Do teams really need 4 lines?

[johan f]

I think teams would just do fine with 3 lines. Roll them equal and perhaps have one player dressed in case of injury. With all commercial breaks, goal reviews and the regular stoppages in the game there are always time to catch your breath. Add the good stamina players have, how well trained they are and I think all should be factors for managing the minutes. As it is now some players log 3-5 minutes a game. Teams would still have 6 d-men and one of them can fill as extra forward if several forwards gets injured. Today's d-men skates and plays on a whole new level compared with in past. The way d-men are seen is still the same as back when they (most of them) did not were as versatile as today.

I assume NHLPA would have a some words against it, but other than that, what are your thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[Llamamoto]

Nope

 

[Elvs]

With 82 games in the regular sseason, playing 3-4 games per week? Yes.

 

[ZEBROA]

Some coaches should use 3lines in the third more. But not in a full game.

 

[RandV]

Kind of hard to say if you don't have the personal experience of how draining an NHL shift can be, how long it takes to recover and how well you can maintain it playing 3-4 games a week for half the year.

 

[Seanaconda]

Having four lines is good for easing young guys into the lineup / injured guys coming back .

Plus it would probably slow the game down there's only like twenty forwards that average over 20 minutes a game , guys would be gassed / worn down def by play offs.

 

[johan f]

It is 1-3 minutes more per player/game. I think some players in third line would score more regularly if given more ice time. Top line will not get that much more ice time, rather the second and third line.

 

[SoundAndFury]

NHL didn't tell people/coaches to play 4 lines. The game developed that way on its own. There are very few instances (they exist) of teams playing 3 lines but that's mostly not by choice but due to circumstance. So pretty much everyone all over the world agrees 4 lines is the way to go it's really hard to argue otherwise.

Could the game be played with 3 lines only? Sure. But 4 lines is way better and it wasn't imposed by NHL, NHLPA or any other outside power.

 

[Spearmint Rhino]

Have been saying this for years, nobody pays to watch a 4th liner especially since they no longer have the enforcer role. Give me an extra few minutes of the superstars instead of cheap AHL cap filler. If you're worried about fatigue give the coaches a timeout per period

 

[chauron]

Play with 3 lines? The game would slow down way too much when tired players would play all the time. I’d even rather drop 5th player from the line amd play with 4 than have less lines.

I don’t want a slow-paced game, we’ve had that in KHL and it’s really boring to watch

 

[Juxtaposer]

Often times in third periods of close games, especially in the playoffs, fourth lines don’t play at all. So I think the answer is in crunch time, no, but in garbage time, why not.

 

[Just Linda]

I'd say the opposite is needed. Expand the roster size by 1 to let teams dress an extra player (7th d, veteran pp specialist etc).

The game is moving toward a larger roster not a smaller one.

 

[Slyfox]

I think we need to expand to include a 7th dman or a 4th defence pair

 

[not a troll]

The ECHL plays with 3 forward lines.

 

[angusyoung]

Think they need them. If playing 30-45 sec. shifts,back on in a minute/minute and and a half. Not much time to recover properly,would have some crappy third periods when everyone is gassed.

 

[dire wolf]

Weird question: Has any team ever tried not using "lines" and just cycling individual players on and off the ice? The drawback of this is obvious (lack of chemistry and difficult ice time management), but it could also create some match-up difficulties for the other team. Seems like it could work as an occasional strategy for a visiting team - especially in a playoff series.

 

[ManwithNoIdentity]

Just stop already, f***ing hell

 

[bert]

This is a thread where you can identify who played hockey and who didnt.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Weird question: Has any team ever tried not using "lines" and just cycling individual players on and off the ice? The drawback of this is obvious (lack of chemistry and difficult ice time management), but it could also create some match-up difficulties for the other team. Seems like it could work as an occasional strategy for a visiting team - especially in a playoff series.

Why does this question remind me of Joe Sacco's time as the Avs coach? And Roy's? Seems like we just picked lines at random, up until very recently.

 

[Statto]

I think teams would just do fine with 3 lines. Roll them equal and perhaps have one player dressed in case of injury. With all commercial breaks, goal reviews and the regular stoppages in the game there are always time to catch your breath. Add the good stamina players have, how well trained they are and I think all should be factors for managing the minutes. As it is now some players log 3-5 minutes a game. Teams would still have 6 d-men and one of them can fill as extra forward if several forwards gets injured. Today's d-men skates and plays on a whole new level compared with in past. The way d-men are seen is still the same as back when they (most of them) did not were as versatile as today.

I assume NHLPA would have a some words against it, but other than that, what are your thoughts?

I suppose if you wanted the game slower with reduced intensity it would work fine. Shift length would increase and players would train more for stamina and less for speed.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Four lines dates back to at least the 1949-50 NHL season when the NHL went from a 60 to a 70 game RS schedule.

The issue was not 3 to 4 games a week, rather 3 games in 4 nights,still in effect in modern schedules, today.

 

[Future GOAT]

Yes.

 

[greasysnapper]

This is a thread where you can identify who played hockey and who didnt.

Or that one guy on every team who plays like 3-4 minute shifts.

 

[greasysnapper]

Teams absolutely need a 4th line. I also think the teams that do well long term are ones with enough depth to roll 4 solid lines. Under the cap that's a real challenge but the great GM's seem to manage it.

 

[Perratrooper]

I think a better question is:

Do teams need fourth lines to meet the same standard as what is typical. What I mean by this is, would having an extra d-man and then two special teams/energy players who can have a regular shift on any line be more effective than the current norm?

Still probably a large no, but I don't think exploring with the fourth line is the worst idea.