HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Anaheim Ducks
Notices

Poll: bottom 2 line makeup

View Poll Results: How do you want the 4 lines to be?
scoring-checking-scoring-energy/checking (2007) 4 25.00%
scoring-scoring-checking-energy 4 25.00%
scoring-checking-scoring-scoring 0 0%
scoring-scoring-checking-scoring 3 18.75%
scoring-scoring-scoring-checking/energy 3 18.75%
other (specify) 2 12.50%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-07-2010, 06:03 PM
  #1
snarktacular
Moderator
Ducks tank is on!
 
snarktacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,128
vCash: 500
Poll: bottom 2 line makeup

In the past few days we have had some discussion about the makeup of the lines. Specifically the bottom two lines. I thought it might be good to have a thread dedicated to it, especially since I think there's been some confusion as to what's meant by "3 scoring lines."

Now I think we can all agree that the top two lines will be scoring. The issues are with what the bottom 2 lines will be.

Traditionally, the Ducks in the Burke era had 2 scoring lines, then a checking line that got a lot of time and was matched up against the other team's top line, then an energy line. The personnel made it obvious that this was the plan, from the top down.

Now our team doesn't have as clear a delineation. With our personnel, how do you want the team to be configured? And how do you want the ES ice time to be split amongst the 4 lines? Feel free to make lines if you want, I know a lot of people love that part.

Note that the lines will be listed in order of ES ice time. So that the 2007 Ducks team would actually be scoring-checking-scoring-energy. I think this is an especially important distinction. Because I suspect that some people want "3 scoring lines," but there are 2 subgroups as to whether the 3rd scoring line would play more or less than the other line. A third line that's scoring would play a decent amount of minutes, and would then need good players on it, while a 4th scoring line would only see minimal ice time, and could then have a couple defensive liability type low scorers (Ebbett/Christensen types, or breaking in rookies).

edit: also note that our team averages about 46:30 of ES ice time per game, about 6:00 of PP time, and about 6:20 on the PK.

So you need to be distributing the ES time out of 46:30. A typical first line gets about 15-17 minutes of ES time. I don't have data from there, but I believe a 2nd line will get about 11-13. 3rd and 4th lines will probably get around 10 and 8 respectively.




Now for my opinion. I am an old school guy and like choice 1, the 2007 makeup. First of all I believe that pay is skewed toward points, and that it's easier to field a team with a cap/budget that way, compared to 3 good scoring lines (unless the 3rd scoring line is a crappy, 4th line type). We just don't have many offensive rookies able to fill in on a cheap scoring line. And that I believe we've already put too much money on forward with Getzlaf, Perry, Lupul, Blake, Ryan, and whatever vets we use to fill in holes like Koivu and Selanne.

But on the other hand, and Dirk isn't going to like this, in the fan forum Murray indicated that he is planning on going with 3 scoring lines. That he is kind of changing the blueprint because teams like Detroit and Pittsburgh have been successful with more offense and less defense. And our excess forwards tend to be more suited for scoring roles than checking or energy roles (Sexton, Blake, Lupul, etc).


Last edited by snarktacular: 03-07-2010 at 07:06 PM.
snarktacular is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2010, 06:18 PM
  #2
Duck Off
HF needs an App
 
Duck Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Country: United States
Posts: 9,993
vCash: 500
I kind of already went over this in the game day thread, but I'll just summarize my idea:

After watching this team the past few games, I think we are out of time to see if chemistry develops. In an ideal world, we'd like to spread out all of our talent on 3 scoring lines and have one checking/shutdown line. Since we are out of time, I think we should run these lines:

Ryan-Getzlaf-Perry
Blake-Koivu-Selanne
Bodie-Chipchura-Marchant
Beleseky-Carter-Sexton

The two top lines are stacked and provide us the best possible two lines we could put together. A 3rd scoring line of Beleseky-Carter-Sexton could potentially add a few goals here and there. Now when we play tougher teams, we could switch either one of Sexton and Beleseky out, or possibly both for Parros and Brown. I personally have had my opinion of Brown drop dramaticly. He's eased up on the intensity he brought last year.

