Philosophy of lineups
- Thread starter usernamesteph
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
"Six forwards that are terrible"
That's what you have when your team lacks depth. Obviously no one advocates for only six competent forwards and then six wastes of a roster spot. Good teams DO possess guys that can handle the puck and score, in addition to playing responsible defensive hockey.
Do you actually think that anyone wants six offensively worthless forwards on the roster? I don't really know who your rant is aimed at.
That's what you have when your team lacks depth. Obviously no one advocates for only six competent forwards and then six wastes of a roster spot. Good teams DO possess guys that can handle the puck and score, in addition to playing responsible defensive hockey.
Do you actually think that anyone wants six offensively worthless forwards on the roster? I don't really know who your rant is aimed at.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I think the problem you'll run into is that people define terrible in different ways. A player who I would think is terrible would be liked by many if he can fight and/or hit.
John Tortorella willingly dressed a line of Micheal Haley, Kris Newbury and Derek Dorsett in the playoffs. It was, IMO, a trainwreck.
When it was clear Prust was going to leave, I wanted them to replace him with Daniel Winnik, who could replace his penalty killing and defensive lifting. They instead thought it was more important to replace his JAM and we got Arron Asham.
John Tortorella willingly dressed a line of Micheal Haley, Kris Newbury and Derek Dorsett in the playoffs. It was, IMO, a trainwreck.
When it was clear Prust was going to leave, I wanted them to replace him with Daniel Winnik, who could replace his penalty killing and defensive lifting. They instead thought it was more important to replace his JAM and we got Arron Asham.
I blame hockey video games. On the old (early 00s) games they were labeled as 'scoring line' 'scoring line' 'checking line' '4th line' (or close enough) and then each player is categorised as either 'sniper', 'playmaker', '2 way fwd', 'grinder', or 'tough guy'.
These became the 'norm' and so now any suggestion of lines has to try and fit those standards, using those descriptions for the players
These became the 'norm' and so now any suggestion of lines has to try and fit those standards, using those descriptions for the players
The idea of having two scoring lines and a checking line isn't brand new, and isn't because of early 2000s video games. Really since the end of the days where you'd have a superstar play on a line with goons who protected him we've seen lines organized this way. Checking lines are extremely important, and become even more important in the playoffs. You could come up with an idealistic image of the NHL where you have 12 forwards who can score, but realistically there aren't enough talented forwards to even do that. Teams have a checking line to wear down a defense, which helps with the matchups of top lines against top defensive pairings, plain and simple. Do you not see the value in wearing out a team?
I can't understand how anyone would call the bottom 6 "terrible" players when you watch a playoff series. They play a role, just like the scoring forwards. Most hockey experts agree that top lines generally balance each other out in the playoffs, and a strong 3rd and 4th line is usually the difference between winning and losing a series. Check out how much better Boston's 4th line is than any other 4th line in hockey; they're physical, beat you down, and can put the puck in the net. That's why they're in the finals and the Rangers aren't. The Rangers having good 3rd and 4th lines is why, despite not having high-level talent on their top 2 lines, were 2 wins away from going to the SCF finals last year.
I can't understand how anyone would call the bottom 6 "terrible" players when you watch a playoff series. They play a role, just like the scoring forwards. Most hockey experts agree that top lines generally balance each other out in the playoffs, and a strong 3rd and 4th line is usually the difference between winning and losing a series. Check out how much better Boston's 4th line is than any other 4th line in hockey; they're physical, beat you down, and can put the puck in the net. That's why they're in the finals and the Rangers aren't. The Rangers having good 3rd and 4th lines is why, despite not having high-level talent on their top 2 lines, were 2 wins away from going to the SCF finals last year.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
eco's bones
Registered User
There are realities that have to be dealt with. One of them is cap space. When a team trades for a Nash and signs a Richards then unless it has the prospect depth and a bunch of players on their first contracts it's difficult to have 4 lines that can score with regularity.
And we don't need anyone who can fight-- is ridiculous. Tell that some day to Derek Stepan after he gets mugged (like Gaborik by Carcillo) --and it will happen if there isn't anyone who has Derek's back. What we need is multiple players who can both fight and play. Prust is an example. Shawn Thornton is another.
What we saw this past season is the effects of trading for Nash--losing a lot of forward depth and the decline of our top center Richards can have on our teams fortunes. What we're seeing now is two teams with the ability to roll 4 line playing in the cup finals. They don't lack players who can answer the call. They're more capable of scoring goals than our current team but they're just as capable of winning 1-0, 2-1 nail biters. They are teams that adjust to the circumstances and play accordingly. They have good special teams. They battle real well along the walls and in the corners. They come up with plays when they need them. They do the dirty work they need--including dropping of gloves when it's appropriate. This is ****ing hockey the way it was meant to be. That's the kind of hockey the Rangers were heading for in 2011-12. This no hit--no fight--just go out and score lots and lots of goals is something that fantasists like to dream about. The problem is that winning is something that is earned and it's not earned without spilling some blood.
And we don't need anyone who can fight-- is ridiculous. Tell that some day to Derek Stepan after he gets mugged (like Gaborik by Carcillo) --and it will happen if there isn't anyone who has Derek's back. What we need is multiple players who can both fight and play. Prust is an example. Shawn Thornton is another.
