Opening Night Roster

[Kin]

Exactly. You "get away" with not having a "first" line for as long as it takes a group to prove themselves worthy of the title and not just by virtue of being better than the other lines on the team.

 

[hobarth]

Exactly. You "get away" with not having a "first" line for as long as it takes a group to prove themselves worthy of the title and not just by virtue of being better than the other lines on the team.

Early last year probably the most impressive line TO had was the Komarov/Santo/Winnik line, not the most talented but definitely the one that laid it on the line every night however the most offensively productive line again early in the year was the Kessel/Bozak/JVR line.

TO was winning probably because of both lines and in a possession sense I suspect the Santo line was the better line but as these were but 2 lines of a 4 line team TO was being scored on frequently, TO was able to outscore the opposition but we know the Bozak line had a significant responsibility in the GAs but they weren't alone.

Which line would you have deemed #1 at that time not knowing what was to come? Why would you deem a line #1?

 

[herman]

It was Cherry-Pick Line, Clarkson's Black Hole Line, Cycle Fruitlessly Line, and Carlyle's Never-Play Line.

 

[hobarth]

It was Cherry-Pick Line, Clarkson's Black Hole Line, Cycle Fruitlessly Line, and Carlyle's Never-Play Line.

I seem to remember both Santo and surprise Komarov were contributing somewhat offensively but yes essentially I agree with your line designations but you never ventured your opinion as to which line was #1?

 

[herman]

It was Cherry-Pick Line, Clarkson's Black Hole Line, Cycle Fruitlessly Line, and Carlyle's Never-Play Line.

I seem to remember both Santo and surprise Komarov were contributing somewhat offensively but yes essentially I agree with your line designations but you never ventured your opinion as to which line was #1?

As I alluded to earlier, I don't really believe in numbering lines and going by roles instead. It's obvious what Carlyle believed to be his top line and they carried the team to exactly the result the deeper analytics suggested would happen.

 

[hobarth]

It was Cherry-Pick Line, Clarkson's Black Hole Line, Cycle Fruitlessly Line, and Carlyle's Never-Play Line.

I seem to remember both Santo and surprise Komarov were contributing somewhat offensively but yes essentially I agree with your line designations but you never ventured your opinion as to which line was #1?

As I alluded to earlier, I don't really believe in numbering lines and going by roles instead. It's obvious what Carlyle believed to be his top line and they carried the team to exactly the result the deeper analytics suggested would happen.

I would always want the lines numbered because if I have a lot of $s tied up in one line I want them to feel the responsibility to produce, always, and never want them to feel they have an out because another line might be playing well. For me 1 and 2 need to be 1 and 2 but 3 and 4 might be interchangeable but not really. I think it's essential that each line produce somewhere within the expectations of them because only when that is happening on a consistent basis will the team win.