Boston Bruins The 4th Line Dilemma

[Alan Ryan]

I like Nash. People act like PKers are so replaceable like it is a skill every player is good at. Swap Nash and Czarnik and I guarantee you we aren't 1st in the league on the PK last year. Obviously his big knock is that he probably has the worst shot in the entire league, but for a 4th liner he also has some pretty decent hands and vision.

I really think people underestimate how well liked Nash is by his teammates as well. Everytime I saw him interacting on the bench he and the other player were all smiles.

I also like Nash. I'm pleased he will center the 4th line this season.

 

[Alan Ryan]

Clean/Dirty...If you want to hit, you should fight. **** it, if you get hit, you should fight as well. Everyone should fight.

Are you being serious or just being flip?

 

[Alan Ryan]

People here would change their tune if they had ever been in a hockey fight. Hitting a helmet or visor with your hand is not fun. No one wins when you're throwing bombs at each other's helmet. In a league where you have to have skill in addition to your toughness, breaking your hand continually isn't going to help your career.

The NHL has been trying to reduce/eliminate hits to the head and resulting concussions.

A punch is a designed hit to the head. No other way to interpret it.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Thanks.

It's a long season. 4th and 3rd grinder (veteran - or kids that play like that) lines might not win you every game - but over the course of awhile, if you're not pushing the play, laying the body, forechecking, dropping the gloves, pressuring the other teams d-men - then they're most likely doing it to your team. And I don't want Krejci etc. having to penalty kill all the time.
I definitely want the bottom six to be able to add some offence but truthfully - that's why I would spend a few extra million on those lines and get someone who can.

I'm not against skill. If I take it back a century or so, Kent Nilsson was one of my all time faves. But he was so much better when they brought in Joel Otto.
Krejci's best was unsurprisingly when you had Kelly, Peverley and the Merlot Line as it opened him up to be an offensive player.

Third and fourth lines are simply not playing in a vacuum - they bring energy to their teammates (if you've ever played a sport you'll know how much of a rush you get when someone whom rarely scores or isn't as good as you makes great plays or scores. Especially those players who give it their all - all the time. Often it's more important to you than winning.) and if they can play those heavy minutes - the good players are more rested and will shine.

If you have a 3rd line that can push the play, possess the puck and score, that’s different from a grinding line, but no less effective.

The initial question I asked still remains. Why can’t you have a 4th line that does a little bit of everything? Put three guys out there with different skill sets that compliment one another. And while I get the PK angle to rest the Top 6, many of the B’s young players are capable defensive players that can contribute more offensively than your traditional 4th liner

 

[BruinsFanSince94]

Are you being serious or just being flip?

Oh no. I'm being very sarcastic there.

 

[b in vancouver]

If you have a 3rd line that can push the play, possess the puck and score, that’s different from a grinding line, but no less effective.

The initial question I asked still remains. Why can’t you have a 4th line that does a little bit of everything? Put three guys out there with different skill sets that compliment one another. And while I get the PK angle to rest the Top 6, many of the B’s young players are capable defensive players that can contribute more offensively than your traditional 4th liner

_initial question - Ideally you'd have a 4th line that could do everything. but then it'd be your 3rd line.

Personally I'd be much more concerned with - if they get stuck out there against Backstrom and Ovechkin whether they're running around or can get the puck out of the zone and change. Or whether they understand when to dump it in as compared to trying to deke someone out and possibly turn it over. Or when it's a good time to just send a weak shot at the net, knowing you won't score but trying to get an o-zone face-off so the actual offensive players get a chance. Or when it's time to take the body or the angle.
Young players often have a tendency to try and do too much.

If you have a grinding 4th line that is good defensively, takes the body, wears out the other team, knows how to get the puck out of the zone and can score 8-15 goals a year while dropping the gloves every once in awhile - I think that's what you should be looking for. Anymore is gravy. The extra couple goals you get (and it'll be few more) will be lost.

Not sure if I'm making as much sense as I meant. Had it perfectly in my head earlier but then start typing.

 

[b in vancouver]

If you have a 3rd line that can push the play, possess the puck and score, that’s different from a grinding line, but no less effective.

The initial question I asked still remains. Why can’t you have a 4th line that does a little bit of everything? Put three guys out there with different skill sets that compliment one another. And while I get the PK angle to rest the Top 6, many of the B’s young players are capable defensive players that can contribute more offensively than your traditional 4th liner

Secondly though - 3rd line should be your utility line.
At least two of the three guys on that line need to be players you don't need to shelter. They should be able to shelter your second line which should be more offensive. They'll probably be out there with lesser defensemen. And ideally take the bulk of d-zone draws.
- prime Chris Kelly or Rolston.
But - you're going to have to spend a few bucks on them.

