View Single Post
01-31-2013, 01:51 AM
Registered User
Bluesman91's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 9,420
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Thallis View Post
This is wrong. Langenbrunner is slower than he was, but he still has superior instinct, skills, and positioning than Reaves, which is why he gets more ice time when he plays. The 4th line is good, but it's good with either of them.

We have yet to get a meaningful sample size between the two, and remember that correlation does not imply causation. The 4th line is meant to be defensively sound to give a break to the other three, and their minutes reflect that. Both of these guys know how to cycle the puck and keep it in the offensive zone. Reaves brings a different game than Langenbrunner for sure, but in today's NHL enforcers aren't as important as they once were and we have other guys who can fight if need be. I am in no way saying that Langenbrunner should get every start, but it's nonsense that without Reaves we're missing some magic part of the lineup. It's even more nonsense when people say the decision to not play Reaves had an impact in the LA series.

He may have superior instinct skills but he can't put them to good use because of age and the line he plays on isn't meant to score. I wouldn't say his positioning is any better than Reaves' is either.

Reaves isn't an enforcer, he fights when he has to but he also has hard work ethic and decent hockey skills, as the poster above me said, I would label him as a grinder.

No one is saying Reaves is a magic part of the lineup but he definitely is a better choice than Langs. We don't need our 4th line to set up plays or hope to score anymore. Our 4th lines wears down the opponents, thats how we win our game. We have 4 effective lines that can wear down the opponent and can split up ice-time fairly easily. I'm sorry but Langenbrunner just isn't fast or physical enough for this team.

Bluesman91 is offline   Reply With Quote