Boston Bruins Your roster changes / proposals XI

[13Hockey]

 

[13Hockey]

Based on Bruce’s interview

this is what the opening night lineup sounds like

Marchand Bergeron Pastrnak
Hall Coyle Smith
DeBrusk Haula Foligno
Frederic Nosek Lazar

Forbort McAvoy
Reily Carlo
Grzelyck Clifton

Ullmark
Sway

 

[Healthy Wrap]

Based on Bruce’s interview

this is what the opening night lineup sounds like

Marchand Bergeron Pastrnak
Hall Coyle Smith
DeBrusk Haula Foligno
Frederic Nosek Lazar

Forbort McAvoy
Reily Carlo
Grzelyck Clifton

Ullmark
Sway

Woof

 

[HumBucker]

I honestly don't understand this propensity to number defencemen #4, #5, #6, etc. I mean, sure, #1 I get – assuming there's a clear-cut stud D-man, such as McAvoy on the current Bruins roster.

But arguing that so-and-so is a "#5/#4 at best" - what does that even mean?
What's the difference between a #3 and a #4? Is one just slightly better than the other?

Seems to me it makes more sense to describe them in terms of being effective 1st/2nd/3rd pairings, and pairing is largely determined by complimentary skillsets, RH/LH (and is sometimes situational: 5-on-5, PK, PP, dying minutes of a game up by a goal, needing a goal, etc).

So in the context of the Bruins D roster, the guy who plays with McAvoy isn't necessarily the "#2" (I guess the #2 would be Carlo?); it's the guy who makes most sense to pair with McAvoy in a given situation. The guy who makes most sense playing with Carlo, label him a #4 or #5 if you want, but he's a 2nd-pairing defenceman, and if they're successful overall as a tandem, then he's a good 2nd pairing D-man.

It's like with forwards. Is your 2nd-line centre the 4th-5th best forward on the team? On some very stacked teams, maybe. But on other very successful teams the 2C is quite likely the "#2" forward. But again, it has to do with skillset and complementary context.

So let's get over this "Gryz/Reilly is a #5 at best." If they help the team win playing in a top 4 role, then they're top 4 D-men on this team. We once had Chara-Seidenberg as our 1st pairing. But on some other team, because of skillsets, LH/RH etc., Seidenberg might be deemed a "#3/#4". It's all rather academic.

 

[DiggityDog]

I’m sure I’ll get crucified for this, but I honestly don’t think a Hall Coyle Smith second line is that terrible.

There’s a lot of hope it works out going on, but I just feel like Hall and Coyle could really own the puck, add in Smith’s unrelenting attack and I genuinely think they could be really effective.

We all prefer to have Krejci back, but you could do worse than Coyle in my opinion. They could totally crash and burn, but I’m really looking forward to seeing Coyle this year following the surgery. If he comes back to form I think they could surprise a lot of us.

 

[BradMarchandismydad]

Woof

Really? I think that's a very solid bottom 6, I think the d pairs are fine outside of 1LD (obviously a hole but let's see if Forbort can be a steady stay at home), and the 1st line is as great as ever. Goalie tandem is solid as well.

Coyle at 2C is the biggest problem here.

This team won't win the cup but I think they'll compete.

 

[Deal Law]

Woof

Yeah, someone needs to take a step back, look and this, and ask "is this a team that competes for, and wins, a Stanley Cup?"

If the answer is no (it is), someone failed.

 

[Gonzothe7thDman]

Based on Bruce’s interview

this is what the opening night lineup sounds like

Marchand Bergeron Pastrnak
Hall Coyle Smith
DeBrusk Haula Foligno
Frederic Nosek Lazar

Forbort McAvoy
Reily Carlo
Grzelyck Clifton

Ullmark
Sway

I feel like the 2019 team had holes but still looked a lot better than this.

Somehow we've gotten worse (personnel wise) as we've come to the end of this cores last run.

This team won't win the cup but I think they'll compete.

Then what was the point? Should have started making moves for the future.

 

[HustleB]

Ideally Mcdavid would be a great 3rd line forward too.

Smith is 30th in goals(23rd at ES), 38th in points for a RW over the last 3 years. 31st and 29th last season. Combine that offense with his 200ft game, hustle, and consistency and I don't see how Smith is not at the very least an above average 2nd line winger.

Having Pasta + Smith as your 1-2 punch making under 10m is a huge boon for the Bs. Smith is the 57th highest paid RW in the league and is significantly better than most guys in that range and closer to a 5m player in todays nhl. Now we'll see if they can improve the bottom 2 lines with their signing this year or internally but I have zero problem with Smith on the second line. If we can bump him down, awesome, but I think if the Bruins can get above average results from the #3 and 4 RWs then they will be all set there.

Halleleuiah! I've tried to have this conversation multiple times. Noone has really engaged. Hopefully it was just because of my poor writing.

You can want another second line RW on par with Hall and just a notch below our elite players but it is not common. Everything about this guys numbers especially 5v5 is at worst an average 2nd line winger and your numbers show better then that. I love what he brings to our team and I have him anchored at 2RW; which I couldn't be more pleased about.