I like the 4th line above for the majority of the time because I'd rather have our "4th" line be able to produce on occasion, rather than just watch Parros and Brown run around for 3 minutes a game.

When or if Lupul comes back, we could probably run 3 consistent scoring lines.


Edit: Forgot to respond to the bolded part: I'd like to see the 4th line I mentioned get about 8-10 minutes of ice time. Split the rest up pretty evenly with the top line getting slightly more.


Last edited by Duck Off: 03-07-2010 at 06:26 PM.
Duck Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2010, 06:28 PM
  #3
jax00
DangleSnipe&Celly
 
jax00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Anaslime
Country: United States
Posts: 8,558
vCash: 500
Scoring 35%
Scoring 25%
Checking 25%
Scoring 15%

The percentages are the ice time distributions.

jax00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2010, 06:30 PM
  #4
snarktacular
Moderator
Ducks tank is on!
 
snarktacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duckstudd269 View Post
I kind of already went over this in the game day thread, but I'll just summarize my idea:

After watching this team the past few games, I think we are out of time to see if chemistry develops. In an ideal world, we'd like to spread out all of our talent on 3 scoring lines and have one checking/shutdown line. Since we are out of time, I think we should run these lines:

Ryan-Getzlaf-Perry
Blake-Koivu-Selanne
Bodie-Chipchura-Marchant
Beleseky-Carter-Sexton

The two top lines are stacked and provide us the best possible two lines we could put together. A 3rd scoring line of Beleseky-Carter-Sexton could potentially add a few goals here and there. Now when we play tougher teams, we could switch either one of Sexton and Beleseky out, or possibly both for Parros and Brown. I personally have had my opinion of Brown drop dramaticly. He's eased up on the intensity he brought last year.

I like the 4th line above for the majority of the time because I'd rather have our "4th" line be able to produce on occasion, rather than just watch Parros and Brown run around for 3 minutes a game.

When or if Lupul comes back, we could probably run 3 consistent scoring lines.


Edit: Forgot to respond to the bolded part: I'd like to see the 4th line I mentioned get about 8-10 minutes of ice time. Split the rest up pretty evenly with the top line getting slightly more.
If we do go 3 scoring lines, that's kind of what I would lean toward.

But isn't that choice 4 and not other, like how you voted?


Oh, and the "preview poll" feature lied to me. I wanted there to be numbers or something in front of each choice. I had originally put letters, but the preview said there would be numbers. So I took them out and now there's no numbers!

Can a mod please edit the poll choices to put A), B), etc in front of the choices?

snarktacular is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2010, 06:37 PM
  #5
Paul4587
Registered User
 
Paul4587's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 13,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jax00 View Post
Scoring 35%
Scoring 25%
Checking 25%
Scoring 15%

The percentages are the ice time distributions.
I agree with this although Parros/Brown could be substituted into the fourth line from time to time against more the more physical teams, meaning that it becomes more of an energy line in those situations.

Paul4587 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2010, 06:38 PM
  #6
Duck Off
HF needs an App
 
Duck Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Country: United States
Posts: 9,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarktacular View Post
If we do go 3 scoring lines, that's kind of what I would lean toward.

But isn't that choice 4 and not other, like how you voted?
I guess. I didn't choose that because I wouldn't call that 4th line a scoring line. I guess I consider a scoring line as a line that does it consistently. I don't think that line would, but I think they would produce on occasion. I wouldn't call a line getting 8-10 minutes a game a "scoring line" although I guess if you had to categorize that line, that's probably what you would call it.

When Lupul comes back I'd probably put it as: scoring, scoring, scoring, checking, because we'd be able to spread more talent around enabling that line to get more minutes. I'm not saying I would decrease the checking line minutes down, Dirk that's for you, but I'd spread the 3 scoring lines minutes out more evenly.

I don't know if I can change my vote, but if I can I will if you'd like.

