Speculation: Opening night forward lines

[Le Grec]

Let me be clear. I think your best players should be utilized in the best way possible. Your coaching strategies should be designed with your personnel in mind.

If you have the talent to roll four competent scoring lines, that is what you should do.

If instead you have three extremely talented defensive forwards, you could use them in a shutdown role.

The possibilities are endless, and I firmly believe that there is no reason to pigeonhole yourself into "the fourth line should always do X".

Now, as far as "playing a role"; I'd need to know what that role was and why we need it to answer any questions about it.

I realize I can be frustrated to talk to sometimes because I do not conform to what is expected of people sometimes. I can't answer a question that forces me to choose a side that I sometimes may not agree with.

Dude, you are so not frustrating to talk to.

Unlike some, at least you respond to people who don't have thousands of posts...


Having said that, my favorite 4th line in the last 25 years was the Blake, Lapointe, Webb line...

I can't sum up their value, but man, when those guys finished a shift, the rest of the team woke up...and that's what i think the 4th line is about.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Dude, you are so not frustrating to talk to.

Unlike some, at least you respond to people who don't have thousands of posts...


Having said that, my favorite 4th line in the last 25 years was the Blake, Lapointe, Webb line...

I can't sum up their value, but man, when those guys finished a shift, the rest of the team woke up...and that's what i think the 4th line is about.

That is what a fourth line CAN be about.

It can also be about scoring lines, right?

What do you think energizes a team more? A big hit, or a tape-to-tape saucer that ends up popping off a water bottle?

I think the snipe.

If you don't have the personnel for that, you should consider other options. In my opinion we DO have the personnel to roll four competent scoring lines.

 

[Le Grec]

That is what a fourth line CAN be about.

It can also be about scoring lines, right?

What do you think energizes a team more? A big hit, or a tape-to-tape saucer that ends up popping off a water bottle?

I think the snipe.

If you don't have the personnel for that, you should consider other options. In my opinion we DO have the personnel to roll four competent scoring lines.

It can be about scoring, but i prefer a little diversity.

And let's be honest, what 4th line makes tape-to-tape saucers that end up popping off the water bottle?

Lee is not going to bring that dimension to the 4th line, might as well play the energy guy.

 

[redbull]

That is what a fourth line CAN be about.

It can also be about scoring lines, right?

What do you think energizes a team more? A big hit, or a tape-to-tape saucer that ends up popping off a water bottle?

I think the snipe.

If you don't have the personnel for that, you should consider other options. In my opinion we DO have the personnel to roll four competent scoring lines.

The best teams ever have been assembled with role players across all lines, including teams like Canada Cups and Olympics. Steve Yzerman was left off great teams because of his defensive play, in favour of a guy who can kill penalties. The stats accumulated in individual situations (each team is different) don't translate well to other teams/situations. For example, who would kill penalties on your team if you had four scoring lines?

Now. I can buy the point that MAYBE Cizikas, McDonald, Martin can't do that either. Maybe they are useless in every part of the game but then that doesn't mean our best offensive players (or top CORSI players) should be on the 4th line either. Much of it depends on what is specifically expected of them, who they play against and for what specific role.

The LA Kings had a lot of players who have terrible stats, but their sole job (as it appeared) was to dump, hit, chase, work the boards and the defensemen and get off. The dynasty Isles were built in much the same way.

There's a reason why all the best coaches, GMs on all the best teams, individually assembled and in world tournaments, have been mindful of building teams with balance, not just picking the best scorers. I know you're not specifically saying that's what SHOULD HAPPEN, but my point is that there are other factors besides advanced stats and loose interpretations of on-ice value that can be (likely are) better ways to build a team.

The proof is in the results and the reality of how teams have always been built, the best teams anyway.

Dude, you are so not frustrating to talk to.

Unlike some, at least you respond to people who don't have thousands of posts...


Having said that, my favorite 4th line in the last 25 years was the Blake, Lapointe, Webb line...

I can't sum up their value, but man, when those guys finished a shift, the rest of the team woke up...and that's what i think the 4th line is about.

You can't sum up the value of any of the lines either. We can't be fooled to think that possession stats are any more/less relevant that actual goals/assists are. The game is far too complex to rely on stats in my opinion.

I can't point to a specific stat to tell me Blake Wheeler (69pts, 18min/night) is better/worse than Jonathan Toews (68pts, 20min/night) but I know that Toews stands out as one-of-the best players on the ice in all CHI games, in the Olympics best-on-best.

