Pettersson on 2nd pair

[Strakanator]

I think this is the best option for covering up the current flawed defense:

It is looking like JJ’s contract was unable to be moved. That means JJ has 4 more years at a decent cap hit. They are not sitting him. The best place for JJ is on the bottom pair:

Letang-Dumo
Schultz-Pettersson
JJ-Gudz

This means a JJ and Gudzilla 3rd pairing! While horrible, this is by far the best option since neither player is going to be sat. Both players will see limited ice team vs weaker competition.

The Pens could play the top 2 pairs 80% of the game. That means the bottom pair would only be playing 20% of the game vs 3rd and 4th lines. This is the best deployment of our defense without scratching JJ every game (which we all know is not going to realistically happen.)

Click to read more...

 

[Peat]

I'd got three objections to this as a solution.

First is, I'm not sure expecting Sully to only field his 3rd pairing for 20% of the game is all that realistic either. He's not liked doing that to date.

Second - I'm not sure Pettersson-Schultz is all that clever an idea given how lightweight they are and how they've generally thrived with more heavyweight partners. Particularly if they're basically another 1st pairing in minutes.

Third... call me a deluded optimist, but I don't think Johnson's going to be allowed to drag the team down indefinitely. If he stays, either he rebounds, or HSs or painful trades will come. One full season is a hell of a grace period on this team already - for it to last two? Surely not.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I'd got three objections to this as a solution.

First is, I'm not sure expecting Sully to only field his 3rd pairing for 20% of the game is all that realistic either. He's not liked doing that to date.

Second - I'm not sure Pettersson-Schultz is all that clever an idea given how lightweight they are and how they've generally thrived with more heavyweight partners. Particularly if they're basically another 1st pairing in minutes.

Third... call me a deluded optimist, but I don't think Johnson's going to be allowed to drag the team down indefinitely. If he stays, either he rebounds, or HSs or painful trades will come. One full season is a hell of a grace period on this team already - for it to last two? Surely not.

What's the alternative?

Hope you're not advocating for JJ to play with Schultz. If so, what do you think is the best possible outcome there?

 

[Peat]

What's the alternative?

Hope you're not advocating for JJ to play with Schultz. If so, what do you think is the best possible outcome there?

If I was picking the team and the roster didn't shift from what we have, I'd probably pair Schultz with Riikola. I'd also consider Johnson with Letang and Dumo with Schultz. Or maybe just Pettersson-Schultz and hope. But I'm not expecting it to be a long term answer.

Long term, my guess is either Johnson is a lot better next season - don't know how good he can be, but that was an extremely ugly season even by his standards - or we're getting a new LD before too long.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

I think most of us are fine with Pettersson on the 2nd pair, on the proper side not the right side like you have him, but Gudbranson was very surprisingly good for us last year and I feel comfortable as him being a mentor to a kid that wins a spot out of camp or getting reps with Ruh.

JJ just needs to get gone.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

I'd got three objections to this as a solution.

First is, I'm not sure expecting Sully to only field his 3rd pairing for 20% of the game is all that realistic either. He's not liked doing that to date.

Second - I'm not sure Pettersson-Schultz is all that clever an idea given how lightweight they are and how they've generally thrived with more heavyweight partners. Particularly if they're basically another 1st pairing in minutes.

Third... call me a deluded optimist, but I don't think Johnson's going to be allowed to drag the team down indefinitely. If he stays, either he rebounds, or HSs or painful trades will come. One full season is a hell of a grace period on this team already - for it to last two? Surely not.

Light weight? In what sense? Both move the puck well and are solid defensively, I feel like that's sort of what you should want in a 2nd pairing, 2 guys that can transition the puck well and support the rush and also not look out of place in their own end and be positionally sound for the most part. JS is that for us and Pettersson has been growing into that quite fittingly.

Literally the only issue I have on defense is that Jack Johnson is still there.

 

[Peat]

Light weight? In what sense? Both move the puck well and are solid defensively, I feel like that's sort of what you should want in a 2nd pairing, 2 guys that can transition the puck well and support the rush and also not look out of place in their own end and be positionally sound for the most part. JS is that for us and Pettersson has been growing into that quite fittingly.