Duck Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2010, 06:43 PM
  #7
Duck Off
HF needs an App
 
Duck Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Country: United States
Posts: 9,993
vCash: 500
Just wanted to add this as well:

The choices make it kind of hard to pick an option. A good example is the cup team. Minutes wise it broke down like scoring-checking-scoring-checking/energy, but personally I thought of that team more as a scoring-scoring-checking-checking/energy lineup.

With that said I guess I should be a little more specific when talking about the minutes for my proposed lines.

I'd like the first line to get most of the minutes. (scoring line)
Then I'd prefer the 2nd and 3rd line minutes to be distributed pretty evenly, maybe a slight edge to the 2nd scoring line.

4th (scoring line) getting the least amount of time with about 10 minutues a game.

Duck Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2010, 06:45 PM
  #8
Selanne138
Registered User
 
Selanne138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,478
vCash: 500
Ryan-Getzlaf-Perry
Blake-Koivu-Selanne
Bodie-Chipchura-Marchant
Beleskey-Carter-Brown

Id call this scoring-scoring-checking-energy, and i think this needs to happen, at least the top 3 lines. The 4th is interchangable for me, i wouldnt mind sexton there as a 5-6 minute per game scoring line, or having parros there for a true energy line, or having what I listed, because this line should not get too many minutes anyways.

Selanne138 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2010, 06:49 PM
  #9
snarktacular
Moderator
Ducks tank is on!
 
snarktacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duckstudd269 View Post
Just wanted to add this as well:

The choices make it kind of hard to pick an option. A good example is the cup team. Minutes wise it broke down like scoring-checking-scoring-checking/energy, but personally I thought of that team more as a scoring-scoring-checking-checking/energy lineup.

With that said I guess I should be a little more specific when talking about the minutes for my proposed lines.

I'd like the first line to get most of the minutes. (scoring line)
Then I'd prefer the 2nd and 3rd line minutes to be distributed pretty evenly, maybe a slight edge to the 2nd scoring line.

4th (scoring line) getting the least amount of time with about 10 minutues a game.
I know the choices make it a little tough, but that was kind of my main point.

I think that a lot of the arguing that's been going on has been in part because people aren't being specific in terms of ice times. Then someone says "3 scoring lines" and then someone else goes "but we need a checking line, and that line wouldn't score." But really, if the 3rd scoring line is played the least, and very little, then there isn't really as big of a disagreement.


I also suspect that people who want to really spread out the scoring lines to make 3 good scoring lines don't realize how little ice time the top line would really end up with. Unless you end up not playing the 4th line. Because now you have Getzlaf and Perry only getting like 17 minutes a game.

snarktacular is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2010, 07:00 PM
  #10
Dirk316
Registered User
 
Dirk316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, Ca
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 5,091
vCash: 500
The way i see it Murray and Carlyle are having philosophical differences on how to run this team. We did not have true 3rd line checking players until Chipchura was acquired and Bodie was called up. We all know those moves where influenced by Carlyle wanting those type of players.
I feel it was no coincidence that this team was losing with a 3rd scoring line and when we went back to a checking line we started to win. Back to 3 scoring lines and team looks like crap again.
Pittsburgh's 3rd line is a defensive line Cooke/Staal/Kennedy or Talbot
(Staal is a hybrid player) not sure what Murray is getting at with Sexton/Marchant/Belesky that is not the same. Didnt Detroit use a traditional "grind" line as its 3rd line of defensive players?
Maltby/Draper/Mcarty?

Lets face it Sexton has looked horrible for over 10+ games and i dont think we can afford to have so many undersized forwards (Sexton,Marchant,Koivu,Blake,Belesky) on our top 9

Perry-Getz-Beleskey
Ryan-Koivu-Selanne
Bodie-Chip-Marchant
Brown/Parros-Carter-Blake

That is the winning lineup, Lupul ever comes back he replaces Beleskey
Also id prefer not to change our lineup to adapt to other teams, they should be forced to dress an enforcer against us or pay for it just like it used to be. We have the personal for it

Dirk316 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2010, 07:04 PM
  #11
snarktacular
Moderator
Ducks tank is on!
 
snarktacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,128
vCash: 500
Oh I forgot to mention something VERY important.