The VAST majority of this game is in-quantifiable (based on current data), despite best efforts to measure goals/assists/points (since the beginning) and layering on special teams, plus/minus, shooting % in recent years, and now CORSI and Fenwick and whatever.

I appreciate the attempts to quantify things and make decisions, even based on generalizations and assumptions (like possession time is correlated with goals and or scoring chances vs. maybe shots at/on net) but the grain-of-salt in these numbers is mountain-sized.

 

[ekill08x]

I love how we go out an make alls these moves yet the line situation is Pejorative Slured to start? Is the goal to win or just to sell tickets? Why is Conachor starting, let alone on the first line when you have 3 different young players who could be playing there.

You sign Grabbo and Kuleimin to play TOGETHER and before the season starts their separated. Most talented team weve had in years and Capuano is going to completely efff it up with the worst combos he can come up with.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

The LA Kings had a lot of players who have terrible stats, but their sole job (as it appeared) was to dump, hit, chase, work the boards and the defensemen and get off. The dynasty Isles were built in much the same way.

The LA Kings all have FANTASTIC corsi numbers. So I would say it is wholly false that they have players with "terrible stats". If you know what to look for, their stats are magnificent and it is known that the team was built with that in mind (despite Lombardi's efforts to keep it a secret). Best in the league possession stats, in fact, with only Chicago close.

I have a partial season of data from the Three Zones Project, about 55 games.

The Kings dump in about 59% of the time, which is a lot. It is the same as the Coyotes, the Sharks, and the Predators.

Much more importantly, the Kings generate more OPPORTUNITIES to either dump in or carry-in than any other team. For example the Kings had nearly 2000 entries over the same period that the Preds had 1300. To me, that says a whole lot more about the Kings style of play than that they dump-in a lot. They dump-in a lot because they have a lot of zone entries!

If you start with your conclusion, you end up with a lot of bad ideas. If you start with an open mind and use the data to understand what happened you get a better picture.

It appears to you that they dump-in as a general strategy because they dump-in a lot; which they do. However, they only dump-in a lot because they enter the zone all the time because they're such a good Corsi team. It isn't the other way around.

There's a reason why all the best coaches, GMs on all the best teams, individually assembled and in world tournaments, have been mindful of building teams with balance, not just picking the best scorers. I know you're not specifically saying that's what SHOULD HAPPEN, but my point is that there are other factors besides advanced stats and loose interpretations of on-ice value that can be (likely are) better ways to build a team.

The proof is in the results and the reality of how teams have always been built, the best teams anyway.

Chicago Blackhawks aren't built that way. I simply do not accept that "the way things have been done by most" is necessarily the best way to do things. Thinking outside the box sometimes leads to better outcomes and the only way to find out is to test it.

You can't sum up the value of any of the lines either. We can't be fooled to think that possession stats are any more/less relevant that actual goals/assists are.

They're not. They're just another piece of the total picture. Goals and assists are very important. I've never said to the contrary.

The game is far too complex to rely on stats in my opinion.

What would you rely on, if the game is so complex? If the answer is "my eyes" then I would point out that trying to keep track of everything without writing it down in a complex situation is very challenging and highly unreliable.

I can't point to a specific stat to tell me Blake Wheeler (69pts, 18min/night) is better/worse than Jonathan Toews (68pts, 20min/night) but I know that Toews stands out as one-of-the best players on the ice in all CHI games, in the Olympics best-on-best.

Well, here's one way: Jonathan Towes relative CF% is +5.75 for a 59.4% CF in even strength. Blake Wheeler is a relative CF% of -0.61% for a 49.9% CF% in even strength.

Toews is an all-world defensive player and it shows in his CF rel. Wheeler is not, and it also shows in his CF rel.

The VAST majority of this game is in-quantifiable (based on current data), despite best efforts to measure goals/assists/points (since the beginning) and layering on special teams, plus/minus, shooting % in recent years, and now CORSI and Fenwick and whatever.

I appreciate the attempts to quantify things and make decisions, even based on generalizations and assumptions (like possession time is correlated with goals and or scoring chances vs. maybe shots at/on net) but the grain-of-salt in these numbers is mountain-sized.

I'm not going to speak in platitudes here, but the grain of salt here is a hell of a lot smaller than in any other analysis; especially the promise of what your eyes tell you.