Literally the only issue I have on defense is that Jack Johnson is still there.

In that they're not particularly strong/heavy/powerful. They defend fine - very well in Pettersson's case - in most scenarios, but when it comes to winning board battles cleanly or boxing out in front of the net, I think both guys have a weakness and that's possibly something that could haunt them. Particularly as they're not so fast on their skates as to simply move all dump ins out of trouble before people can get to it.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

In that they're not particularly strong/heavy/powerful. They defend fine - very well in Pettersson's case - in most scenarios, but when it comes to winning board battles cleanly or boxing out in front of the net, I think both guys have a weakness and that's possibly something that could haunt them. Particularly as they're not so fast on their skates as to simply move all dump ins out of trouble before people can get to it.

I have not seen that haunting them in their games last year, Pettersson's issue was he was getting used to whatever garbage system he was trying to acclimate to and Schultz was trying to get back his legs after a freak injury. But Schultz has been nothing but a pleasant surprise the last 2yrs with his defensive game being a stronger asset each season he's been with the Pens and Pettersson is a smart player that moves the puck when he should and know when the pressure is coming.

I'm not sure if you're manifesting this as a "I get the feeling" sort of thing, with not much proof backing it. But even then, I get it, I mean if we can find an Ian Cole LD to put with Schultz and then put Pettersson with Gudbranson, we're peachy keen.

But as it stands, Pettersson + Schultz isn't a bad duo at all and has the makings of a smart pair that can move the puck well, they're both not small either and have been decent on board battles.

 

[Gurglesons]

I'd got three objections to this as a solution.

First is, I'm not sure expecting Sully to only field his 3rd pairing for 20% of the game is all that realistic either. He's not liked doing that to date.

Second - I'm not sure Pettersson-Schultz is all that clever an idea given how lightweight they are and how they've generally thrived with more heavyweight partners. Particularly if they're basically another 1st pairing in minutes.

Third... call me a deluded optimist, but I don't think Johnson's going to be allowed to drag the team down indefinitely. If he stays, either he rebounds, or HSs or painful trades will come. One full season is a hell of a grace period on this team already - for it to last two? Surely not.

Agree here. Also, I’m super hestitant to move Petts away from Gudbranson given the success they had and JJ and him had.

 

[Gurglesons]

I have not seen that haunting them in their games last year, Pettersson's issue was he was getting used to whatever garbage system he was trying to acclimate to and Schultz was trying to get back his legs after a freak injury. But Schultz has been nothing but a pleasant surprise the last 2yrs with his defensive game being a stronger asset each season he's been with the Pens and Pettersson is a smart player that moves the puck when he should and know when the pressure is coming.

I'm not sure if you're manifesting this as a "I get the feeling" sort of thing, with not much proof backing it. But even then, I get it, I mean if we can find an Ian Cole LD to put with Schultz and then put Pettersson with Gudbranson, we're peachy keen.

But as it stands, Pettersson + Schultz isn't a bad duo at all and has the makings of a smart pair that can move the puck well, they're both not small either and have been decent on board battles.

I think he’s talking about the fact Schultz constantly gets outmanned trying to hold the blue line and Pettersson looked like Gumby along the boards

 

[Empoleon8771]

Pettersson should be on the 2nd pair, but as the team is currently constructed, the 2nd pair should be Pettersson-Gudbranson. Let Schultz try to recover his game with easier matchups and pair him with Riikola, who has some traits that could complement Schultz extremely well.

You should be trying to get Riikola-Schultz out with Malkin, but Pettersson-Gudbranson should be getting at least equal time to that pair. If they play like they did last year, they should be getting more.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

If I was picking the team and the roster didn't shift from what we have, I'd probably pair Schultz with Riikola. I'd also consider Johnson with Letang and Dumo with Schultz. Or maybe just Pettersson-Schultz and hope. But I'm not expecting it to be a long term answer.

Long term, my guess is either Johnson is a lot better next season - don't know how good he can be, but that was an extremely ugly season even by his standards - or we're getting a new LD before too long.

