Majorityof1
Registered User
I don't think anyone would question those three are great together. The question is which is better for the team, to have a stacked 1st line but weakened middle 6 or a somewhat weaker top line but more balanced scoring throughout. If you put those three together then you're pretty much forced to run Schenn at 2c and then who exactly at 3c? Holloway? Texier if he can even play center effectively? Faksa has been solid but I don't think he's offensive enough to be 3c, and our 4th line has been a strength so far this year.
Honestly, I don't see the problem with re-uniting the big 3 periodically but not putting them together all game. If you want to add a middle six center, then it gets tough. A solid 2c would be great, but who's available that wouldn't cost an arm and a leg? We could aim lower and get more of a 3c guy, which could create a 2a/2b situation with Schenn as the other center.
The way I see it, we're 4-2 doing what we've done so far so I don't see a huge rush to change it. Yes, they weren't all pretty wins but the team has looked fairly good overall and balanced scoring is more important to me than relying on that one line to score most of the goals.
Blueston told you the problem with seperating them. We are getting badly beaten when they are apart. We weaken the top line. Then Buch is an awful C so we don't have two decent lines, we have a weaker 1st line and a still crap 2nd line.
Better to load up in my opinion and have a great 1st line. But even if we want to split them, we need an actual C on the 2nd line.Because we are weakening the top line and not helping the 2nd