You basically said above that there is no stat to tell us why Toews is so much better than Wheeler. I pointed to a stat, the stat I use all the time in similar discussions. If anything, that should cause you to rethink what you've been saying here. There is no excuse not to.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

It can be about scoring, but i prefer a little diversity.

And let's be honest, what 4th line makes tape-to-tape saucers that end up popping off the water bottle?

Lee is not going to bring that dimension to the 4th line, might as well play the energy guy.

We could have a Nelson-Strome-Lee fourth line, that is fourth only in the time it plays. Think those guys wouldn't be popping water bottles?

Why be so closed-minded about the possibilities?

Ryan Strome alone turned Colin McDonald and Matt Martin into a scoring line!

 

[Le Grec]

We could have a Nelson-Strome-Lee fourth line, that is fourth only in the time it plays. Think those guys wouldn't be popping water bottles?

Why be so closed-minded about the possibilities?

Ryan Strome alone turned Colin McDonald and Matt Martin into a scoring line!

Just curious, if that's the 4th line, who would you have on the other lines?

 

[BroadwayJay*]

Just curious, if that's the 4th line, who would you have on the other lines?

I don't know, something like this maybe:

Conacher - Tavares - Okposo
Grabner - Grabovsky - Kulemin
Bailey - Nielsen - Clutterbuck

Tons of different options, I'd say.

 

[islescoop]

Does anyone have an real info on the injuries? I don't recall ever seeing a tweet that Grabner, DeHaan or Viz got injured. They all just seemed to stop playing and now i've seen no updates on the extent of the injuries. I really think Grabner could have a nice year. He looked great in the olympics and word on the street is that Frans taught him how to score on a breakaway (OK, i made up that last part).

 

[Le Grec]

I don't know, something like this maybe:

Conacher - Tavares - Okposo
Grabner - Grabovsky - Kulemin
Bailey - Nielsen - Clutterbuck

Tons of different options, I'd say.

I get what your saying, but personally, i'd prefer having an energy line of Cal, CC & MM.

So are you suggesting benching MM & CC?

 

[stranger34]

These are the lines? WTH? Why do we employ such an idiot at HC?

Conacher-Tavares-Okposo,
Grabovski-Nelson-Strome,
Bailey-Nielsen-Kulemin,
Martin-Cizikas-Clutterbuck

this really aggravates me.

 

[Le Grec]

These are the lines? WTH? Why do we employ such an idiot at HC?

Conacher-Tavares-Okposo,
Grabovski-Nelson-Strome,
Bailey-Nielsen-Kulemin,
Martin-Cizikas-Clutterbuck

this really aggravates me.

To be honest, these lines are better than i expected.


Conacher on the first line is bothering me.

The rest i can live with...

 

[Strummergas]

These are the lines? WTH? Why do we employ such an idiot at HC?

Conacher-Tavares-Okposo,
Grabovski-Nelson-Strome,
Bailey-Nielsen-Kulemin,
Martin-Cizikas-Clutterbuck

this really aggravates me.

Well, seriously, tell me what doesn't?

Is the gripe that Lee is not on the roster?

 

[GutchBoring13]

I get what your saying, but personally, i'd prefer having an energy line of Cal, CC & MM.

So are you suggesting benching MM & CC?

You're basically saying you'd rather have David Eckstein than Hanley Ramirez. To suggest that Matt Martin should play over Anders Lee should be a bannable offense. It's almost criminally dumb.

 

[Le Grec]

You're basically saying you'd rather have David Eckstein than Hanley Ramirez. To suggest that Matt Martin should play over Anders Lee should be a bannable offense. It's almost criminally dumb.

No, i'm suggesting Martin should play on the 4th line, while Lee gets top line minutes in the AHL...

 

[BroadwayJay*]

I get what your saying, but personally, i'd prefer having an energy line of Cal, CC & MM.

So are you suggesting benching MM & CC?

Why not?

I'm just suggesting that we don't foreclose possibilities because of some archaic idea about "how things should be done."

 

[StumpNYI]

I'd rather see a speedy guy on the top line. Lee is not that guy. Sorry. I don't have high hopes for Conacher either, but he may actually have better chemistry with JT than Lee. We have a real problem at 1st LW. I like that Evander Kane trade someone mentioned. In my dreams though.

 

[stranger34]

Well, seriously, tell me what doesn't?

Is the gripe that Lee is not on the roster?

Several things bother me here.

1. Conacher on the first line. I think Conacher playing on JT's line has potential, but it should be a fall back option, not the default. I really wanted Nelson there.