I like Riikola, but I wouldn't entrust a 2nd pair spot to a bubble player with so little experience. My #1 priority is making sure Malkin has all the support he needs to succeed this year after getting thrown to the wolves last season, and Pettersson represents the team's most established, stabilizing LD after Dumo.

JJ's about as much of a lost cause as there is in the league at this point, and I can't condone frittering away valuable points with him in a prominent role for any amount of time. We did that enough last season.

If Riikola proves he's worthy of more responsibility as the season progresses, I'd be open to him playing up the line-up.

 

[Peat]

I like Riikola, but I wouldn't entrust a 2nd pair spot to a bubble player with so little experience. My #1 priority is making sure Malkin has all the support he needs to succeed this year after getting thrown to the wolves last season, and Pettersson represents the team's most established, stabilizing LD after Dumo.

JJ's about as much of a lost cause as there is in the league at this point, and I can't condone frittering away valuable points with him in a prominent role for any amount of time. We did that enough last season.

If Riikola proves he's worthy of more responsibility as the season progresses, I'd be open to him playing up the line-up.

Pettersson being the team's 2nd most established LD after Dumo doesn't mean he's a good option to partner Schultz. I don't know for sure one way or the other, but there's reason to think they mightn't, and that doing so will give you a 2nd pairing that's less than the sum of its parts and a bad 3rd pairing. And as I pointed out last time we had this conversation - Malkin sees almost as time with the 3rd pairing as with the 2nd. You can't just get the 2nd pairing right and say "There, that's Geno taken care of".

I'm not wild about throwing Riikola in there, but he's looked a lot more assured about clearing out his net and boxing out than Pettersson, and he did form a decent 2a/2b style pairing with Maatta, so I reckon he could do so with Schultz as well.

Maybe Pettersson-Schultz is the answer to our problems. Just I'm not certain and the last few years has taught me to be skeptical of just putting the most talented players together and ignoring whether the skillsets match. As such... whatever works when it comes to training camp.

Gotta say, never thought replacing Ian Cole would lead to such a song and dance.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I don't know why people insist on the Penguins needing an established 2nd pair and 3rd pair. Why can't they do what they did in 2016-2017, when Cole-Schultz and Maatta-Daley were more or less used as equal pairs? You can have Pettersson-Gudbranson and Riikola-Schultz playing basically the same amount each game, with Dumoulin-Letang getting the majority of the ice time.

Cole was better, but I don't think there's a huge difference between Gudbranson in Florida and Cole in Pittsburgh. I don't think it's a stretch to say that a Pettersson-Gudbranson pair could be as good as the Cole-Schultz pair in 2016-2017, considering how good Pettersson projects to be. Considering that Schultz is likely a better version of 2017 Daley (speaking in terms of results, not in terms of play style), your bottom-4 is probably better analytically if Riikola just performs like the average defenseman that Maatta was for the most part.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Pettersson being the team's 2nd most established LD after Dumo doesn't mean he's a good option to partner Schultz. I don't know for sure one way or the other, but there's reason to think they mightn't, and that doing so will give you a 2nd pairing that's less than the sum of its parts and a bad 3rd pairing.

There's more reason to give Pettersson a chance there than Riikola at this point. He's been more of a steadying influence and has had success and experience that Riikola hasn't.

If the pairing fails, then you can try other options. But Pettersson/Schultz should be the default to start the season.

And as I pointed out last time we had this conversation - Malkin sees almost as time with the 3rd pairing as with the 2nd. You can't just get the 2nd pairing right and say "There, that's Geno taken care of".

I'm not wild about throwing Riikola in there, but he's looked a lot more assured about clearing out his net and boxing out than Pettersson, and he did form a decent 2a/2b style pairing with Maatta, so I reckon he could do so with Schultz as well.

We either need to pare back how often we use our 3rd pairing or make a deal to improve it. I'm not confident handing Riikola 2nd pairing responsibilities when his only experience is 3rd pairing minutes for 37 games total. And that's assuming that Riikola is even the go-to option here...the situation becomes much more dire if JJ is there instead. I wouldn't subject Malkin or Schultz to that.

Pettersson's a smart player who's matched well with every defenseman he's paired with so far, so I don't buy the argument that "boxing out" is the Achilles heel that would doom a pairing with he and Schultz. If it is, by all means change it.

