Do people really think he's in Monahan/Galchenyuk tier?
Do people really think he's in Monahan/Galchenyuk tier?
Do people really think he's in Monahan/Galchenyuk tier?
Do people really think he's in Monahan/Galchenyuk tier?
On the Canucks board when projecting a future line up the majority are placing Horvat as our #2C.
I wouldn't. Ideally I want him as the third line centre with two solid, veteran wingers (Higgins and Hansen preferably). Gauge how tough the minutes they should play based on how well they handle them.
Maybe a little off topic, but it ties right into the discussion were having here.
But is anyone else starting to feel like the distinctive way of dividing lines into 2nd/3rd/4th lines is starting to become a thing of the past?
Discussing Horvat's line is a prime example of this. While if you average the talent of the line across the board it may be the least talented line, but if they starting playing more minutes than the "2nd or 3rd" lines can we really call them a 4th line?
I've noticed it disappear how coaches refer to their lines. And even in how they allocate minutes. It seems to be increasingly more chemistry dependent for building lines and allocating minutes based on current performance. Makes me feel that we may be putting ourselves behind the curve by forcing ourselves to have line mate discussions locked within the 2nd/3rd/4th line formats.
Lol horvat has 0.4 ppg as a 4th liner with no pp time. Hes ready to be three times the player he is now in 4/5 years. Literally best player of the draft guarenteed
Lol horvat has 0.4 ppg as a 4th liner with no pp time. Hes ready to be three times the player he is now in 4/5 years. Literally best player of the draft guarenteed
Maybe a little off topic, but it ties right into the discussion were having here.
But is anyone else starting to feel like the distinctive way of dividing lines into 2nd/3rd/4th lines is starting to become a thing of the past?
Discussing Horvat's line is a prime example of this. While if you average the talent of the line across the board it may be the least talented line, but if they starting playing more minutes than the "2nd or 3rd" lines can we really call them a 4th line?
I've noticed it disappear how coaches refer to their lines. And even in how they allocate minutes. It seems to be increasingly more chemistry dependent for building lines and allocating minutes based on current performance. Makes me feel that we may be putting ourselves behind the curve by forcing ourselves to have line mate discussions locked within the 2nd/3rd/4th line formats.