 

[finchster]

The best fourth line the Bruins had was the brief lived Marchand - Campbell - Thornton, until Marchand blew the doors open. I get that Marchand has grit, but let's just tell the truth that a grinder is a low skilled player who needs to out work everyone to have any effectiveness. First and foremost, a line needs chemistry; if it has that and doesn't hurt the team, then the make up of the fourth line is irrelevant.

 

[Estlin]

A fourth line of Gabrielle-Kuraly-Czarnik would look pretty good, but I understand that Gabrielle would probably benefit more from a year in Providence.

 

[Blowfish]

What does Schaller/Nash bring that Czarnik doesn’t?

If Czarnik were not out with crazy virus he would be playing. He showed strength pp and pk. In fact, his speed closes gaps much faster than the Schaller/Nash. Can't wait to see him next to Spooner.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Secondly though - 3rd line should be your utility line.
At least two of the three guys on that line need to be players you don't need to shelter. They should be able to shelter your second line which should be more offensive. They'll probably be out there with lesser defensemen. And ideally take the bulk of d-zone draws.
- prime Chris Kelly or Rolston.
But - you're going to have to spend a few bucks on them.

You are welcome to your opinion, that’s what this place is for, but I don’t share it. As they like to say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. You talk about your plan as if it’s the only way to do things. Third line utility and shelter second line...fourth line bang bodies and wear teams down.

You casually say the third line will be out there with “lesser defenseman” so they need to have two guys that don’t need to be sheltered. Unless the B’s are playing an all-star team, they will be facing someone who also has “lesser D” on the ice, so ideally I want some guys on that line that can take advantage of that.

I keep hearing that the B’s don’t have superstar prospects, but a lot of depth. You say that my idea of a 4th line should be the 3rd line, but why not take advantage of that depth and ice a Bottom 6 that has versatility? Your model sounds to me like the same old thing, Top 6 that does most of the damage Bottom 6 that’s responsible, defensively oriented, and occasionally helps chip in goals.

As the game evolves and there is even less physicality (sorry folks, it’s here and going to get worse), teams won’t be able to do the same old thing.

 

[ODAAT]

You're going to hit you should learn to fight. I don't want a Matt Cooke or another guy who hits but won't back it up.

All I got

 

[b in vancouver]

You are welcome to your opinion, that’s what this place is for, but I don’t share it. As they like to say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. You talk about your plan as if it’s the only way to do things. Third line utility and shelter second line...fourth line bang bodies and wear teams down.

You casually say the third line will be out there with “lesser defenseman” so they need to have two guys that don’t need to be sheltered. Unless the B’s are playing an all-star team, they will be facing someone who also has “lesser D” on the ice, so ideally I want some guys on that line that can take advantage of that.

I keep hearing that the B’s don’t have superstar prospects, but a lot of depth. You say that my idea of a 4th line should be the 3rd line, but why not take advantage of that depth and ice a Bottom 6 that has versatility? Your model sounds to me like the same old thing, Top 6 that does most of the damage Bottom 6 that’s responsible, defensively oriented, and occasionally helps chip in goals.

As the game evolves and there is even less physicality (sorry folks, it’s here and going to get worse), teams won’t be able to do the same old thing.

I don't think my way is the only way to do anything - I'm usually lucky to put together full thoughts most days, and even then, half the time I disagree with myself. I definitely understand the allure of having a more skilled puck possession 4th line (as well as a scoring 3rd line) - just pointing out the other side of things - as best I'm understanding the discussion.

I don't think the game has changed as much as a lot of other fans do and haven't seen a noticeable shift to speed that other people have. It is changing, but I don't think it has just yet and will probably be a few more years before we really see it.

We agree 100% on wanting an effective 4th line. It's why you started the thread and why I jumped into it a bunch.
I'm a big proponent of 'depth wins' and think teams are starting to hem themselves in by over-paying one or two players at the top of the roster at the expense of their third and fourth lines. I'm not against talent on the fourth line - it's just not my #1 concern with them. I think they can be a key part of a team's success.

You need players that are fine playing 3-10 minutes a night without complaint and understand their role and where in the game you are. Often I think that comes with a bit of experience.

Also teams can be lethargic and you need that spark from your fourth line. A nice possession shift is great - but sometimes you need someone to go out there and instigate a fight, not to protect anyone, but to get your bench riled up (even nowadays with the refs jumping in). Sometimes you need someone running around trying to put players through the boards. Or getting into a scrum.

and other stuff I've rambled on about. lost my plot again. lol

 

[BruinsFanSince94]

All I got

Putting Matt Cooke and Noel Acciari in the same sentence. I can't believe where at a point where if you're a physical player, you need to fight. Just absurd....And I love fighting in hockey.

 

[b in vancouver]

Glory daze,
Just to let you know - how I know I'm rarely right.
I actually liked them bringing in Ronaldo. I thought - sure he's an idiot, but now he's our idiot, and you need someone running around out there every once in awhile. I thought Connolly was going to settle into being an incredibly effective 3rd liner. I really liked the Hamill pick. etc, etc, etc.

 

[Krupp]

I honestly would've thought Belesky would pair well with Nash on the fourth line. In that sense, he can be assured that if he doesn't reach 12-15 goals, his job's not at risk, and he could focus more on playing a forechecking game while also working to start helping out more on the PK side of things. To me, that'd be ideal.

I appreciate that Nash helps take a load off of Bergy and Marchy on the PK. I always have. I'm still torn on Acciari, but I like the physicality. If he can bring more than that this year, i'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Secondly though - 3rd line should be your utility line.
At least two of the three guys on that line need to be players you don't need to shelter. They should be able to shelter your second line which should be more offensive. They'll probably be out there with lesser defensemen. And ideally take the bulk of d-zone draws.
- prime Chris Kelly or Rolston.
But - you're going to have to spend a few bucks on them.

Why? Why should that be "the way" to organize your team? It in fact isn't the only way and other teams have structured it different ways and been successful (or structured it in different ways and not been successful).

Pittsburgh has won Cups and did it the last 2 times with 3rd lines that weren't at all like that. So I totally disagree with the word "should" in your first sentence.

The reason why the 2 scoring lines, 1 checking line, 1 line of scrubs who can fight system came about was because there simply weren't enough skilled players to produce more than that. Well, maybe now there is. Maybe it's better to put out 4 skilled lines than 2. Why can't a 3rd line be counted on to score? Why not the 4th?

There's an antiquated thinking sometimes in sports. IDK maybe it's being in a town that sees Bill Belichick coach and throw conventional wisdom aside to do things... but doing something because it was done that way 40 years ago, and saying "that's they way it should be" doesn't seem like a good enough reason to do something.

 

[Over the volcano]

If the 4th line is the dilemma then the team is alright. I'd be more concerned with a top six that depends on two rookies (as much as I like these kids).

 

[b in vancouver]

Quincy - you didn't read my next two? I'm not trying to imply that's the only way. (although I do feel 3rd lines are hard to 'shelter') - and actually agree with you guys to many extents.

I don't know if The Bruins currently have the horses to control the puck and over-play other teams 3rd and 4th lines. Hopefully they do. But I'd be more comfortable if they could grind it out a bit more as I don't really need (personally) to see a lot of flash from the bottom half.

A few years back, you could tell that the Bruins were going to win when trailing at the end of the first because they were engaged and hitting and you just knew that the other teams defence were going to be exhausted and coughing up the puck in the 3rd period. Lots of games I'd prefer if they were losing 1-0 as compared to winning 1-0 - if they were hitting because I knew the top lines would expose them. The team doesn't have Lucic and Horton on the top lines anymore - so I think that's gotta come from somewhere.

Against my argument (which isn't really an argument) - Calgary just kept Tanner Glass in the line-up while sending down Jankowski. (?)

One that doesn't really fit the grind it out though but kinda fits. When Vancouver brought in Maholtra to be a face-off/defensive specialist it really opened up Kessler (whom was no slouch in either) to score 40 that year and (undeservedly) win the Selke.

 

[b in vancouver]

If the 4th line is the dilemma then the team is alright. I'd be more concerned with a top six that depends on two rookies (as much as I like these kids).

Ya. And Pasta isn't exactly a vet. Spooner's still a bit of a question mark.

Been trying to delete this post but can't see how... ?

 

[BruinDust]

Ya. And Pasta isn't exactly a vet. Spooner's still a bit of a question mark.

I guess the Leafs should be really concerned based on this, you know, running a forward group with no less than five 2nd year forwards.

 

[b in vancouver]

I guess the Leafs should be really concerned based on this, you know, running a forward group with no less than five 2nd year forwards.

Matthews, Marner, Nylander, Brown - can't think of the 5th? (is there one I'm forgetting?) They have Marleau, Kadri, Komarov, Fehr and Martin I think in their bottom 6. And at the moment - the only one that belongs in the conversation with M, M, N - is Pastrnak. (although hopefully Bjork and DeBrusk work themselves into it)
I might be wrong but I think Toronto picked up and kept some o.k.ish unspectacular vets so the kids wouldn't have to do the defensive lifting.

 

[LouJersey]

Moulson-Larsson-Josefson
Nordstrom-kruger-Jooris
Dalpe-Sedlak-Hannikainen
Booth-Glendening-Sheahan
mcAnn-MacKenzie-Scevior
Byron-Mitchell-Hemsky
Wood-Coleman-Noesen
Kulemin-Cizikas-Clutterbuck
Vesey-Desharnais-Carey
McCormick-Thompson-Pyatt
Raffl-Laughton-Leier
Wilson-Rowney-Reaves
Kunitz-Paquette-Dumont
Martin-Fehr-Brown
Wilson-Beagle-DSP
Shaw-Rasmussen-Boll
Matinook-Richardson-Fischer
Glass-Stajan-Hathaway
Hayden-Kero-Wingels
Comeau-Jost-Nieto
ROusell-Faksa-Cracknell
Khaira-Letestu-Kassian
Clifford-Shore-Lewis
Winnik-Cullen-Stewart
McLeod-Jarnkrok-Watson
Karlsson-Tierny-Ward
Upshall-Brodziak-Thorburn
Burmistrov-Sutter-Virtanen
Carrier-Karlsson-Bellemare
Tanev-Matthias-Dano

 

[BruinDust]

Matthews, Marner, Nylander, Brown - can't think of the 5th? (is there one I'm forgetting?) They have Marleau, Kadri, Komarov, Fehr and Martin I think in their bottom 6. And at the moment - the only one that belongs in the conversation with M, M, N - is Pastrnak. (although hopefully Bjork and DeBrusk work themselves into it)
I might be wrong but I think Toronto picked up and kept some o.k.ish unspectacular vets so the kids wouldn't have to do the defensive lifting.

The fifth 2nd year guy is Hyman.

And I'm not trying to say the Bruins young forwards (outside Pastrnak) is on the same level as Matthews/Marner/Nylander, just that running multiple young forwards isn't a major concern, unless they aren't producing.

Certainly the Leafs line-up structure isn't the be-all, end-all, but I think there are things about how they are structured that teams can take away from and use to their own benefit, and how they use each line to get the most out of them.

Notice they have a 4th line that is 2/3 traditional with Martin + Fehr/Moore. The outlier is Brown, a 20 goal scorer. Note that they use Brown on the 2nd PP unit, while Fehr kills penalties. Kapanen was in Brown's spot to end last year before they got Marleau.

Boston's comparable would be Acciari + Nash, with Acciari in the Martin role (minus the fighting aspect) and Nash as Fehr/Moore, the PKer. They should go find a "Brown/Kapanen from the cast of Vatrano/Debrusk/Heinen.

If you go further up the line-up, the Leafs "all-in-one" line comparable to Bergeron's with Bjork is JVR/Bozak/Marner. Two solid veteran's who can play both ways with a young offensively skilled player.

If I was Boston, I'd try to create a poor-man's Hyman-Matthews-Nylander with Kuraly-Spooner-Pastrnak. Hyman is the forechecking, dig pucks out guy on this line, Babcock says he's one of the strongest forecheckers in the league. Let that be Kuraly. Babcock gets the most out of this line by paying attention to match-ups when he can.

Finally, I'd try Belesky-Krejci-Backes as the Marleau-Kadri-Komarov, a line with veteran players, who are experienced enough to handle most hard match-ups, and offensively gifted enough to produce. Giving these guys some more hard match-ups should in theory benefit the Bergeron line from an offensive standpoint. Don't tax Marchand and Bergeron so much, considering they already kill penalties, play 1st PP duty. Why force them into all the hard match-ups when you don't have to. They'll still go up against top players, just lighten the load a bit.

 

[NDiesel]

I honestly would've thought Belesky would pair well with Nash on the fourth line. In that sense, he can be assured that if he doesn't reach 12-15 goals, his job's not at risk, and he could focus more on playing a forechecking game while also working to start helping out more on the PK side of things. To me, that'd be ideal.

I appreciate that Nash helps take a load off of Bergy and Marchy on the PK. I always have. I'm still torn on Acciari, but I like the physicality. If he can bring more than that this year, i'll be pleasantly surprised.

This is actually what I want, he didn't look great in preseason, I tend to wonder if part of it is he's trying a bit too hard to chip in offensively and getting away from the more simple game he played in Anaheim. I would like this with everyone healthy:

Marchand-Bergeron-Bjork
DeBrusk-Krejci-Pastrnak
Spooner-Backes-Czarnik
Beleskey-Nash-Acciari/Vatrano/Kuraly

I obviously know it's unrealistic that they move Spooner to the wing and Backes to center, but I am unsure if Backes or Czarnik would be able to play their off wing and both deserve to be on the 3rd line. I think this lineup would have the right mix of speed/defense/grit on every single line. You plug whoever onto that 4th line based on who's playing well and based on who we play.

I think we have to stop expecting Beleskey to live up to his 3.8 mil price tag. Let's put him into a spot where he at least brings something and hope he gives us at least $2 mil worth in production and grit.