 

[Mione134]

Based on Bruce’s interview

this is what the opening night lineup sounds like

Marchand Bergeron Pastrnak
Hall Coyle Smith
DeBrusk Haula Foligno
Frederic Nosek Lazar

Forbort McAvoy
Reily Carlo
Grzelyck Clifton

Ullmark
Sway

Gotta give them a chance before people write them off. Let's see how they look. Not going to write this team off. Let's into the season and see how they all fit.

 

[Gee Wally]

I believe he left out…….for now.

 

[The don godfather]

Based on Bruce’s interview

this is what the opening night lineup sounds like

Marchand Bergeron Pastrnak
Hall Coyle Smith
DeBrusk Haula Foligno
Frederic Nosek Lazar

Forbort McAvoy
Reily Carlo
Grzelyck Clifton

Ullmark
Sway

No stud then trade him away before he rots. So furious not playing the kid. Hes ready

 

[13Hockey]

No stud then trade him away before he rots. So furious not playing the kid. Hes ready

this is just as of today if stud lights it up in camp

I’m sure the bruins will find a way to get him into the lineup

cassidy said “Studnicka is a wildcard”

 

[Dr Hook]

Yes, exactly. You've absolutely got it right. This is why some of us have been critical of them. They didn't win ten cups in ten years.

Not bad sarcasm there- props to you. What would stop all the excesssive criticism of the team to you? Five Cups? Three? Just one more?

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

No stud then trade him away before he rots. So furious not playing the kid. Hes ready

if he's ready he'll have a monster camp and earn a lineup spot. i know i'm rooting for him.

 

[Dr Hook]

I honestly don't understand this propensity to number defencemen #4, #5, #6, etc. I mean, sure, #1 I get – assuming there's a clear-cut stud D-man, such as McAvoy on the current Bruins roster.

But arguing that so-and-so is a "#5/#4 at best" - what does that even mean?
What's the difference between a #3 and a #4? Is one just slightly better than the other?

Seems to me it makes more sense to describe them in terms of being effective 1st/2nd/3rd pairings, and pairing is largely determined by complimentary skillsets, RH/LH (and is sometimes situational: 5-on-5, PK, PP, dying minutes of a game up by a goal, needing a goal, etc).

So in the context of the Bruins D roster, the guy who plays with McAvoy isn't necessarily the "#2" (I guess the #2 would be Carlo?); it's the guy who makes most sense to pair with McAvoy in a given situation. The guy who makes most sense playing with Carlo, label him a #4 or #5 if you want, but he's a 2nd-pairing defenceman, and if they're successful overall as a tandem, then he's a good 2nd pairing D-man.

It's like with forwards. Is your 2nd-line centre the 4th-5th best forward on the team? On some very stacked teams, maybe. But on other very successful teams the 2C is quite likely the "#2" forward. But again, it has to do with skillset and complementary context.

So let's get over this "Gryz/Reilly is a #5 at best." If they help the team win playing in a top 4 role, then they're top 4 D-men on this team. We once had Chara-Seidenberg as our 1st pairing. But on some other team, because of skillsets, LH/RH etc., Seidenberg might be deemed a "#3/#4". It's all rather academic.

Agreed- why number them except to use it as a whip against players or pairings you don't like. That said, if we take it as a general gauge of a skillset- how many minutes a guy would get in and what situations- then the Bruins D as of now reminds me a bit of a lot of the Bourque era. One clearcut star in McAvoy and then a supporting cast, none of whom are great players in their own right. Can you win with that? I think so, but it would be nice to have one more top quality 22-24 minute all around guy on the left side (in our case). I love Gryz, but there are certain things you don't want him out there for, same with Reilly, and Forbort.

 

[KnightofBoston]

I’m sure I’ll get crucified for this, but I honestly don’t think a Hall Coyle Smith second line is that terrible.

There’s a lot of hope it works out going on, but I just feel like Hall and Coyle could really own the puck, add in Smith’s unrelenting attack and I genuinely think they could be really effective.

We all prefer to have Krejci back, but you could do worse than Coyle in my opinion. They could totally crash and burn, but I’m really looking forward to seeing Coyle this year following the surgery. If he comes back to form I think they could surprise a lot of us.

their success will live and die on two things;

Coyle performing like Coyle can, and the bottom six not being a merry go round dumpster fire like it was last year.

as long as they are better, it’ll take pressure off that line to be a true number two and they’ll score their share.

 

[Raleighfern]

Kings have missed the playoffs in 5 of those 10 seasons.

yes, they have.

 

[Ratty]

I honestly don't understand this propensity to number defencemen #4, #5, #6, etc. I mean, sure, #1 I get – assuming there's a clear-cut stud D-man, such as McAvoy on the current Bruins roster.

But arguing that so-and-so is a "#5/#4 at best" - what does that even mean?
What's the difference between a #3 and a #4? Is one just slightly better than the other?

