Pre-Game Talk: Preds @ Sens

[Cosmix]

I agree to an extent. I think it's a good idea to try different combinations for a bit, especially when there are a number of guys that need to get going. These particular lines are new and I'm looking forward to seeing what can happen.

Unfortunately ZIb is going to have to develop in the frying pan, and as a second line player on our team, we need to do what we can to get that line to be a threat.

I agree with trying different combos when the players are not producing as expected or wanted. I too am looking forward to seeing what these new lines can do, but I doubt Ryan flourishes with Legwand as his center. I hope I am wrong.

Based on the games I have seen, Zibanejad seems to be concentrating on his defensive role and thus negatively affecting his offense. Plus he seems slower this year. I do not know why he is slower. I suspect coaching may the reason he is concentrating on his defensive play.

 

[starling]

ON one of the TV broadcasts-on TSN I think they said it was something Mark Reeds
thought could be interesting.And yes I know he works more on defense.
This line has many fathers!

Yeah I remember it was an assistant. But isn't Reeds on a sick leave or something?

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

Ryan on his off-wing is face-palm worthy.

Please try Hoffman with Zib and Ryan for the love of God. Stone back with Mac and Turris. Legwand-Lazar-Chiasson Michalek-Smith-Neil

 

[DrunkUncleDenis]

and the only line that stays consistent is the kid line.
Note: the 3 of them went to the coach and asked to stay together.

I keep hearing this thrown around, as well as the notion that this simply isn't true and was just light hearted banter between the TSN 1200 guys. Do you have a source for this?

i believe maclean said this a week or 2 ago. he wasn't joking

You are joking though, right?
MacLean was asked about this line and he said it was Cameron's idea.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude, this didn't happen. Please stop posting this as fact.

Apparently, this never happened! It has been shown to have been a made up story by a guy who emailed into a show.

Edit: gotta post a link to prove, I remember when this happened and I think it was Mendes who commented that there was no chance it happened this way, in response to a fan emailing into the show.

Ya... so this might be my fault. I was listening to the post-game on the radio and (apparently) misheard Ian say that the kids asked to play together. I posted this in the PGT sourcing TSN1200 and a few guys here ran with it before I was told I was mistaken and it was Ian reading an email.

Guess I wasn't listening intently enough. My bad, fellas.

 

[God Says No]

Forsberg is ripping it up this year...already +20 too. Think the Preds won that trade.

Damn, we should have traded Michalek for Filip.

 

[Icelevel]

Ya... so this might be my fault. I was listening to the post-game on the radio and (apparently) misheard Ian say that the kids asked to play together. I posted this in the PGT sourcing TSN1200 and a few guys here ran with it before I was told I was mistaken and it was Ian reading an email.

Guess I wasn't listening intently enough. My bad, fellas.

don't want to keep this going, but what I remember is hearing Paul Maclean saying on 1200 that the 3 of them came to him and asked to stay together. Not put the line together initially but stay together (after whoever it was, cameron, reeds, maclean had the idea)

Again, until I hear that interview with maclean again I will assume that is what happened.
I don't think 1200 website audio goes back far enough. The line started on oct 30 i believe, so it was shortly after that.
And really, who cares. I won't post about it anymore in case it isn't true.

 

[bert]

Ryan on his off-wing is face-palm worthy.

Please try Hoffman with Zib and Ryan for the love of God. Stone back with Mac and Turris. Legwand-Lazar-Chiasson Michalek-Smith-Neil

Break up the line that has carried the team. Glad you're not the coach.

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

Break up the line that has carried the team. Glad you're not the coach.

Line that carries the team for 11-12 minutes and makes 2nd line inept and first line a bit shaky vs having 3 good lines.

 

[bert]

Line that carries the team for 11-12 minutes and makes 2nd line inept and first line a bit shaky vs having 3 good lines.

They make the 2nd line inept? By being productive? Agenda much.

Its about maximizing players output, by playing together those three play at there best you don't break that up unless it stops working.

First line has been fine whether its Chiasson or Ryan on it. Fact of the matter is Zibanejad, Michalek, Ryan (although he has an excuse coming off injury), Smith and Legwand simply have to be better. Keep moving things around until it works, if it doesn't work its time to make some changes.

 

[jbeck5]

Damn, we should have traded Michalek for Filip.

I coulda told you that a long time ago.

 

[God Says No]

Also it's Zib who's playing off-wing, not Ryan. And yes, do not break up the kid line please. We have one line that's going, why would you want to break that up?

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

They make the 2nd line inept? By being productive? Agenda much.

Its about maximizing players output, by playing together those three play at there best you don't break that up unless it stops working.

First line has been fine whether its Chiasson or Ryan on it. Fact of the matter is Zibanejad, Michalek, Ryan (although he has an excuse coming off injury), Smith and Legwand simply have to be better. Keep moving things around until it works, if it doesn't work its time to make some changes.

