This will be an enjoyable one to write.
LWR: Possibly the best game in which Wheeler has played C. Him and Roslovic were all over the ice, making plays happen and creating offense. As opposed to the first Tampa game of the season, the Bolts seemed overwhelmed at times by these two and their speed. While Laine did not seem to create as much, I reckon there's little to complain about a guy who scored a goal (literally, Laine @ 5v3 should be illegal) and ended up with a whopping 90.48 CF% . To put things into perspective, preventing your primary matchup from
getting a single shot on goal is a sign of a pretty decent night.
PLE: The only line in any kind of trouble tonight, which is probably due to Brayden Point being a ridiculously good player (sweet Jesus). They did seem to get things going later on, especially in the third. Ehlers was magnificent at times; he has the skillset and speed to slice the opposition's defense at will, which he did in this one. Little did well to create and convert from his scoring chance in the third, and Perreault was more than OK (also a crash test dummy - how can one get bumped so often?).
CLA: Lowry's back! A near-perfect game from this line; no goals, but damn, comfortably winning your matchup against one of the top 5 lines in hockey is such a great result from a line with a combined salary of less than three million. All three were incredible at their own zone, both at ES and on the kill, and they managed to get things rolling in the O-zone too. What a game from them.
CHT: Am I the only one who thought that Tanev's energy was a massive contributor? He was his normal self, hitting everything that moved and being a PITA of the Bolts. Hendricks had a rather normal, yet decent night, and Connor potted himself a goal to go with an all-around good performance. (even after the ASG, the fourth line remains tough to evaluate due to the lack of ice time)
44-57: Morrissey was decent in spite of the change in partners and the tough matchup against Point. I like his calmness and how he knows when to join the rush (e.g. the 2v1 in the first period, too bad the puck was bouncing) and when not to. Myers was not as strong as he has been recently, but I'd say he was passable to say the least. A couple mistakes too many in the D-zone, but other than that, not much to complain about. It'll be interesting to see how he adjusts to his increased role.
39-33: Aside from the two penalties he took, Buff was great. A couple of great moves to create offense and sustain offensive zone time, accompanied with a stellar effort in the other end. Enstrom was solid too. Statistically, they seemed to play a rather low-paced game: hockeystats.ca has Buff and Enstrom at 21 and 20 Corsi events, respectively (is that how you even call them, lol), whereas Morrissey and Myers had 50 and 49. This is with 39-33 playing more 5v5 hockey.
7-3: Surprisingly decent nights from both defensemen. Chiarot was not the liability I often consider him; in fact, I liked seeing some physicality and, you know, not getting shredded to bits from him. Poolman was not bad either. A game like this from the bottom pairing should be welcomed with open arms.
34: A great performance. Aside from a couple of blunders which luckily did not lead to goals against, he was a wall.
The first period was a bit shaky, but after that, I loved every bit of the game. This was against the league leaders, too... an encouraging thought.
Also, here's the matchup chart, which is a f***ing treat this time: