This is another post along the same line that I’ve made in the past months, but looking at this team and how the market has shaken out, I firmly believe that the best way to proceed is the following.
1. You want this team to play with more speed, fail less at trying to make high percentage plays and to play more physical?
There is a conflict when trying to accomplish this when you have Panarin or Ziba on the ice and not Fox. There is a conflict when trying to accomplish this with Ziba or Panarin on the ice period. There is a conflict trying to accomplish this with 1/2 OA draft picks on the ice — with the heavy expectations to produce pts that comes with that.
Something that instantly would change our out look in this regard is
if Panarin and Ziba are played on the same line.
Did Gallant get everyone to “buy in” to his style of hockey and the team’s system in Florida? There was so much talk about that in NY and so much focus out on getting Ziba, Panarin and co to change their style with DQ. Did Gallant manage to get his stats to change their style in Florida? No, he made sure to get what was needed through other means:
Top of the lines: Jagr, Barkov, Huberdeau click for Panthers
Going by the metrics, this was the best line in hockey that season. Or at least it was at the time of the article. You get into the biggest trouble when you try to be fancy and can’t execute. We can’t have three lines that try’s to be super fancy. It’s too easy for the opponents to just wait for us to crap the bed and take advantage of it. Two lines? Probably not. But with Ziba and Panarin on different lines, Kakko and Laf on one of those lines each, I am not sold on that it can work either. I see Laf trying to be fancy with Panarin and Kakko trying to be fancy with Ziba, or the other way around, while these guys just being there yet. Too many mistakes. Too many pts given away. Pressure mounts.
Create a line with:
Panarin-Ziba-Laf
Get that line to focus on the right things, for that line. Don’t give the puck away in the wrong areas. Make it hard for the other team.
2. Behind that line zero focus should be put on which line is the “2nd” and “3rd” line.
Instead focus on creating (a) a line that can take the toughest match-ups and get by and (b) a line that can compete and do well against any non-top line in the NHL. This is what made Tampa the best team in hockey. Point-Kuch’s line, Goodrow-Gourde-Coleman that could go heads up with all top lines in the East and Cirelli’s line that was as good as any non-top line in hockey.
I think we have all the necessary players to make this happen, but one. I will get back to that.
Let’s start with what most would call the 3rd line. I love the potential of this line:
Kreider-Chytil-Kravy
So much speed, they are strong on the puck. Kreider’s experience and knowledge of what works in this league would be valuable. And what especially makes them a good fit from my perspective, all three are fairly lowmaintenance. None of them must get the pucks in certain areas of the ice to be successful. Non got any significant flaws in certain areas of their game.
Honestly, at least later in the year, this could be a line that could be hard to face for all non-top lines in hockey.
3. This obviously leaves the following 3 for the line that is supposed to be able to match-up against the best lines around us, do what Goodrow-Gourde-Coleman did. I mean in a pretty convincingly theory, if we can mirror that line we should be close to being a contender over night. We got the top line and we got the line that can do well against most non-top lines.
Goodrow-Strome-Kakko
So could that line do what Goodrow-Gourde-Coleman did? I think it’s easy to completely misunderstand that line. Why was it good? You see it was deadly to lose the pucks in the below areas of the ice, because Gourde is probably top 15 in the world in turning the play super fast from it:
View attachment 460105
And when that line didn’t have the puck nor pressure on it, they trapped hard which supported their D well, and their D was good in winning the puck in that red area. As a result you had to be careful when playing that line. Play with marginals. It brought the tempo down, they were still a threat on the forecheck, and when they could they did a darn good job on the forecheck. But the later — which I think many associate with this line, was in fact not the only reason for it success. It’s extremely hard to counter the best lines in the east and many lines can forecheck well.
Can a line of Goodrow-Strome-Kakko do what Goodrow-Gourde-Coleman did? It’s here I think we are missing a piece. Strome cannot even remotely provide the same support for his wingers as Gourde could. I think Kakko is an excellent alternative to Coleman. Of course less gritty, but great at trapping, good on the forecheck. Strong on the puck. He would be an threat of his own. He is so good when attacking just after winning the puck after trapping.
But Strome isn’t good at getting back fast. Strome isn’t good at turning the play fast skating the puck up ice.
4. This is my missing piece for sure. A center that could provide what Gourde provided for Tampa. Be it Gourde himself. There are many others that fit the bill. Jean-Gabriel Pageau, Dandenault. TyJo? Nah, not quite, but better fit than Strome.
It’s funny, when you just list smaller centers by ice time m, 20% have been acquired by the same GM. And TyJo who incorrectly is listed is a winger would make it 25%.
View attachment 460107
There are others. You don’t have to be small, but it’s basically impossible for anyone to turn up ice and be the same water bug type as Gourde if you are 6’2+. Many smaller guys aren’t quick enough either, goes without saying.