2. I did not want to break up Grabo - Kulemin. They are a proven commodity and play well together. With all these new pieces I liked that JT-KO and Grabo-Kule meant 4 of our top 6 had chemistry and we could come out firing out of the gate. I'm also not sold on Nelson being a top 6 center right now while Grabo is supposedly good defensively. Why are we experimenting instead of trying to win. Top 6 should be Nelson-JT-KO and Strome/Lee - Grabo - Kulie

3. Bailey - Nielsen I like but see above about kulie.

4. My biggest frustration is it looks like this lineup was picked out of a crackerjack box. This organization has been rebuilding since I was in High School. Can we please just try to win rather than play the lets see what we have game with Brock at Center, Conacher on the first line, and spreading out the Russians. Can we also not try to piss everyone off by breaking up 2 guys who came here to play together and by cutting Lee who earned a roster spot in favor of hot garbage like Colin McDonald. Let Conacher sit in the box and wait his turn for an opportunity. He's intriguing to have on some level, but he's lucky to be in the NHL at this point and we hand him the plum assignment? Christ almighty, this joke isn't funny anymore.

 

[redbull]

If you start with your conclusion, you end up with a lot of bad ideas. If you start with an open mind and use the data to understand what happened you get a better picture.

I don't think that's fair to say. Quite the opposite, I think you might be arriving at your conclusion based on a stat that may not be accurate. Hence, the Matt Donovan dilemma. Great stats but he's just struggling so much. Possession and CORSI aside, he carries the puck well, makes smart passes, but his ability to cough up the puck in an instance, or be slow to respond to an on-ice situation (break-out or transition) or blown coverage, leads to a lot of scoring chances and goals against - specifically HIS FAULT.

That's eye test BUT there's supporting video evidence of the SPECIFIC mistakes. That's FAR MORE reliable than general stats - NO?

Yes, you can use the stats, but in the right way.

Chicago Blackhawks aren't built that way. I simply do not accept that "the way things have been done by most" is necessarily the best way to do things. Thinking outside the box sometimes leads to better outcomes and the only way to find out is to test it.

That's a bit of a blanket statement though. Sumo wrestling goalies are also very "out of the box". To suggest something is different doesn't make it better, necessarily.

I'm in favour of advanced stats, absolutely. My skepticism is based on the stats themselves, as they are.

Essentially, these stats (CORSI, Fenwick) aren't good enough. Nowhere close to eye test and video review for specific coaching and analysis.

What would you rely on, if the game is so complex? If the answer is "my eyes" then I would point out that trying to keep track of everything without writing it down in a complex situation is very challenging and highly unreliable.

Eyes and video the vast majority of the time.

Stats can be used in a small way to gain insights, possibly. But the current stats are highly unreliable and unproven as far as I can see.

Well, here's one way: Jonathan Towes relative CF% is +5.75 for a 59.4% CF in even strength. Blake Wheeler is a relative CF% of -0.61% for a 49.9% CF% in even strength.

Toews is an all-world defensive player and it shows in his CF rel. Wheeler is not, and it also shows in his CF rel.

It's unfair to compare CORSI REL from a good team to a bad team, no?

So I've got some more relevant examples below

I'm not going to speak in platitudes here, but the grain of salt here is a hell of a lot smaller than in any other analysis; especially the promise of what your eyes tell you.

You basically said above that there is no stat to tell us why Toews is so much better than Wheeler. I pointed to a stat, the stat I use all the time in similar discussions. If anything, that should cause you to rethink what you've been saying here. There is no excuse not to.

here's a platitude:
Kane's Rel Corsi is the 10th lowest among forwards in CHI. The leader is Jeremy Morin. Ahead of Kane are guys like Peter Regin and Andrew Shaw.

how reliable is this stat? or maybe Kane should be relegated to the 4th line and only play PP? He's not in the line-up to kill penalties or play physical.

There are such examples on all teams. One the NYR, Brad Richards had a far higher CORSI REL than Stepan and St. Louis - maybe they should have kept Richards around?

TEN forwards on the Islanders had a higher CORSI REL than John Tavares, on track for over 90pts before he got hurt.

Is it possible that CORSI Rel is NOT a reliable statistic? More precisely, it's possible that possession time or pucks directed at net/on net while player "X" is on vs. when that player is not on really doesn't tell you much about how effective that player is on the ice? By effective, I mean in generating net offense (offensive chances, or goals/assists or points).