Our team averages about 46:30 of ES ice time per game, about 6:00 of PP time, and about 6:20 on the PK.


So you need to be distributing the ES time out of 46:30. A typical first line gets about 15-17 minutes of ES time. I don't have data from there, but I believe a 2nd line will get about 11-13. 3rd and 4th lines will probably get around 10 and 8 respectively.

snarktacular is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2010, 07:04 PM
  #12
Dirk316
Registered User
 
Dirk316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, Ca
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 5,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul4587 View Post
I agree with this although Parros/Brown could be substituted into the fourth line from time to time against more the more physical teams, meaning that it becomes more of an energy line in those situations.
my point is, we should be the more physical team and force the other teams to adjust. Our entire top line usually feeds off the energy from a fight/big hit and thats why they play better with the style we traditionally win games with.

Dirk316 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2010, 07:06 PM
  #13
Duck Off
HF needs an App
 
Duck Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Country: United States
Posts: 9,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarktacular View Post
I know the choices make it a little tough, but that was kind of my main point.

I think that a lot of the arguing that's been going on has been in part because people aren't being specific in terms of ice times. Then someone says "3 scoring lines" and then someone else goes "but we need a checking line, and that line wouldn't score." But really, if the 3rd scoring line is played the least, and very little, then there isn't really as big of a disagreement.


I also suspect that people who want to really spread out the scoring lines to make 3 good scoring lines don't realize how little ice time the top line would really end up with. Unless you end up not playing the 4th line. Because now you have Getzlaf and Perry only getting like 17 minutes a game.
Yeah I understand what you are getting at, no worries. I'll admit that I myself didn't know what to put in terms of minutes. That's why the only actual minutes I put were the 4th line minutes. I'd like to see that line get at least 8-10 minutes a game. Personally I'd be fine with the top line getting 18 minutes a game at even strength. Obviously if a matchup that we can explore presents itself, it may rise, but on average 18 minutes a game at even strength is fine with me. That means with powerplays Getzlaf and Perry would probably get around 20 minutes a game.

Duck Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2010, 07:11 PM
  #14
Duck Off
HF needs an App
 
Duck Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Country: United States
Posts: 9,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarktacular View Post
Oh I forgot to mention something VERY important.

Our team averages about 46:30 of ES ice time per game, about 6:00 of PP time, and about 6:20 on the PK.


So you need to be distributing the ES time out of 46:30. A typical first line gets about 15-17 minutes of ES time. I don't have data from there, but I believe a 2nd line will get about 11-13. 3rd and 4th lines will probably get around 10 and 8 respectively.
That does help a bunch. If that's the case I'd do it something like this:

RPG- 17 minutes
BKS- 12 minutes
Bodie-Chipchura-Marchant- 12 minutes
Beleseky-Carter-Sexton- 8 minutes

Total ES ice time- 49 minutes

Duck Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2010, 07:53 PM
  #15
Dirk316
Registered User
 
Dirk316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, Ca
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 5,091
vCash: 500
Finally getting back to the way it should have been, i predicted 2-3 games of a failed experiment. Now we are back to 3rd checking/energy line Beleskey/Marchant/Bodie
and a 4th line that is somewhat similar with Sexton/Chip/Brown

Dirk316 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2010, 08:15 PM
  #16
Paul4587
Registered User
 
Paul4587's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 13,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk316 View Post
my point is, we should be the more physical team and force the other teams to adjust. Our entire top line usually feeds off the energy from a fight/big hit and thats why they play better with the style we traditionally win games with.
I agree but we don't have the personal to do so at the moment. Parros has a bad hand and can't fight to save himself, while Brown has been terrible this year and isn't a great fighter himself. If Murray provided Carlyle with some decent grinders for the fourth line I would be all for an energy line but he hasn't.

Paul4587 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:21 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.