Line Combos: New lines and d-pairs in practice (10/10)

[ZeroPT*]

So the lines just aren't working well right now, we need to make changes. I think Reinhart going down is almost an inevitability at this point. Call up Grigorenko and go with this:

Foligno-Ennis-Stafford
Moulson-Grigorenko-Stewart
Mitchell-Girgensons-Gionta
Flynn-McCormick-Deslauriers

Gorges-Myers
Weber-Ristolainen
Zadorov-Meszaros


When Pysyk is healthy we bring him up, waive Strachan, send Zadorov to Finland or something. And roll with that.

 

[mikemcburn]

So the lines just aren't working well right now, we need to make changes. I think Reinhart going down is almost an inevitability at this point. Call up Grigorenko and go with this:

Foligno-Ennis-Stafford
Moulson-Grigorenko-Stewart
Mitchell-Girgensons-Gionta
Flynn-McCormick-Deslauriers

Gorges-Myers
Weber-Ristolainen
Zadorov-Meszaros


When Pysyk is healthy we bring him up, waive Strachan, send Zadorov to Finland or something. And roll with that.

lol

 

[Dunkster19]

So the lines just aren't working well right now, we need to make changes. I think Reinhart going down is almost an inevitability at this point. Call up Grigorenko and go with this:

Foligno-Ennis-Stafford
Moulson-Grigorenko-Stewart
Mitchell-Girgensons-Gionta
Flynn-McCormick-Deslauriers

Gorges-Myers
Weber-Ristolainen
Zadorov-Meszaros


When Pysyk is healthy we bring him up, waive Strachan, send Zadorov to Finland or something. And roll with that.

You left out Hodgson who,played well on Girgensons wing at the end of last year

 

[ZeroPT*]

You left out Hodgson who,played well on Girgensons wing at the end of last year

lol my bad. Swap Flynn with Hodgson, and put CoHo on the 3rd line wing. Mitchell on the 4th line.

Foligno-Ennis-Stafford
Moulson-Grigorenko-Stewart
Hodgson-Girgensons-Gionta
Mitchell-McCormick-Des

 

[ZeroPT*]

lol

I'm sorry I left out Hodgson. It was a simple oversight.

 

[mikemcburn]

I'm sorry I left out Hodgson. It was a simple oversight.

Truly, lol.

On another note, and as someone else flagged to me when I theorized a lineup with Grigorenko in the 2C slot, the likelihood of Nolan giving the kid top 6 this season may be rather slim. Don't recall getting much input to my question of Grigorenko's playing style though - can anyone around here sum that up? Is he a more offensive and playing-making styled type, or the two-way variety, or?

Going back to your Hodgson, you know... if you pushed the blinders out just a bit to widen the view, you may just see that regardless of the lapses in the kid's game, he's a by far better option in the top 6 than, say, Foligno and Stafford. It's equally true that both Foligno and Stafford are far more suited to a 3rd line shut down/checking role than Hodgson

 

[ZeroPT*]

Your affinity with Hodgson is getting annoying. Your judgement is extremely clouded because of this. It's not a checking line. We don't have a checking line. The NHL basically doesn't use dedicated checking lines. All 4 lines have to be able to skate, play good defensively and generate offense.

Look at the kings. Their top 9 is:

Gaborik-Kopitar-Williams
Pearson-Carter-Toffoli
King-Stoll-Brown

All three lines generate offense, there is no strict checking line.

The Hodgson-Girgensons-Gionta line would not be a checking line. They'd be a secondary scoring line.

 

[Husko]

I really really really want Grigorenko and Girgensons together if MG gets called up. Something tells me they could be really, really good together. Two big, fast bodies that play different games? Yes please.

Moulson-Hodgson/Ennis-Stafford
Grigorenko-Girgensons-Stewart
Foligno-Hodgson/Ennis-Gionta
Des-McCormick-Flynn


It really sucks for Girgensons that he's the only one of our top three centers that plays a competent enough defensive game so he gets stuck playing with Gionta, Foligno, Mitchell, etc.