We won't win with a good line being used vs low competition with little ice-time.

I love the kid line more than the next guy but what's the point of keeping them together if they're gonna get little ice-time anyway and they aren't facing tough competition? While other lines who need more help and are being leaned on more aren't working?

I would love to see other line combos work but keeping that line together means Michalek in the top 6 somewhere which is an immediate no-no.

 

[Micklebot]

Forsberg is ripping it up this year...already +20 too. Think the Preds won that trade.

Forsberg won't keep up that pace, but your right that the preds won that deal.

Right now, Forsberg is riding some unsustainable on ice sh%, both for and against. Rinne can't continue to save over 98% of the shots when he's on ice, and the preds won't continue to score one of every 6-7 shots.

 

[bert]

We won't win with a good line being used vs low competition with little ice-time.

I love the kid line more than the next guy but what's the point of keeping them together if they're gonna get little ice-time anyway and they aren't facing tough competition? While other lines who need more help and are being leaned on more aren't working?

I would love to see other line combos work but keeping that line together means Michalek in the top 6 somewhere which is an immediate no-no.

Well eventually that will change one way or another whether its the quality of competition or they play poorly. Breaking up a good thing is a horrible coaching move. The other players have played better, expecting them to pick it up isn't out of the question they have to get better that's the bottom line. Having two lines that are producing is good not many teams have that.

 

[Micklebot]

Well eventually that will change one way or another whether its the quality of competition or they play poorly. Breaking up a good thing is a horrible coaching move. The other players have played better, expecting them to pick it up isn't out of the question they have to get better that's the bottom line. Having two lines that are producing is good not many teams have that.

Or you could say it's rewarding players; I'm sure Hoffman would be thrilled if he was given the chance to play 2nd line mins, even if it meant breaking him off the Kid line.

Just playing the kid line as our second is very risky, it's throwing them to the wolves and hoping they can maintain. By moving them up more naturally it allows them to acclimate to the role. Insulating them with vets is hardly a horrible coaching move. Besides, if it doesn't work, you can always fall back on your know commodity.

Something like this:

Mac-Turris-Stone (18 mins)
Hoffman-Zibanejad-Ryan (18 mins)
Michalek-Lazar-Chiasson (14 mins)
Smith-Legwand-Neil (10 mins, shutdown role)

would promote all three members of the kid line, keep known chemistry with Stone on the top line, and provide the needed speed to the 2nd line. It also gives Lazar a chance with some extra mins.

 

[Hossa18]

don't want to keep this going, but what I remember is hearing Paul Maclean saying on 1200 that the 3 of them came to him and asked to stay together. Not put the line together initially but stay together (after whoever it was, cameron, reeds, maclean had the idea)

Again, until I hear that interview with maclean again I will assume that is what happened.
I don't think 1200 website audio goes back far enough. The line started on oct 30 i believe, so it was shortly after that.
And really, who cares. I won't post about it anymore in case it isn't true.

I remember something to that effect and their reasoning behind it was that if they played together, they didn't feel like they had to give the puck to someone else and therefore they can play their game better.

 

[God Says No]

Or you could say it's rewarding players; I'm sure Hoffman would be thrilled if he was given the chance to play 2nd line mins, even if it meant breaking him off the Kid line.

Just playing the kid line as our second is very risky, it's throwing them to the wolves and hoping they can maintain. By moving them up more naturally it allows them to acclimate to the role. Insulating them with vets is hardly a horrible coaching move. Besides, if it doesn't work, you can always fall back on your know commodity.

Something like this:

Mac-Turris-Stone (18 mins)
Hoffman-Zibanejad-Ryan (18 mins)
Michalek-Lazar-Chiasson (14 mins)
Smith-Legwand-Neil (10 mins, shutdown role)

would promote all three members of the kid line, keep known chemistry with Stone on the top line, and provide the needed speed to the 2nd line. It also gives Lazar a chance with some extra mins.

Yip that could be the best possible outcome. Or it could kill all the chemistry and we would be left without any lines scoring. I'd take my chance with keeping the kids together and tinkering with the other lines. As it seems to be happening from lines that were at practice.

 

[Sens Rule]

If you break up the kid line and move Zibanejad to the wing and ignored our roster issues. Say waived Greening and demoted/traded Smith for a pick.

MacArthur Turris Stone
Hoffman Lazar Chiasson
Zibanejad Pageau Ryan
Puempel Legwand Michalek
Neil
Condra

Not going to happen in the short term. Won't be surprised if we do it next year, or something similar.

You basically have 3 (maybe 4) 2nd lines. Role all 4 lines. Give more ice time to whomever is hot that night. All 4 lines have snipers on them, some speed, some strong defensive players. You can mix and match wingers if you need to.

