View Single Post
Old
04-14-2012, 11:34 AM
  #66
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,709
vCash: 9000
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by vancityluongo View Post
Fair enough. I've read your arguments, but I'm not convinced that your top-4 is anything special. Even if you switch up the pairings to have Goodfellow with Salming, that's merely an average top pairing. Boivin-Reise is a weak second pairing. How you have them is probably the best option, to be honest, but I'm not worried about any of our forward lines being fully shut down by any of those pairings.
I'll admit my top 4 isn't the strength of my team. The strength of my team is offense, through and through. Overall, my top 4 is pretty average. But, I tried to make up for it by them being all able to move the puck to my forwards, fueling the strength of my team. They're also physical. Combined with the fact that I've got 2 responsible two-way players on each line, I tried to minimize this weakness. By playing more of a puck possession game, my forwards will hopefully minimize time spent in our own defensive zone. My team is basically built around the concept of "the best defense is a great offense." The forwards will be dictating the play in the offensive zone, meaning less time in our defensive zone.

Quote:
Why would Housley face them on a consistent basis? He's on the second pairing, not the first (like Boivin) he doesn't play PK, and has a great partner in Conacher. The defensive liability you are describing seems to more accurately fit a description of Steve Duchesne, a player who is our seventh or eight defenseman. Or else Reed Larson. Who I guess you do have on your third pairing, so that shouldn't be too big an issue as long as Ruff gets the matchups he wants.
Don't the top 4 defensemen generally play against the top 6 forwards on the other team?

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote