clearly leafs fans.

by AkiSchennberg on Nov 27, 2009 12:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Speaking of not possibly being this dumb

Do you really think that that is what people are talking about?

Welcome and all that but in the future take a second to make sure that you read that linked article and understood it.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Nov 27, 2009 3:33 PM EST up reply actions  

We do lack true top 6 forwards. Remember when Burke and Wilson called out the players on that in Burke’s first year? His reasoning was that to be considered a top-6 forward, you need to be someone that would be on the top 2 lines of the better teams. Would Kessel be on another team’s top 2 lines? Yes. Hagman? Most likely. How about anyone after that? Don’t think so (at least not as of today – yes Stalberg and Kadri look like they can, but they are not there as of today). So the Leafs do lack top-6 forwards.

The stat of Points or PPG can be misleading when you are comparing players in different situations. Let me put it to you this way, would you rather have Jason Blake or Jiri Hudler? Personally, I’d take Hudler. Blake had 63 points last year to Hudler’s 57. The difference, Hudler played for Detroit, and they have a few players that would be on anybody’s top-6 forwards. There are many more players who tallied less points than Stajan or Blake last year, that I bet most of you would take in a heartbeat over them: Ryder, Lupul, Stillman, Malone, Horton, O’Sullivan, Cole, Lucic, Cleary, Filuplla, Plekanec, Bergeron, etc…

The Leafs are a much different team than most contenders. Instead of having 1 or 2 lines relied on to score the bulk of goals, we have 3. Last season we finished 10th in team scoring, but our leading goal scorer had 25 goals (Blake) and our leading point getter had 63 points (also Blake).

Now getting 63 points is a fairly decent season. One that many second liners would be proud of. Would you play Jason Blake on Pittsburgh’s top-6 last season? Probably not.

While the Leafs aren’t some black hole of talent, we aren’t exactly up to the League average either. The future looks decent, but there are some players who are going to have to step up their development if the team is to succeed in the future (I’m looking right at you Mitchell and Grabovski).

by Belligerent Burkie on Nov 27, 2009 1:04 PM EST reply actions  

Here's how you define top-six (according to Wilson and Fletcher)

I think there should be a sticky for this as it’s been posted so many times:

Ron Wilson on Cliff Fletcher’s pronouncement re. top-six

"You take the top four teams in the league and you take the top two lines on each team, and … you probably can’t see your guys (Leafs) playing on any of those lines," Wilson said.
"So what Cliff said is accurate. And we have to get to that point where we can (play with those lines)."

Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...

by mf37 on Nov 27, 2009 1:12 PM EST reply actions  

It all breaks down on what is considered ‘top 6 forward’

if you go by the criteria that mf37 has posted above – first you have to define who the top 4 teams in the league are… I think that is easier said than done. Even if you can define the top 4 teams, we are looking at the top 13% of the league here – pretty small sample size to determine top 6 players.

In addition to that, there are different types of players you want on your top 2 lines – goal-scorers, play makers – at least a few guys who can play great 2 way hockey and of course chemistry. You can’t just randomly pick a team and look at each player in a vacuum and say ‘this guy got x points – he would or wouldn’t be a top 6 forward on one of these 4 teams.’ Players can make their line mates better and conversely all players depend on their line mates to make them better. Saying so and so got 20 goals and 50 points on the Leafs is not similar to comparing a guy on Detroit who got the same amount of points. Pretty sure the guy on the Leafs had a lot less talent around them than the guy on Detroit.

The water is so muddied on this whole top 6 argument that a lot of times people are arguing apples and oranges.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

Albert Einstein

by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Nov 27, 2009 1:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Wilson’s definition of Top 4 is silly. He’s being aspirational, not realistic.

Poni, Hagman, Grabovski and even Stajan would do just fine on the second line of virtually any team. The difference between the Leafs and the good teams is that on Pittsburgh, they’d be playing with Malkin, on the Wings they’d be playing with Zetterberg, on the Sharks they’d be playing with Marleau, etc. etc. (since a lot of teams often put their two best guys on different lines). It’s a hell of a lot easier to look good when you have an absolute stud on the other side of the ice. The Leafs lack the latter, not the former.

I mean, the #6 forward in points on the ‘83-’84 Oilers was the immortal Pat Hughes. It’s all about the stars. That’s why signing Blake was so stupid the moment it happened. We had (and have) plenty of guys with his production level and it’s a waste of money unless you’re signing a top 3 guy.

by The '67 Sound on Nov 27, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions  

stajan would look very out of place on the pens second line imho

The choo-choo train left right on time. A ticket costs only your mind.
The driver said, "Hey, man, we go all the way. Of course we were willing to pay.

- My name is Jonas (Gustavsson)- - - Weezer are clearly leafs fans.

by AkiSchennberg on Nov 27, 2009 11:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Actually

I traded him for Jordan Staal in Wii 2k10 and he burned me with a hat trick when the Pens played the Leafs.

by Leaf in Habland on Dec 2, 2009 7:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Boy do I feel dumb

How could I have thought a guy like Hagman is a Top 6 forward (i.e. possesses above average offensive skill).

Oh wait a minute. Check that—I’m pretty sure it’s Blair who’s the moron.

by The '67 Sound on Nov 27, 2009 11:38 PM EST reply actions  

Leaf forwards are not good enough ...

The fact of the matter is the Leafs are more than 1 or 2 forwards away. The problem with using stats in this argument is these guys are getting a lot of ice time out of necessity. Stajan and company would not get nearly the ice time they’re getting with a top 6 team .. let alone the power play time. I’m not willing to say our forwards are terrible, but with the exception of Kessel and Hagman, no one else has shown any consistency or willingness to put the team on his shoulders and carry it. All have shown sparks but never sustain it. If the Leafs are to be competitive, and buy that I mean a real Cup threat, they need more than 1 or 2 better forwards … stats or no stats … we’ve all seen them play and can plainly see they’re just not good enough. Hopefully the likes of Kadri and Stalberg will become the type of forwards we need, but other than that I really don’t see much else in the near future coming out of the system capable of making the kind of impact we need. Hopefully trades and free agency will strengthen this team, it’s still going to be a while before we can talk Stanley Cup again. Luckily the current team is capable of providing entertaining hockey, I’m OK with that as long as we get better every year.

TC
http://leafsandstuff.blogspot.com/

by leafsandstuff on Nov 28, 2009 9:49 PM EST reply actions  

Nope

Five forwards on pace for over 50 points (and even Blake’s barely off that pace). Last year Penguins had TWO—but they both topped 100 points. You can compare ice time all you want—Penguins top 6 forwards were not overwhelming after Geno and Sid. They’re solid players who look better because they’re playing with Hall of Famers.

Look, I’m not saying it’s easy to land another Kessel-level player, which is the minimum we’ll need at the front end. It’s extremely hard. But that should be our focus, not forwards 3 thru 6 on the depth chart. Hagman, Stajan, Grabs and Poni are plenty good for spots 3-6.

by The '67 Sound on Nov 30, 2009 11:05 AM EST up reply actions  

I agree completely. The goalie situation is still a bit shaky but the defence and depth forwards are taken care of. 1 or 2 top level talent forwards and the Leafs should be competitive again.

-Graham-

by CanadianMaple09 on Nov 30, 2009 11:29 AM EST up reply actions  

D-Cox definte top-6 forward in the mailbag today:


Q: Hey Damien, Many analysts are saying Kessel is the only top 6 forward the Leafs have. What exactly is a top 6, and where is the line drawn a Top 6 and other leaf players… Hagman perhaps?

Johnny Thunder, Toronto

A: I would say a top-six forward is generally in the eye of a beholder, and it changes from team-to-team. Most wouldn’t say Matt Moulson of the Islanders is a bona fide top-six forward, but he sure is on that club and is one of the better NHL stories this season. In my mind, a top-six forward is a player who is capable of playing on the power play and of scoring at least 20 goals a season. In a 30-team league, let’s face it, the criteria isn’t that demanding. For the Leafs, that would probably make Stajan, Hagman, Blake, Stempniak and Ponikarovsky all theoretical top-six forwards, but all have been too inconsistent to firmly establish themselves as such.

by Leaf in Habland on Dec 10, 2009 2:41 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Your best source for quality Toronto Maple Leafs news, rumours, analysis, stats and scores from the fan perspective.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Frank_serpico_by_drawmanou_small
How to Value Mikhail Grabovski

Recent FanPosts

Black_sox_small
First-time jersey purchase
Blawrie_small
Irresponsible Speculation Time
Syrupglleaf17lg_small
The Stretch Drive Schedule: DIY Analysis (AKA I have way too much time on my hands)
Leafs_small
Heartbreaking S-O Loss to Penguins
N907005365_1934770_7971_small
Complaining like an All-Star
Small
Mental Health and Kevin Bieksa
Leafs_small
AllStar Fantasy Draft........P'neuf Already
Frank_serpico_by_drawmanou_small
Team Defense Cap Hit vs. Performance
Globeatar_small
What's The Problem With The Leafs' PK? (Part 2)

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

StatCounter

wordpress visitor


Chief Blogging Officers

Calvin_small PPP

Aen1_small Chemmy

PPP's Girlfriends

Don_t_panic_small SkinnyFish

Picture_1_small JP Nikota

Fg_small birky

Christian-hanson-wrecks-brian-o_1__small Bower Power