I don't want to see this line together. Having a shared language is not a good reason to suppress our promising centre's growth as a player. Chemistry has been defined as the ability to perform collectively and effectively on the field. In hockey, effectively for forwards normally means racking up points, ideally goals. At the end of the season, the time at which they putatively developed chemistry, there were very few goals. I am attaching Armia's game log, followed by Lehkonen's and Kotkaniemi's. Are these the stats of a line performing effectively, a line with chemistry??
I must have watched 50 passes from Kotkaniemi slide under the stick of the ineffectively whiffing Lehkonen and Armia. I do not thing we should ruin this poor guy's development, playing him with players who cannot convert his passes. Would you put an exciting Francophone prospect on a line with two Francophone prospects who would miss an empty net, because you think Francophones belong together? Is that fair or is it screwed up? You want to see a line of Drouin Chaput and Hudon? How about just creating effective lines regardless of language? In Panarin's rookie year, he managed to figure it out with Kane and Anisimov. Would he have appreciated it if the coach had put him with Tikhonov instead of Kane, so they could chat about their missed opportunities in Russian? Or was he glad he could score instead and celebrate in the universal language of the fist pump?
Enough with the Finnish line with NO FINISH!!
View attachment 245521 View attachment 245523 View attachment 245525