 

[bert]

Or you could say it's rewarding players; I'm sure Hoffman would be thrilled if he was given the chance to play 2nd line mins, even if it meant breaking him off the Kid line.

Just playing the kid line as our second is very risky, it's throwing them to the wolves and hoping they can maintain. By moving them up more naturally it allows them to acclimate to the role. Insulating them with vets is hardly a horrible coaching move. Besides, if it doesn't work, you can always fall back on your know commodity.

Something like this:

Mac-Turris-Stone (18 mins)
Hoffman-Zibanejad-Ryan (18 mins)
Michalek-Lazar-Chiasson (14 mins)
Smith-Legwand-Neil (10 mins, shutdown role)

would promote all three members of the kid line, keep known chemistry with Stone on the top line, and provide the needed speed to the 2nd line. It also gives Lazar a chance with some extra mins.

I totally disagree im sorry, no player on a hot streak is thrilled to get moved off a line he has had his first real success with at the NHL level. We have seen what they do with other players Hoffman in particular what do you think this teams record would look like if the rookie line never happened? A lot bigger problems then trying to get the '2nd' line going would be an issue. The sens more or less roll 4 lines for the most part at even strength all they have to do is play them more on the pp. As they earn the ice you increase it, that's exactly whats happening. Right now Zibanejad is not playing any better than Lazar and Ryan or Chiasson are not playing any better than Stone. The rookie line is the 2nd line.

The first line has been good they aren't the issue. Its the rest of the forward group.

* edit I have noticed that some of the same people that want to break up the rook line are the same people suggesting trading with the leafs on the trade board so there are some consistencies.

 

[Back in Black]

Lehner starting. No surprise.

Hope they ain't throwing him to the Wolves!

Damn, we should have traded Michalek for Filip.

Look for Murray/Dorion to make a trade or 2 before the deadline, so who knows.....

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

Or you could say it's rewarding players; I'm sure Hoffman would be thrilled if he was given the chance to play 2nd line mins, even if it meant breaking him off the Kid line.

Just playing the kid line as our second is very risky, it's throwing them to the wolves and hoping they can maintain. By moving them up more naturally it allows them to acclimate to the role. Insulating them with vets is hardly a horrible coaching move. Besides, if it doesn't work, you can always fall back on your know commodity.

Something like this:

Mac-Turris-Stone (18 mins)
Hoffman-Zibanejad-Ryan (18 mins)
Michalek-Lazar-Chiasson (14 mins)
Smith-Legwand-Neil (10 mins, shutdown role)

would promote all three members of the kid line, keep known chemistry with Stone on the top line, and provide the needed speed to the 2nd line. It also gives Lazar a chance with some extra mins.

Exactly.

Also, the few times we've seen Zibanejad with a speedy winger like Hoffman or Lazar, it's looked very effective.

Btw, what's the rush? If it doesn't work, put that line back together, it's not like we are late in April dealing with must win games. We have the opportunity to experiment a bit especially with a better start than expected. We can be even better and give kids chance to succeed under protection of veteran linemates.

 

[Sun God Nika]

Really disappointed we didn't trade up to get Forsberg once he fell out of the top 10.

 

[Micklebot]

Yip that could be the best possible outcome. Or it could kill all the chemistry and we would be left without any lines scoring. I'd take my chance with keeping the kids together and tinkering with the other lines. As it seems to be happening from lines that were at practice.

If the lines aren't working, you can go back mid game. It's not like it would be hard to find them their 10 mins if the new lines don't work.

People are acting like you can't try something new out without completely ruining what you have forever. Nothing is permanent.

 

[Micklebot]

I totally disagree im sorry, no player on a hot streak is thrilled to get moved off a line he has had his first real success with at the NHL level. We have seen what they do with other players Hoffman in particular what do you think this teams record would look like if the rookie line never happened? A lot bigger problems then trying to get the '2nd' line going would be an issue. The sens more or less roll 4 lines for the most part at even strength all they have to do is play them more on the pp. As they earn the ice you increase it, that's exactly whats happening. Right now Zibanejad is not playing any better than Lazar and Ryan or Chiasson are not playing any better than Stone. The rookie line is the 2nd line.

The first line has been good they aren't the issue. Its the rest of the forward group.

* edit I have noticed that some of the same people that want to break up the rook line are the same people suggesting trading with the leafs on the trade board so there are some consistencies.

Really? You think hoffman would be disappointed at playing more mins on the second line? That doesn't sound right to me. Guys that get to this level want to be the best, and thrive on challenges. Playing sheltered mins on the rookie line 10 mins a night might be comfortable, but it's not where Hoffman likely wants to be if he believes in himself.

Playing 10 sheltered mins a night doesn't make them the 2nd line. They are having more success in their current role than our second line, but that is very different than being our second line.

 

[Stone Valley]

9-2 loss.

hahahhh just kidding!

we are not toronto