You are completely missing my point Tarheel. I completely accept that if Peters was going to use Wallmark the identical way as he used Kruger, then he would not get the 5 minutes of defense that Kruger gets, so let's set that aside.
My question is why he would feel the need to limit Wallmark to ONLY those 5 minutes of offense WHEN:
1) The rest of the team scored 1 fluky goal in 58 minutes of ice time
2) Wallmark's line was creating offense seemingly every time he was out there and had one of the best scoring chances of the game.
3) Derek Ryan was one of the worst forwards on the team, statistically and eye test last night.
I'm not suggesting play that line 12 minutes, but for a coach that constantly preaches accountability and going with guys that are playing well, etc... he doesn't apply it to Derek Ryan. Ryan's advanced stats were the worst for a forward on the team. It doesn't seem like a catch 22 to me at all to give Wallmark and/or his line a couple more minutes and see if they can create some additional offense.
It likely wouldn't have made a difference in the game so it's not a big deal, just seems inconsistent with what Peters has preached in the past with respect to the hot hand and accountability.
I mean, I'd like Ryan off this team as much as the next guy. I was the one ****ing all over him back when he was leeching points off Skinner to get our Masterton nomination. He's always been a plug in my eyes, just a particularly nice-guy sort of plug who was living the dream for a while there.
But the thing is, the reason Wallmark's line was generating so much offense was because they were sheltered as hell. If you dig down into the shift charts, here are the Devils lines on the ice when Wallmark was on the ice:
1st period
1st shift - Bratt-Zacha-Stafford
2nd shift - Coleman-Zacha-Stafford
2nd period
1st shift - Bratt-Zajac-Stafford
2nd shift - Coleman-Zajac-Noesen
3rd shift - Coleman-Boyle-Noesen
3rd period
1st shift - Bratt-Boyle-Lappin
2nd shift - Bratt-Zacha-Stafford
Devils projected lines, pregame:
Hall-Hischier-Palmieri
Coleman-Zajac-Noesen
Bratt-Zacha-Stafford <---
Pietila-Boyle-Lappin <---
It's pretty obvious what Peters was doing. He was putting Wallmark in a position to have as much success as possible, without ever facing a difficult opponent OR having to start in a disadvantageous position.
So I wouldn't take the fact that his line was generating results as meaning
too much, other than that they can generate moderate levels of offense when given the best possible opportunity to do so. That definitely does not translate into an assumption that they would generate offense under more challenging circumstances -- at least not to the point that you throw him into the deep end after 2 or 3 successful shifts. You still have a game plan that involves other players fulfilling specific roles, and that game plan goes into the dustbin if you start giving your AHL callup line more minutes on a whim.
The only other option at Peters' disposal is to swap Wallmark and Ryan. Now, I'd be all for that. Don't get me wrong. I'd also expect to see Wallmark struggle mightily and everyone here have their pitchforks out after a few games.