Maybe the correlation is NOT related to causation?
Like the full moon doesn't really cause people to commit more crime?

I don't mean to be facetious. I just don't see the straight correlation between CORSI and player effectiveness.

I would like to hear your response to the Kane example (and there are many many others)

While it's one thing to suggest "well, the stats are accurate so let's see what Jeremy Morin is doing right and Kane is doing wrong" but that seems like a not-so-smart way to interpret the stats, no?

 

[Strummergas]

Several things bother me here.

1. Conacher on the first line. I think Conacher playing on JT's line has potential, but it should be a fall back option, not the default. I really wanted Nelson there.

2. I did not want to break up Grabo - Kulemin. They are a proven commodity and play well together. With all these new pieces I liked that JT-KO and Grabo-Kule meant 4 of our top 6 had chemistry and we could come out firing out of the gate. I'm also not sold on Nelson being a top 6 center right now while Grabo is supposedly good defensively. Why are we experimenting instead of trying to win. Top 6 should be Nelson-JT-KO and Strome/Lee - Grabo - Kulie

3. Bailey - Nielsen I like but see above about kulie.

4. My biggest frustration is it looks like this lineup was picked out of a crackerjack box. This organization has been rebuilding since I was in High School. Can we please just try to win rather than play the lets see what we have game with Brock at Center, Conacher on the first line, and spreading out the Russians. Can we also not try to piss everyone off by breaking up 2 guys who came here to play together and by cutting Lee who earned a roster spot in favor of hot garbage like Colin McDonald. Let Conacher sit in the box and wait his turn for an opportunity. He's intriguing to have on some level, but he's lucky to be in the NHL at this point and we hand him the plum assignment? Christ almighty, this joke isn't funny anymore.

1. Agreed, but let's see how long that lasts and whether or not the combo proves to be ineffective.

2. Grabo - Kulemin had A good season together years ago. That's not to say that they can't rekindle that effectiveness, but it's also not recent enough to set it in stone. And I disagree about Nelson being a Top 6 player. He's looked great so far in pre-season.

4. There's a lot of new faces and they didn't have a lot of time during pre-season to experiment as much as they would've liked. Besides, until there's almost zero roster turnover, the lines are going to change until the find effective combinations.

 

[BroadwayJay*]

I don't think that's fair to say. Quite the opposite, I think you might be arriving at your conclusion based on a stat that may not be accurate. Hence, the Matt Donovan dilemma. Great stats but he's just struggling so much. Possession and CORSI aside, he carries the puck well, makes smart passes, but his ability to cough up the puck in an instance, or be slow to respond to an on-ice situation (break-out or transition) or blown coverage, leads to a lot of scoring chances and goals against - specifically HIS FAULT.

That's eye test BUT there's supporting video evidence of the SPECIFIC mistakes. That's FAR MORE reliable than general stats - NO?

Yes, you can use the stats, but in the right way.

My conclusion has always been that Matt Donovan is a player with promise. I have always accepted that he makes mistakes, but I think the promise that he shows with his possession play warrants continued opportunities.

Your "eye test" is very unreliable, as all are. For example, many people in the GDT were blaming him for a deflection of his skate that went right back to Bergeron. That's absurd, but that is the problem. We got lots of different results from eye tests, which is why they are unreliable.

That's a bit of a blanket statement though. Sumo wrestling goalies are also very "out of the box". To suggest something is different doesn't make it better, necessarily.

No, it doesn't necessarily make it better which is not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that doing the things the same way they've always been done isn't always good. There is nothing wrong with a little bit of outside the box thinking and we'll never know if it works if we don't try it.

I'm in favour of advanced stats, absolutely. My skepticism is based on the stats themselves, as they are.

I think you've been very open-minded about them, which I think you deserve credit for. I've even seen you use them to bolster an argument; which I liked.

Essentially, these stats (CORSI, Fenwick) aren't good enough. Nowhere close to eye test and video review for specific coaching and analysis.

Eyes and video the vast majority of the time.

Stats can be used in a small way to gain insights, possibly. But the current stats are highly unreliable and unproven as far as I can see.

You have to understand, I have always said you also have to watch the game. The point is that you use everything together instead of foreclosing evaluative tools; but if the stats disagree with what you saw you need to rethink what you saw because your eyes can deceive you but the stats can't lie. They can be manipulated, but the raw data is what it is.

It's unfair to compare CORSI REL from a good team to a bad team, no?

