HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Colorado Avalanche
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lines

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-13-2011, 05:20 PM
  #26
IWantSakicAsMyGM
Registered User
 
IWantSakicAsMyGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypher View Post
Exactly .. with Winnik - O'Reilly - Landeskog playing like a 2nd line, Sacco should load up on the top line to get some offense going.

Duchene - Stastny - Hejduk
Winnik - O'Reilly - Landeskog

And mix and match the bottom 6

Galiardi - Mueller - Jones
McLeod - McClement - Kobasew
Porter/Lindstrom
What about putting Hunwick on the 4th line in place of McLeod? Hunwick is a liability at D, but as a defensive LW, he could be useful. I like McLeod, but he takes a few too many penalties for a team that's built for 2-1 games.

IWantSakicAsMyGM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 05:29 PM
  #27
hoserthehorrible
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IWantSakicAsMyGM View Post
What about putting Hunwick on the 4th line in place of McLeod? Hunwick is a liability at D, but as a defensive LW, he could be useful. I like McLeod, but he takes a few too many penalties for a team that's built for 2-1 games.
Lindstrom and Porter are in the press box waiting to get put into the lineup. Malone, Walker and others are back in Lake Erie waiting for the call to come up to the Avs.

And we should "try" Hunwick at wing on the 4th line because why again?

hoserthehorrible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 06:01 PM
  #28
TwoPadStack
Gross Misconduct
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,368
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by IWantSakicAsMyGM View Post
What about putting Hunwick on the 4th line in place of McLeod? Hunwick is a liability at D, but as a defensive LW, he could be useful. I like McLeod, but he takes a few too many penalties for a team that's built for 2-1 games.
I'm all for trying Hunwick as a 4th line winger... for Lake Erie.

TwoPadStack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 06:23 PM
  #29
IWantSakicAsMyGM
Registered User
 
IWantSakicAsMyGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoserthehorrible View Post
Lindstrom and Porter are in the press box waiting to get put into the lineup. Malone, Walker and others are back in Lake Erie waiting for the call to come up to the Avs.

And we should "try" Hunwick at wing on the 4th line because why again?
I would rather give Lindstrom a chance on a scoring line, preferably with Stastny and Jones, so he's not really a fourth line option, in my opinion.

In order to bring anyone up, we'd have to waive someone and send them down. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to be Hunwick, so who else would we want to risk getting claimed? (I'll admit I haven't exactly paid attention to who on our current roster is exempt from waivers.) So, that limits the option of calling someone else up (unless we have injuries).

So that leaves Porter or Hunwick as a plug-in 4th line LW option. As a defenseman, Hunwick has put up similar PPG numbers as Porter (.255 to .295), and is arguably better defensively. Letting him use his speed to forecheck, while having more chances to chip in offensively seems like something that might be worth a try. It's a much better option than having him on the blue line. I'm not saying Porter shouldn't get a chance, I'm just suggesting we give Hunwick a chance to earn his paycheck in a position that won't hurt the team too much if/when he fails.

IWantSakicAsMyGM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 06:34 PM
  #30
Langen the brunner
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 12
vCash: 500
Play Lindstrom !!!

Langen the brunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 06:36 PM
  #31
hoserthehorrible
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IWantSakicAsMyGM View Post
I would rather give Lindstrom a chance on a scoring line, preferably with Stastny and Jones, so he's not really a fourth line option, in my opinion.

In order to bring anyone up, we'd have to waive someone and send them down. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to be Hunwick, so who else would we want to risk getting claimed? (I'll admit I haven't exactly paid attention to who on our current roster is exempt from waivers.) So, that limits the option of calling someone else up (unless we have injuries).

So that leaves Porter or Hunwick as a plug-in 4th line LW option. As a defenseman, Hunwick has put up similar PPG numbers as Porter (.255 to .295), and is arguably better defensively. Letting him use his speed to forecheck, while having more chances to chip in offensively seems like something that might be worth a try. It's a much better option than having him on the blue line. I'm not saying Porter shouldn't get a chance, I'm just suggesting we give Hunwick a chance to earn his paycheck in a position that won't hurt the team too much if/when he fails.
Is there any evidence to suggest that Hunwick can even play forward? Does he have a history of playing that position elsewhere? Why would you even try this when there are other, more proven, options.

Porter is a decent option as a 4th liner. I just don't think he should be used on the top two scoring lines and the powerplay like he was last year.

Who ever said Lindstrom has to play on the 4th line if he were inserted into the lineup instead of McLeod? Lindstrom can play on Stastny's wing and Kobasew can move down to the 4th line.

I don't agree McLeod is worthless but if you don't think McLeod should play then why are you even concerned about exposing him to the waiver wire in favor of calling up someone from Lake Erie.

My point is that there's multiple options; all of which are better than trying Hunwick at wing.

hoserthehorrible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 06:37 PM
  #32
Cypher
#GenieArmy
 
Cypher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,858
vCash: 50
If the Avs can't get the offense going against the Sens, than I'll be bit concerned, esspecially with the next game being in Montreal.

Cypher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 07:05 PM
  #33
CB Joe
Registered User
 
CB Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,684
vCash: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypher View Post
If the Avs can't get the offense going against the Sens, than I'll be bit concerned, esspecially with the next game being in Montreal.
The Avs are finishing back-to-back games, we really shouldn't be hoping for anything other then a win. I believe last season stats showed about a 30% win rate when playing the second game in a back to back schedule.

CB Joe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 07:35 PM
  #34
AdamCalderHero
Blaze = UK Avs
 
AdamCalderHero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Coventry, England
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 486
vCash: 500
There are so many options right now its hard to decide which is best. Sacco has gone with the current lines which seem as good as any so its worth giving them at least 2-3 more games but if they still don't click maybe it would be worth a change.