 

[mikemcburn]

Your affinity with Hodgson is getting annoying. Your judgement is extremely clouded because of this. It's not a checking line. We don't have a checking line. The NHL basically doesn't use dedicated checking lines. All 4 lines have to be able to skate, play good defensively and generate offense.

Look at the kings. Their top 9 is:

Gaborik-Kopitar-Williams
Pearson-Carter-Toffoli
King-Stoll-Brown

All three lines generate offense, there is no strict checking line.

The Hodgson-Girgensons-Gionta line would not be a checking line. They'd be a secondary scoring line.

Then we're 1 for 1, because the anti Hodgson view is equally annoying. None of these guys look to be in a good position to excel at what they do best and the constant harping on any player for being stuck in this situation isn't just annoying - it borders on irrational.

In any case, teams sure do deploy "checking lines", by whatever label, and it isn't uncommon for individual players to have clearly defined roles - like shutting down opposing 1st liners, and all the better if producing the odd goal too. It's also a common enough practice for teams to roll the 3rd and/or 4th lines as mainly energy boosters, without heavy expectation for producing offense.

As for the Sabres, it should have a purely "checking line", seeing how there are more players on the current roster suitable to the role than there are guys suitable to rely upon for producing offense. I'd also argue that the Sabres do have a "checking line", anchored by Girgensens so far.

But hey, you clearly know all things hockey so much better, while I'm just shooting around ideas ;-)

 

[ZeroPT*]

Then we're 1 for 1, because the anti Hodgson view is equally annoying. None of these guys look to be in a good position to excel at what they do best and the constant harping on any player for being stuck in this situation isn't just annoying - it borders on irrational.

In any case, teams sure do deploy "checking lines", by whatever label, and it isn't uncommon for individual players to have clearly defined roles - like shutting down opposing 1st liners, and all the better if producing the odd goal too. It's also a common enough practice for teams to roll the 3rd and/or 4th lines as mainly energy boosters, without heavy expectation for producing offense.

As for the Sabres, it should have a purely "checking line", seeing how there are more players on the current roster suitable to the role than there are guys suitable to rely upon for producing offense. I'd also argue that the Sabres do have a "checking line", anchored by Girgensens so far.

But hey, you clearly know all things hockey so much better, while I'm just shooting around ideas ;-)

I'm a huge Hodgson fan. I'm not in the anit-Hodgson group. I just don't have a huge man crush like you do.

Girgensons line has still been able to create chances. Just because it's the 3rd line doesn't mean the line is an auto checking line like you seem to think. The lines have basically been used as 3 scoring lines and an energy line. The top 3 lines all get similar ice time. So it's not a checking line, it's a secondary scoring line. Hodgson looked good with Z at the tail end of last year, so matching the two together again would make sense.

 

[phosphene*]

Your affinity with Hodgson is getting annoying. Your judgement is extremely clouded because of this. It's not a checking line. We don't have a checking line. The NHL basically doesn't use dedicated checking lines. All 4 lines have to be able to skate, play good defensively and generate offense.

Look at the kings. Their top 9 is:

Gaborik-Kopitar-Williams
Pearson-Carter-Toffoli
King-Stoll-Brown

All three lines generate offense, there is no strict checking line.

The Hodgson-Girgensons-Gionta line would not be a checking line. They'd be a secondary scoring line.

King-Stoll-Brown is clearly a checking line, despite their ability to create offense.

 

[joshjull]

I really really really want Grigorenko and Girgensons together if MG gets called up. Something tells me they could be really, really good together. Two big, fast bodies that play different games? Yes please.

Moulson-Hodgson/Ennis-Stafford
Grigorenko-Girgensons-Stewart
Foligno-Hodgson/Ennis-Gionta
Des-McCormick-Flynn


It really sucks for Girgensons that he's the only one of our top three centers that plays a competent enough defensive game so he gets stuck playing with Gionta, Foligno, Mitchell, etc.

I'm not sure why you feel Grigs is fast.

 

[Jame]

Nobody should be a "huge" Hodgson fan at this point

 

[joshjull]

Your affinity with Hodgson is getting annoying. Your judgement is extremely clouded because of this. It's not a checking line. We don't have a checking line. The NHL basically doesn't use dedicated checking lines. All 4 lines have to be able to skate, play good defensively and generate offense.

Look at the kings. Their top 9 is:

Gaborik-Kopitar-Williams
Pearson-Carter-Toffoli
King-Stoll-Brown

All three lines generate offense, there is no strict checking line.

The Hodgson-Girgensons-Gionta line would not be a checking line. They'd be a secondary scoring line.

King-Stoll-Brown is clearly a checking line, despite their ability to create offense.

Just a FYI.

The Kings top line in the playoffs was Gaborik/Kopitar/Brown. I wouldn't use their current experiment with Williams on the top line as a argument for anything just yet. I would also add they have in the past moved Williams around quite a bit through lines 1-3. He had played mostly on the 3rd line when he won the Conn Smythe. King/Stoll/Williams was their most common 3rd line combo in the playoffs.

 

[ZeroPT*]

King-Stoll-Brown is clearly a checking line, despite their ability to create offense.

They aren't a checking/shutdown line. They can, but that's not their job. They weren't assembled to shutdown opponents.

Even though they can. It's just a great, versatile line. They can create offense, play defensively and check. But the days of a trio assembled to shutdown the opponents top players are done.

 

[ZeroPT*]

Nobody should be a "huge" Hodgson fan at this point

I've always been a fan of him and I think he has potential to really round out his game. Around the right team I can see him potting 25 goals and roughly 50-55 points.
I mean, he scored like a regular 2nd liner on a team that scored 30+ goals less that the 2nd worst offensive team.

 

[joshjull]

I've always been a fan of him and I think he has potential to really round out his game. Around the right team I can see him potting 25 goals and roughly 50-55 points.
I mean, he scored like a regular 2nd liner on a team that scored 30+ goals less that the 2nd worst offensive team.

Rounding out his game implies he finally starts getting it defensively. With more talented teammates he will definitely produce more offense but its his liabilities on the defense side of things that are the issue. Can that get rounded out?

 

[mikemcburn]

I'm a huge Hodgson fan. I'm not in the anit-Hodgson group. I just don't have a huge man crush like you do.

Girgensons line has still been able to create chances. Just because it's the 3rd line doesn't mean the line is an auto checking line like you seem to think. The lines have basically been used as 3 scoring lines and an energy line. The top 3 lines all get similar ice time. So it's not a checking line, it's a secondary scoring line. Hodgson looked good with Z at the tail end of last year, so matching the two together again would make sense.

The man crush comment is gross and unwarranted.

Anyhow, you seem a bit fixated on the whole "checking line" label, so let it go if it bothers you? Truly, it's not useful to put words in my mouth, as the saying goes - and nowhere have I suggested that the 3rd line, whether or not deployed as a predominantly "checking line", shouldn't be looking to produce offense. Obviously, no matter the label (checking, energy, shut-down, scoring, secondary scoring, etc.), ideally every line produces offense while shutting out the opposition, or at least being defensively sound.

I'll revert to my point - Hodgson is a far better pick for a offense-first spot than Foligno or Stafford, who themselves are far better picks than Hodgson for defense-first/secondary-scoring second roles.

Adding to your comment re: Girgensens & Hodgson together, yep, a likely duet, showed some promise. But if you want to see the line as a genuine secondary scoring option, you need a Stewart or Moulson type on the other wing. At least I don't see Gionta as being the right fit.

 

[ZeroPT*]

Rounding out his game implies he finally starts getting it defensively. With more talented teammates he will definitely produce more offense but its his liabilities on the defense side of things that are the issue. Can that get rounded out?

With more talented teammates the responsibilty isn't as large. That's why I think he did well with Z.

If Hodgson were on the Hawks, his defensive shortcomings wouldn't be so evident. In fact, I think that's why we're noticing he and Ennis more. Because the team is so bad, their weaknesses are even more apparent, but on a better team, they wouldn't be.

The man crush comment is gross and unwarranted.

Anyhow, you seem a bit fixated on the whole "checking line" label, so let it go if it bothers you? Truly, it's not useful to put words in my mouth, as the saying goes - and nowhere have I suggested that the 3rd line, whether or not deployed as a predominantly "checking line", shouldn't be looking to produce offense. Obviously, no matter the label (checking, energy, shut-down, scoring, secondary scoring, etc.), ideally every line produces offense while shutting out the opposition, or at least being defensively sound.

I'll revert to my point - Hodgson is a far better pick for a offense-first spot than Foligno or Stafford, who themselves are far better picks than Hodgson for defense-first/secondary-scoring second roles.

Adding to your comment re: Girgensens & Hodgson together, yep, a likely duet, showed some promise. But if you want to see the line as a genuine secondary scoring option, you need a Stewart or Moulson type on the other wing. At least I don't see Gionta as being the right fit.

Why not? since they're the 3rd line they could play weaker competition which would allow CoHo to exploit the opponents even more. The top line and 2nd line would generally draw the more difficult assignments which would allow the 3rd line to go up against the 3rd D pairing and the bottom 6, which would in turn allow more offensive freedom.
If you want to drop the "checking line" label, go ahead. But the reality is that in the modern day NHL, the 3rd line can get easy zone starts and friednly match ups, whereas before it would be the 3rd line that would draw top assignments and the opponents top lines.

As for Gionta I had thought of that. I think dropping Stewart down to play with Z and Cody would work but I'd like to see what he could do with Grigorenko should he come up.

 

[mikemcburn]

With more talented teammates the responsibilty isn't as large. That's why I think he did well with Z.

If Hodgson were on the Hawks, his defensive shortcomings wouldn't be so evident. In fact, I think that's why we're noticing he and Ennis more. Because the team is so bad, their weaknesses are even more apparent, but on a better team, they wouldn't be.

Why not? since they're the 3rd line they could play weaker competition which would allow CoHo to exploit the opponents even more. The top line and 2nd line would generally draw the more difficult assignments which would allow the 3rd line to go up against the 3rd D pairing and the bottom 6, which would in turn allow more offensive freedom.

If you want to drop the "checking line" label, go ahead. But the reality is that in the modern day NHL, the 3rd line can get easy zone starts and friednly match ups, whereas before it would be the 3rd line that would draw top assignments and the opponents top lines.

As for Gionta I had thought of that. I think dropping Stewart down to play with Z and Cody would work but I'd like to see what he could do with Grigorenko should he come up.

I'm not following you.

"Why not?" what? From your bold/emphasis flag, it seems you were responding there to my comment that nowhere did I say that the 3rd line, whether or not predominantly iced in a shut down role, shouldn't be looking for offense. Are you really asking "why not?" to that?

In any case, if you want to shove Hodgson into a line that you figure will see easier match ups, then don't plug him with Girgensens. That's my opinion anyway - you'd waste all that Girgensens brings to the table if you don't deliberately deploy him against the toughest match ups.

As much as I like Hodgson's upside (way more so if he can be coached out of the sticky stick mentality) and get a kick from seeing Ennis' heart on his sleeve, Girgensens appears to be the closest thing Sabres have to a real meal deal center. Be interesting, at least, to see if he can continue his game within a 1C role...

 

[joshjull]

With more talented teammates the responsibilty isn't as large. That's why I think he did well with Z.

If Hodgson were on the Hawks, his defensive shortcomings wouldn't be so evident. In fact, I think that's why we're noticing he and Ennis more. Because the team is so bad, their weaknesses are even more apparent, but on a better team, they wouldn't be.

I think your blending two different things. Being with better teammates and being with a strong overall defensive team.

Because Hodgson can be with better teammates, produce more and still be a liability defensively. All you need to do is look at his games with Vanek/Pommer. He was one of the worst forwards in goals allowed per 60mins played for a good amount of his time playing with them. And Pommer is a pretty solid two way player. Obviously with the Hawks he can definitely have his defensive flaws masked more. But from a Sabres pov, we a quite a ways away from having the two way and defensive players they have throughout their lineup.

EDIT: Hodgson issues defensively is why I was hoping the switch to wing worked out. It would make it much easier to mitigate his defensive issues as we build around stronger two way centers.