What we saw this past season is the effects of trading for Nash--losing a lot of forward depth and the decline of our top center Richards can have on our teams fortunes. What we're seeing now is two teams with the ability to roll 4 line playing in the cup finals. They don't lack players who can answer the call. They're more capable of scoring goals than our current team but they're just as capable of winning 1-0, 2-1 nail biters. They are teams that adjust to the circumstances and play accordingly. They have good special teams. They battle real well along the walls and in the corners. They come up with plays when they need them. They do the dirty work they need--including dropping of gloves when it's appropriate. This is ****ing hockey the way it was meant to be. That's the kind of hockey the Rangers were heading for in 2011-12. This no hit--no fight--just go out and score lots and lots of goals is something that fantasists like to dream about. The problem is that winning is something that is earned and it's not earned without spilling some blood.
Fitzy
Very Stable Genius
- Jan 29, 2009
- 36,278
- 23,995
Did you think our bottom 6 was terrible in 11-12? I sure didn't. I think that is what a lot of people here are trying to recreate with acquisitions like Raymond, Clutterbuck, and that other basher whose name escapes me.
We went from 86% PK in 11-12 to 81% this year. I said we would struggle on the PK. Lost killers in Fedotenko, Anisimov, Dubinsky, Prust, and didn't really replace them. A common trait Boston and Chicago share this year? Both top 5 in penalty killing.
We went from 86% PK in 11-12 to 81% this year. I said we would struggle on the PK. Lost killers in Fedotenko, Anisimov, Dubinsky, Prust, and didn't really replace them. A common trait Boston and Chicago share this year? Both top 5 in penalty killing.
OverTheCap
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2009
- 10,454
- 184
Agreed, Fitzy. Of all the complaints that people had about the team this year, the decline of the PK is something that didn't really get discussed a lot. We lost PK depth and it hurt us.
After Powe's injury in the playoffs, the Rangers only had four players killing penalties: Boyle, Cally, Hags, and Stepan. That's not enough. This is another area that Sather needs to address this offseason.
After Powe's injury in the playoffs, the Rangers only had four players killing penalties: Boyle, Cally, Hags, and Stepan. That's not enough. This is another area that Sather needs to address this offseason.
The bottom 6 forwards are terrible for the Rangers - they are very good for at what they do for the elite teams in the league.
Inferno
Registered User
you can have a good 4th line.
when we had Ortmeyer, Betts, Moore, and Hollweg we put together a good 4th line with any combination of those guys.
and none of them except for Moore are any good at hockey.
reasoning?
THEY CAN EFFING SKATE!!!
Pyatt is slow as balls, Asham is slow as balls, Boyle is slow, Dorsett is average at best, etc
When we had Pruster on our 4th line, our 4th line was terrific...it's because Prust can skate.
Get me 3 guys with size, can skate, but maybe have hands of stone, and you can create a damn good energy 4th line.
when we had Ortmeyer, Betts, Moore, and Hollweg we put together a good 4th line with any combination of those guys.
and none of them except for Moore are any good at hockey.
reasoning?
THEY CAN EFFING SKATE!!!
Pyatt is slow as balls, Asham is slow as balls, Boyle is slow, Dorsett is average at best, etc
When we had Pruster on our 4th line, our 4th line was terrific...it's because Prust can skate.
Get me 3 guys with size, can skate, but maybe have hands of stone, and you can create a damn good energy 4th line.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
I think we too often get stuck in top-6, bottom-6 discussions, for sure. It is a convenient way to think about it at times, but it isn't a one size fits all philosophy.
I think we're starting to see a 3-layer structure a lot more in the NHL. What you're talking about is a 2-layer structure. A 3-layer structure would be as follows: 1st line/middle-6/4th line. 3rd liners have to be able to pot some goals here and there and don't follow a strict checking role. They're more akin to a 2b line than a 3rd line.
I think we're starting to see a 3-layer structure a lot more in the NHL. What you're talking about is a 2-layer structure. A 3-layer structure would be as follows: 1st line/middle-6/4th line. 3rd liners have to be able to pot some goals here and there and don't follow a strict checking role. They're more akin to a 2b line than a 3rd line.
id say in most years, the rangers 4th liners wouldnt even make most other teams
boyle can't make the blackhawks, bruins, true championship contenders ect..
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
OverTheCap
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2009
- 10,454
- 184
Hollweg was more of a waste than Betts.
That boarding penalty in Game 3 against the Pens in the 2008 ECSF... what the hell was he thinking?!
That boarding penalty in Game 3 against the Pens in the 2008 ECSF... what the hell was he thinking?!
Inferno
Registered User
and despite that, guys like that, and guys like Sjostrom gave the rangers a 4th line you could throw out there and they wouldnt be pinned in their own end for shifts on end. they may not score, but they wont hurt you defensively.
im totally fine with that kind of a 4th line.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Agreed. He actually had the early lead in goals and then did absolutely nothing for the rest of the year.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Yeah, I guess I'll give you that one, although I do like Asham (as a player), and Katheryn (as material).
That Top 6 , bottom 6 model is Brian Burke's. He used to say that was how he thought of players and how he built a team.
We see how well that worked in Toronto.
I agree with you though. 2nd and 3rd liners for the most part can be interhcnageble depending upon numerous variables.
We all know legit top line players when we see them and we all know 4th liners. That middle six is where most teams are looking to improve in trades or free agency and can be more of a moving target.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Finland vs Sweden - Centre Bell, MontréalWagers: 3Staked: $387.00Event closes - 2 days from now
- Updated:
-
USA vs Canada- Centre Bell, MontréalWagers: 3Staked: $389.00Event closes - 3 days from now
- Updated:
-