Not at all! If anything, positive relative Corsi on a GOOD team tells you that the individual is the cause of that! On a good team it is harder to put up a great relative corsi because your linemates are good. On a bad team it is easier because your linemates are worse. Again, this is why Toews numbers are so impressive.

Kane's Rel Corsi is the 10th lowest among forwards in CHI. The leader is Jeremy Morin. Ahead of Kane are guys like Peter Regin and Andrew Shaw.

how reliable is this stat? or maybe Kane should be relegated to the 4th line and only play PP? He's not in the line-up to kill penalties or play physical.

You have to put it into perspective with QoC, QoT and Zone Starts. Morin has an insane amount of zone starts in the OZ for a guy with very little time. That's the way we explain that stuff. I happened to know that off-hand, but normally I'd look into it and find the answers. Sometimes we can get easy answers, other times we require deeper analysis. It was fortunate you chose Wheeler and Toews because I'd looked at them before in other projects.

There are such examples on all teams. One the NYR, Brad Richards had a far higher CORSI REL than Stepan and St. Louis - maybe they should have kept Richards around?

Brad Richards is a phenomenal player, but he was overpaid. That was why he had to go.

TEN forwards on the Islanders had a higher CORSI REL than John Tavares, on track for over 90pts before he got hurt.

He played too many minutes and he really didn't have a great possession season. Vanek is a poor possession player because he relies on high sh% to succeed as well. Tavares can be better, but this is to be expected when a guy is overused (as he was).

Is it possible that CORSI Rel is NOT a reliable statistic?

Certainly possibly, but that isn't the case. This work has been done over and over again and Corsi relative is an extremely useful statistic by all measure. I've linked the work before, but it is substantial.

More precisely, it's possible that possession time or pucks directed at net/on net while player "X" is on vs. when that player is not on really doesn't tell you much about how effective that player is on the ice? By effective, I mean in generating net offense (offensive chances, or goals/assists or points).

Again, the work has been done on this already. There is very strong correlation.

Maybe the correlation is NOT related to causation?
Like the full moon doesn't really cause people to commit more crime?

I don't mean to be facetious. I just don't see the straight correlation between CORSI and player effectiveness.

Maybe, but by all indications it is. If you don't believe me, take a look at the LA Kings.

I would like to hear your response to the Kane example (and there are many many others)

While it's one thing to suggest "well, the stats are accurate so let's see what Jeremy Morin is doing right and Kane is doing wrong" but that seems like a not-so-smart way to interpret the stats, no?

Kane is a poor defensive player, which is noted in the stats. Toews is a wonderful defensive player.

I can do this all day with individual players, but I won't because it is a lot of work and, frankly, a waste of time. You came up with the examples of Wheeler and Toews and I delivered on the spot. That should be enough to have you think about it and start looking into it yourself.

You have to admit I've done A LOT of work on this material for you in the past. I think you're at a point where you should start investigating it for yourself some and see what you come up with. Your grasp seems to be at a place where you can start doing it on your own, in my opinion.

Don't do it with an agenda though, just see what information you can glean by looking at the stats.

 

[CaptDenisPotvin]

I would rather have Nelson on the first line instead of Conacher, that being said i think he is going to surprise a lot of people on the Islanders boards with how successful he will be on that line. A lot of people wont give him credit if he ends up with a 30 & 30 season because he plays with JT. You cant make everyone happy but i am actually excited to see how that line comes together....call me optimistic. If Conacher can produce on the first line, Nelson can play center on the second line...it could actually make us a deeper team because i dont think Conacher would be nearly as effective as i think he will be with 2nd/3rd line players.

How about we keep it positive FOR ONCE...at least give them one game before the hell, fire & brimstone

 

[BroadwayJay*]

How about we keep it positive FOR ONCE...at least give them one game before the hell, fire & brimstone

 

[stranger34]

1. Agreed, but let's see how long that lasts and whether or not the combo proves to be ineffective.

2. Grabo - Kulemin had A good season together years ago. That's not to say that they can't rekindle that effectiveness, but it's also not recent enough to set it in stone. And I disagree about Nelson being a Top 6 player. He's looked great so far in pre-season.

4. There's a lot of new faces and they didn't have a lot of time during pre-season to experiment as much as they would've liked. Besides, until there's almost zero roster turnover, the lines are going to change until the find effective combinations.

2. I agree Nelson is a top 6 Forward. I want him on the first line. I'm not convinced he is a top 6 center there s a difference. on this squad I'd consider him our 4th best center.