Maybe Pettersson-Schultz is the answer to our problems. Just I'm not certain and the last few years has taught me to be skeptical of just putting the most talented players together and ignoring whether the skillsets match. As such... whatever works when it comes to training camp.

Gotta say, never thought replacing Ian Cole would lead to such a song and dance.

Cole was always so underrated here. Playoff warrior who did everything pretty well and complemented Schultz perfectly.

To think some people actually preferred JJ on his deal to Cole on his deal when the signing was made.

 

[Peat]

There's more reason to give Pettersson a chance there than Riikola at this point. He's been more of a steadying influence and has had success and experience that Riikola hasn't.

If the pairing fails, then you can try other options. But Pettersson/Schultz should be the default to start the season.

In isolation - probably, yeah.

When considering the third pairing - personally, no. Not sure I'm right, it feels up in the air to me, but that's where I land.

We either need to pare back how often we use our 3rd pairing or make a deal to improve it. I'm not confident handing Riikola 2nd pairing responsibilities when his only experience is 3rd pairing minutes for 37 games total. And that's assuming that Riikola is even the go-to option here...the situation becomes much more dire if JJ is there instead. I wouldn't subject Malkin or Schultz to that.

Pettersson's a smart player who's matched well with every defenseman he's paired with so far, so I don't buy the argument that "boxing out" is the Achilles heel that would doom a pairing with he and Schultz. If it is, by all means change it.

Maatta-Riikola were routinely playing at the start of minutes and responsibility that can be referred to as 2nd pairing. They weren't great, but he's had more than 3rd.

That pedantry aside - I'm not happy using Schultz as a big minutes 2nd pairing dman. So that brings us back to improving defensive pairings by trade, which I'd agree with and think is very likely to happen at some point. But until that point? Well, I'm not ruling out anything. But I've got worries about Pettersson as the option there. And it's more than boxing out that's a weakness with the pairing; it's everything physical.

 

[Andy99]

In isolation - probably, yeah.

When considering the third pairing - personally, no. Not sure I'm right, it feels up in the air to me, but that's where I land.



Maatta-Riikola were routinely playing at the start of minutes and responsibility that can be referred to as 2nd pairing. They weren't great, but he's had more than 3rd.

That pedantry aside - I'm not happy using Schultz as a big minutes 2nd pairing dman. So that brings us back to improving defensive pairings by trade, which I'd agree with and think is very likely to happen at some point. But until that point? Well, I'm not ruling out anything. But I've got worries about Pettersson as the option there. And it's more than boxing out that's a weakness with the pairing; it's everything physical.

I understand the "physical" aspects of the Petts-Schultz pairing but first, I think you underestimate Petts in this regard...he has weaknesses that are different from Schultz but he is physical--he's just not a big body and doesn't go chasing hits, so he's not JJ...imo, that's a good thing...second, Maatta and Schultz worked out very well as a pairing for a time, and they weren't particularly physical either, so it's not the be all...

Also, people like to think pairs or lines work based on the previous year...but as we've seen many a time, hockey (and life) doesn't work that way...things change, players aren't consistent in the way they play...I have no qualms giving Petts-Schultz a good look together because they are our next best D men...let's see how Riikola or someone else who looks good in training camp looks with Guds because ideally having JJ-Guds as our third pair, given what they do well, isn't ideal...

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

In isolation - probably, yeah.

When considering the third pairing - personally, no. Not sure I'm right, it feels up in the air to me, but that's where I land.

It highlights the need to improve the blueline rather than contort the roster to find ways to insulate poor defenseman. The irony of a team being willing to do that for players the calibre of JJ and Guds but not for an elite talent like Kessel baffles me.

Maatta-Riikola were routinely playing at the start of minutes and responsibility that can be referred to as 2nd pairing. They weren't great, but he's had more than 3rd.

Baking a loaf of bread doesn't make you a baker. Riikola averaged 16:41 a game...3rd pairing minutes, for 37 games, and a mixed bag at that.

Not generally a performance that earns a promotion.