Seems to me it makes more sense to describe them in terms of being effective 1st/2nd/3rd pairings, and pairing is largely determined by complimentary skillsets, RH/LH (and is sometimes situational: 5-on-5, PK, PP, dying minutes of a game up by a goal, needing a goal, etc).

So in the context of the Bruins D roster, the guy who plays with McAvoy isn't necessarily the "#2" (I guess the #2 would be Carlo?); it's the guy who makes most sense to pair with McAvoy in a given situation. The guy who makes most sense playing with Carlo, label him a #4 or #5 if you want, but he's a 2nd-pairing defenceman, and if they're successful overall as a tandem, then he's a good 2nd pairing D-man.

It's like with forwards. Is your 2nd-line centre the 4th-5th best forward on the team? On some very stacked teams, maybe. But on other very successful teams the 2C is quite likely the "#2" forward. But again, it has to do with skillset and complementary context.

So let's get over this "Gryz/Reilly is a #5 at best." If they help the team win playing in a top 4 role, then they're top 4 D-men on this team. We once had Chara-Seidenberg as our 1st pairing. But on some other team, because of skillsets, LH/RH etc., Seidenberg might be deemed a "#3/#4". It's all rather academic.

Your post is #1 in my book.

 

[TCB]

No stud then trade him away before he rots. So furious not playing the kid. Hes ready

What kid (forward) has he played (Cassidy) and given a legit shot, other than kuhlman.
Sometimes that's all it takes and they take off. Its real hard for anyone to play, knowing if you make one wrong, bang your back in the press box or on your way to providence.

 

[The don godfather]

What kid (forward) has he played (Cassidy) and given a legit shot, other than kuhlman.
Sometimes that's all it takes and they take off. Its real hard for anyone to play, knowing if you make one wrong, bang your back in the press box or on your way to providence.

Stud is 22 when do they want him to start 26 ?? This is a epic disaster

 

[TCB]

Stud is 22 when do they want him to start 26 ?? This is a epic disaster

Last year with wags $hitting the bed, why wouldn't he give Stud or Seny a real shot? I know Seny was hurt off and on, but he had opportunity to play them as well as Steen.

I think he's to critical on the young players and refuses to let the learn on the fly and he doesn't trust them to do so.

 

[PB37]

I honestly don't understand this propensity to number defencemen #4, #5, #6, etc. I mean, sure, #1 I get – assuming there's a clear-cut stud D-man, such as McAvoy on the current Bruins roster.

But arguing that so-and-so is a "#5/#4 at best" - what does that even mean?
What's the difference between a #3 and a #4? Is one just slightly better than the other?

Seems to me it makes more sense to describe them in terms of being effective 1st/2nd/3rd pairings, and pairing is largely determined by complimentary skillsets, RH/LH (and is sometimes situational: 5-on-5, PK, PP, dying minutes of a game up by a goal, needing a goal, etc).

So in the context of the Bruins D roster, the guy who plays with McAvoy isn't necessarily the "#2" (I guess the #2 would be Carlo?); it's the guy who makes most sense to pair with McAvoy in a given situation. The guy who makes most sense playing with Carlo, label him a #4 or #5 if you want, but he's a 2nd-pairing defenceman, and if they're successful overall as a tandem, then he's a good 2nd pairing D-man.

It's like with forwards. Is your 2nd-line centre the 4th-5th best forward on the team? On some very stacked teams, maybe. But on other very successful teams the 2C is quite likely the "#2" forward. But again, it has to do with skillset and complementary context.

So let's get over this "Gryz/Reilly is a #5 at best." If they help the team win playing in a top 4 role, then they're top 4 D-men on this team. We once had Chara-Seidenberg as our 1st pairing. But on some other team, because of skillsets, LH/RH etc., Seidenberg might be deemed a "#3/#4". It's all rather academic.

Looks like someone has been reading my posts the past few years. I've said the same thing.

 

[BradMarchandismydad]

I feel like the 2019 team had holes but still looked a lot better than this.

Somehow we've gotten worse (personnel wise) as we've come to the end of this cores last run.




Then what was the point? Should have started making moves for the future.

If they trade for a real 2C during the season then this could be a cup winning squad

 

[arider1990]

Agreed- why number them except to use it as a whip against players or pairings you don't like. That said, if we take it as a general gauge of a skillset- how many minutes a guy would get in and what situations- then the Bruins D as of now reminds me a bit of a lot of the Bourque era. One clearcut star in McAvoy and then a supporting cast, none of whom are great players in their own right. Can you win with that? I think so, but it would be nice to have one more top quality 22-24 minute all around guy on the left side (in our case). I love Gryz, but there are certain things you don't want him out there for, same with Reilly, and Forbort.

I would consider Carlo as a great player. Also his impact on McAvoy was very noticeable this season. In the 27 games he played, McAvoy had 5 goals 17 assists for 22 points. In the 29 games Carlo missed, McAvoy had 0 goals and 8 assists. Also 8 of those games were against Buffalo and he had 4 of the assists in those games. He did put up good numbers in the 3 games without Carlo in the playoffs but was a -5.