Third line = Shutdown line?

[Sidney the Kidney]

The Penguins tend to use their 1st and 4th lines against another team's top-2 lines. Their 3rd line is Simon-Brassard-Rust, which they tend to use in a more offensive role.

I've noticed that the Crosby line tends to go up against the other team's top line in neutral and offensive zone faceoff situations, while the Sheahan/Cullen line will get most of the D-zone match-ups.

But yeah, on the depth chart, the 3rd line for the Pens probably ranks about 3rd on the team in terms of matching up.

 

[pabst blue ribbon]

1st line: Most TOI
2nd line: Second most TOI
3rd line: Third most TOI
4th line: Fourth most TOI

 

[Atoyot]

Ideally it's:
1st line:Top offensive line
2nd line:Secondary offensive line
3rd line:Two way line that can do a bit if everything
4th line:Grinding,energy line.

That's not ideal, that's traditional.

 

[LeafsNation75]

Leafs' 3rd line is a matchup line. Will be deployed against top comp, but they won't necessarily shut them down. They're content to trade chances.

Unless it's overtime where Babcock can start with Matthews or Tavares to go up against the other teams best three players.

 

[OVrocks]

Every line should be a scoring line since the point of the game is to score goals. Anything less is uncivilized.

 

[Elvs]

I guess I'm a dinosaur, but I still like having at least one shutdown and/or energy line. Even if you have three skill players on your 4th line, they're not gonna be very productive offensively anyway with limited icetime and no PP time. Quite frankly, there's not enough skill to go around for 124 lines in the NHL. I'd rather have my fourth line consist of Daniel Winnik+Nate Thompson+Trevor Lewis than Tomas Jurco+Derek Ryan+Pontus Aberg, personally, as I can see the former three produce just as much if not more and take PK minutes away from my team's best offensive players.

Corsi has driven this narrative, though no dirrect correlation has proven that skill depth players > gritty depth players in this regard. Eventually people will realize that that there will always be players who has a negative corsi relative to teammates, even if every energy/defensive forward is swapped with skill players. Simple math should make that obvious. And frankly, the game is constantly changing. The game has changed over the past 10 years and it will change again. All it takes is for a team similar to the 2007 Ducks, 2011 Bruins or 2012 & 2014 Kings to change the narrative again.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Because that’s just not possible with a salary cap...

Looking at STL forward roster they could easily construct 4 balanced lines that have scoring on them and use that instead of the traditional Top Scoring Line, Secondary Scoring Line, Shutdown Line, Whatever is leftover Line.

I would never ever put a line on the ice that didn't have offensive talent. The outdated "not talented enough for top 6, not gritty enough for bottom 6" thinking has to die. To me a 1 dimensional scorer is better than a 1 dimensional "character" guy. If I have to play a character guy I'd put him with players who can provide offense.

 

[Dr Quincy]

I guess I'm a dinosaur, but I still like having at least one shutdown and/or energy line. Even if you have three skill players on your 4th line, they're not gonna be very productive offensively anyway with limited icetime and no PP time. Quite frankly, there's not enough skill to go around for 124 lines in the NHL. I'd rather have my fourth line consist of Daniel Winnik+Nate Thompson+Trevor Lewis than Tomas Jurco+Derek Ryan+Pontus Aberg, personally, as I can see the former three produce just as much if not more and take PK minutes away from my team's best offensive players.

Corsi has driven this narrative, though no dirrect correlation has proven that skill depth players > gritty depth players in this regard. Eventually people will realize that that there will always be players who has a negative corsi relative to teammates, even if every energy/defensive forward is swapped with skill players. Simple math should make that obvious. And frankly, the game is constantly changing. The game has changed over the past 10 years and it will change again. All it takes is for a team similar to the 2007 Ducks, 2011 Bruins or 2012 & 2014 Kings to change the narrative again.

And after 60 years of doing it your way there is no direct correlation that has proven that gritty players > skill depth players. The idea of ever putting a line without skill on it seems to be irrational at best for a "professional" league.

 

[rynryn]

Wild are in a whole lot of trouble if our third line is a shutdown line.

last night, 2 shots for, 15 against.

So...not a secondary scoring line either. :/

 

[Bank Shot]

Every line should be a scoring line since the point of the game is to score goals. Anything less is uncivilized.

That's not the point.

The point is to win.

Being low scoring is fine if you can win a bunch of games 1-0.

 

[ClydeLee]

Its seemed to me with the run of the last few cup runners, your best bet is having the depth to have the someagr matchup line be a 4th line. Or at least it matches somewhat on top 6 guys and the 1st line still gets a lot of top matchup. But that way you focus 2 scoring lines both against potentially weaker competition.

With Beagle, Cullen, and Kruger that's how the 4th lines have helped those teams win with all good lines.

The kings are the only recent/post lockout winner I would say still used the traditional 1,2, checking, energy kinda mold.

 

[Luigi Habs]

The Habs have 4 3rd lines. Please specify which one.

 

[Elvs]

And after 60 years of doing it your way there is no direct correlation that has proven that gritty players > skill depth players. The idea of ever putting a line without skill on it seems to be irrational at best for a "professional" league.

Most of these gritty players are more skilled than they get credit for. They are often label "plugs" because their skill doesn't translate to the NHL, and then they adapt and play a different game to stay in the league. I mean, look at a plug like Corey Tropp, his AHL numbers and his slick goal against the Penguins some years ago. Or look at how a 50 year old Tom Kostopoulus produce in the AHL, the former NHL enforcer...

Joakim Lindstrom is quite easily the best player in the SHL the last decade. He has plenty of skil, but he has tried the NHL three times and he can't produce. And he can't play on the penalty kill. Over 60 years, many grinders have proven to be better. Most skill players in the AHL right now are worse than a prime Joakim Lindstrom, yet so many are trying to push a narrative to get them to the NHL.

 

[ESH]

I guess I'm a dinosaur, but I still like having at least one shutdown and/or energy line. Even if you have three skill players on your 4th line, they're not gonna be very productive offensively anyway with limited icetime and no PP time. Quite frankly, there's not enough skill to go around for 124 lines in the NHL. I'd rather have my fourth line consist of Daniel Winnik+Nate Thompson+Trevor Lewis than Tomas Jurco+Derek Ryan+Pontus Aberg, personally, as I can see the former three produce just as much if not more and take PK minutes away from my team's best offensive players.

Corsi has driven this narrative, though no dirrect correlation has proven that skill depth players > gritty depth players in this regard. Eventually people will realize that that there will always be players who has a negative corsi relative to teammates, even if every energy/defensive forward is swapped with skill players. Simple math should make that obvious. And frankly, the game is constantly changing. The game has changed over the past 10 years and it will change again. All it takes is for a team similar to the 2007 Ducks, 2011 Bruins or 2012 & 2014 Kings to change the narrative again.

Sam Gagner scored 50 points playing on the Blue Jackets 4th line with Hartnell and Sedlak 2 years ago.

 

[Elvs]

Sam Gagner scored 50 points playing on the Blue Jackets 4th line with Hartnell and Sedlak 2 years ago.

Not really. I don't care what line he was on "on paper", two years ago he ranked 7th in icetime/game among Blue Jackets forwards. Or 8th if you wanna count Bjorkstrand ahead of him, which makes no sense given he only played in 26 games. So really Gagner was the 7th forward, making him their first forward outside the top six. He also had the 4th most PP minutes and the 4th most PP points among Blue Jackets forwards. 18 points on the power play.

So if he wasn't a powerplay player, he'd have 32 points. And that's while playing 3rd line minutes. I stand by my statement that a skill forward, who plays 4th line minutes without PP time, is gonna struggle to put up 30 points. Most often they are gonna put up around 20, which many grinders/defensive forwards are also capable of doing.

If you replace all the Nate Thompsons, Joakim Nordstroms and Chris Wagners of the NHL, you'd see guys like Michael Sgarbossa, Tomas Jurco and Phil Varone being regulars in the big league. Those aren't Gagner level, they wouldn't crack any PP unit and they'd be playing 7-10 minutes per game. They'd struggle to put up 20 points, and now you're forced to lean on your best players on the PK wearing them down over 82 games.

 

[Cogsfordogs7]

If the Ducks Carlyle had it his way, we would not have a 4th line so there would be more elbow room on the bench. And if you only have 2 good lines good luck making play-offs now.

 

[Elvs]

If the Ducks Carlyle had it his way, we would not have a 4th line so there would be more elbow room on the bench. And if you only have 2 good lines good luck making play-offs now.

A shutdown line can be a good line. A Ducks fan should know considering they won the cup with an elite one. Unless of course one thinks the game has changed so much that a prime Pahlsson, who was a selke calibre center then, would be utter garbage now.

 

[TT1]

almost every team runs 2 offensive lines and 2 defensive lines (ozone draws/dzone draws lines)

 

[belair]

1-2, 2-1, 3-3, 4-4 is pretty common nowadays.

 

[RageQuit77]

Why would that be ideal?

To me ideal would be:

1st line: Good offense, good defense
2nd line: Good offense, good defense
3rd line: Good offense, good defense
4th line: good offense, good defense

Yep. Of equal strength in every aspect of game. Total internal parity between lines.

And... in such kind of theoretic, optimal roster there are no fundamental reasons anymore to even name/number lines as both forwards and d-men would be interchangeable in every scenario possible... maybe even so that every player would be able to play in any role equally good.

But dreams aside. Nothing in principle prevent a coach from playing with for example 5 or 6 lines of different complements (5-on-5 situations) already if he wants to do that, and roster depth, endurance and skill levels of his player is enough good to allow that. Line numbering in the hockey is only conventional nomenclatura, not something categorical.

 

[Atas2000]

We are having a friendly debate over on the Panthers forum about third lines in the year 2018-19.


Is your team's third/fourth line primarily tasked with stopping the other team's top line ?

or

Is your teams third/fourth line asked to prove secondary scoring leaving the top lines to go against the opposing top lines ?

It's so up to the coaches and their rspective systems I think. Some love themselves a shutdown line, some don't, some I was told are even adaptive enough to adjust their lines and line assignments according to the team they face.

 

[MardyBum]

Yeah our third line is our "shutdown" line, although they produced pretty well last year, Lowry especially who scored above a first line rate. On the road Mo will try and get them out against higher lines when possible, or on more Dzone draws. At home he can just hard match them against a line.

As long as we have 3 scoring lines i'm fine with the shutdown line being our third line, no more days of a top 6, a shutdown line and a group of potatoes that gets 7 mins and are there for fighting. Even if they get limited mins the fourth line can score.

 

[Bedards Dad]

The Blues’ 3rd line is a 2-way line.

Steen-Bozak-Perron

Bozak is not a 2 way center.

 

[SabresSharks]

I think we're moving away from a traditional, defensively adept shutdown line matching up against the opponent's top line, to a focus on all lines dominating possession. If you have the puck the other team can't score.

 

[Elvs]

I just did a fast check on all the forwards who played 50+ games last season. On every team, you'll find that 4th liners are often near the bottom in terms of possession. But those 4th liners consist of both skill players and your traditional grinders and 2-way players, and they consist of both good skaters and poor skaters. So there's no direct correlation, but the narrative keeps being pushed. Just like small forwards were having a disadvantage in past drafts, I feel like the trend is now leaning towards big-sized forwards being unfairly treated in the drafts now.