That pedantry aside - I'm not happy using Schultz as a big minutes 2nd pairing dman. So that brings us back to improving defensive pairings by trade, which I'd agree with and think is very likely to happen at some point. But until that point? Well, I'm not ruling out anything. But I've got worries about Pettersson as the option there. And it's more than boxing out that's a weakness with the pairing; it's everything physical.

It boils down to me being a lot less concerned about Pettersson's perceived physical shortcomings with Schultz and a lot more concerned about Riikola's tangible struggles and lack of experience (and JJ's straight-up terrible play). If the 2nd pairing with Schultz flounders, it won't matter what happens with the 3rd pairing.

 

[Peat]

I think we're going round in circles, so I'll just agree to disagree at this point.

The one point I'll agree on is that we're probably going to have to go dman shopping. I'm okay starting the season this way and seeing what we've got, but the likelihood of there being a hole is pretty high.

 

[SEALBound]

I'd got three objections to this as a solution.

First is, I'm not sure expecting Sully to only field his 3rd pairing for 20% of the game is all that realistic either. He's not liked doing that to date.

Second - I'm not sure Pettersson-Schultz is all that clever an idea given how lightweight they are and how they've generally thrived with more heavyweight partners. Particularly if they're basically another 1st pairing in minutes.

Third... call me a deluded optimist, but I don't think Johnson's going to be allowed to drag the team down indefinitely. If he stays, either he rebounds, or HSs or painful trades will come. One full season is a hell of a grace period on this team already - for it to last two? Surely not.

Agreed on all points, especially #3. I think are being intentionally overly pessimistic if they think the staff is going to allow JJ to drag down the team for any certain amount of time. I dont think they do. I still think hes a prime candidate for crap-for-crap trade in the Nov-Dec timeframe.

The overbearing and oversold narrative that JJ is singlehandedly going to prevent us from winning a cup has made this board nothing short of toxic.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Pettersson should be on the 2nd pair, but as the team is currently constructed, the 2nd pair should be Pettersson-Gudbranson. Let Schultz try to recover his game with easier matchups and pair him with Riikola, who has some traits that could complement Schultz extremely well.

You should be trying to get Riikola-Schultz out with Malkin, but Pettersson-Gudbranson should be getting at least equal time to that pair. If they play like they did last year, they should be getting more.

Disagree. Pettersson was good with Gudbranson last season on the 3rd pairing, but that's not enough puck moving for second pair. I'd like to see Petts fill the same role for Schultz as Dumo does for Letang. Schultz is the primary puck mover while Petts plays more defensively, while still being capable of a good breakout pass.

JJ - Gudbransson would be disasterous. Need more speed and skill on that pair. Riikola - Gudbranson on the other hand would be swell. JJ's got to go, or at least has got to sit.

Ruh slots in as a fine #7 and we've got a couple guys in WBS that can get a cup of coffee in case of injury.

 

[Andy99]

I think we're going round in circles, so I'll just agree to disagree at this point.

The one point I'll agree on is that we're probably going to have to go dman shopping. I'm okay starting the season this way and seeing what we've got, but the likelihood of there being a hole is pretty high.

This comment reminded me of my favorite childhood song...yes, I’m old...I believe Billy (RIP) played with your countrymen, some small band known as The Beatles...

 

[Empoleon8771]

Disagree. Pettersson was good with Gudbranson last season on the 3rd pairing, but that's not enough puck moving for second pair. I'd like to see Petts fill the same role for Schultz as Dumo does for Letang. Schultz is the primary puck mover while Petts plays more defensively, while still being capable of a good breakout pass.

JJ - Gudbransson would be disasterous. Need more speed and skill on that pair. Riikola - Gudbranson on the other hand would be swell. JJ's got to go, or at least has got to sit.

Ruh slots in as a fine #7 and we've got a couple guys in WBS that can get a cup of coffee in case of injury.

I genuinely believe Pettersson is a better puck mover than Schultz, so I think I have to disagree with this. Pettersson isn't a guy you pair with a good puck mover, Pettersson himself is the good puck mover. You're limiting Pettersson by keeping him in a Dumoulin type of role with Schultz IMO. The problem is that the 2nd pair should have a better version of Gudbranson on it.