The simplest option would be a Kobasew/Galiardi swap. I dont think this would make much difference to our offence though as I don't think Kobasew is worse than Gali skill wise.

We could keep the third line together and rearrange the top two maybe putting Muelller with Staz and Jones to increase the skill on the line. Then if Mueller looks tired he can swap the odd shift with Gali to give him a break.

The third option is more radical and to say that O'Reilly and Landeskog's play (and maybe winnik as im a big fan but think hes better in the bottom 6) has been deserving of a top 6 role and I would agree so we could role a first line of Duchene-Stastny-Jones followed by Landeskog-O'Reilly-Hejduk. Both lines seem to have nice balance of skill, playmaking and grit so it could be a good option.

I personally am quite a steady person so I wouldn't make the final change unless the other aboves have failed but thats just me and I totally understand why people might want more of a change.

Either way im pleased with the results so far and think the defense is much improved. They are just making two or three shocking mistakes per game so far and Varly ( for the most part ) is bailing them out so if they cut those down I think the futures bright

AdamCalderHero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 07:46 PM
  #35
IWantSakicAsMyGM
Registered User
 
IWantSakicAsMyGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoserthehorrible View Post
Is there any evidence to suggest that Hunwick can even play forward? Does he have a history of playing that position elsewhere? Why would you even try this when there are other, more proven, options.

Porter is a decent option as a 4th liner. I just don't think he should be used on the top two scoring lines and the powerplay like he was last year.

Who ever said Lindstrom has to play on the 4th line if he were inserted into the lineup instead of McLeod? Lindstrom can play on Stastny's wing and Kobasew can move down to the 4th line.

I don't agree McLeod is worthless but if you don't think McLeod should play then why are you even concerned about exposing him to the waiver wire in favor of calling up someone from Lake Erie.

My point is that there's multiple options; all of which are better than trying Hunwick at wing.
I remember there were a couple of games last year when the Avs dressed 7 defensemen and Hunwick got a few shifts on the wing. During those shifts, he actually looked somewhat competent. Definitely did a much better job at LW than he ever did at D.

And I'm not saying McLeod is worthless. But he's only playing about 8 1/2 minutes a game, which is the lowest of any F on the team, which means he doesn't have the confidence of the coaches. So why shouldn't they give someone else the chance if they aren't going to give him ice time? If that's Porter, great. But, if giving Hunwick the chance at LW keeps him off the blue line, it seems like something to consider.

IWantSakicAsMyGM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2011, 11:43 PM
  #36
TwoPadStack
Gross Misconduct
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,368
vCash: 900
Alright, I think most people agree we can't mess with these two lines...

Hejduk - Stastny - Jones
Landeskog - O'Reilly - Winnik

...so we need to make 2 more lines out of the following:

Duchene
Galiardi
Kobasew
Lindstrom
McClement
McCleod
Porter

* Mueller/Yip/Olver/Hishon (injured)

What do you guys suggest?

TwoPadStack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2011, 11:49 PM
  #37
CB Joe
Registered User
 
CB Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,684
vCash: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoPadStack View Post
Alright, I think most people agree we can't mess with these two lines...

Hejduk - Stastny - Jones
Landeskog - O'Reilly - Winnik

...so we need to make 2 more lines out of the following:

Duchene
Galiardi
Kobasew
Lindstrom
McClement
McCleod
Porter

* Mueller/Yip/Olver/Hishon (injured)

What do you guys suggest?
Galiardi - Duchene -
McLeod - McClement -

I'm not really sure who I would want playing on the right side of those to pairs.

CB Joe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2011, 11:49 PM
  #38
NHL33*
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 7,873
vCash: 500
If we leave tonight's first two lines alone (not sure if it's a good idea due to depth concerns) then:
Duchene-Galiardi-Lindstrom
McLeod-McClement-Kobasew

Duchene would have to take the faceoffs and then switch to the wing.

NHL33* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2011, 11:52 PM
  #39
TwoPadStack
Gross Misconduct
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,368
vCash: 900
Yeah, Galiardi was murdered in the faceoff circle tonight. Can't have that.

TwoPadStack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2011, 11:57 PM
  #40
vGod
Registered User
 
vGod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 43
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoPadStack View Post
Alright, I think most people agree we can't mess with these two lines...

Hejduk - Stastny - Jones
Landeskog - O'Reilly - Winnik

...so we need to make 2 more lines out of the following:

Duchene
Galiardi
Kobasew
Lindstrom
McClement
McCleod
Porter

* Mueller/Yip/Olver/Hishon (injured)

What do you guys suggest?
Galiardi-Duchene-Lindstrom
McCleod-McClement-Kobasew/Porter

I feel those would work somewhat, Lindstrom needs to play better defensively but in terms of offense I feel like he can score and be a solid play maker.. He's just not very aggressive.

vGod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2011, 12:01 AM
  #41
CB Joe
Registered User
 
CB Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,684
vCash: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoPadStack View Post
Yeah, Galiardi was murdered in the faceoff circle tonight. Can't have that.
None of our centers did great in the face-off circle tonight. Toews and Kane were solid on the face-offs tonight. Since Galiardi put on the extra muscle it might not be a bad idea to try him out at center a bit.

CB Joe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2011, 12:02 AM
  #42
kento19
@kento19
 
kento19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: St. John's
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,961
vCash: 500
we need another scorer to put with duchene. I know everybody thinks that the LOW line is a second line and not a third but i disagree. They are a third line that can score. They have the grit and forechecking capabilities to make them one of the better role third lines in the league, plus they have the offense to be the best offensive third line in the league. I don't want to interrupt the stastny, duke and jones line at all but Duchene deserves to play with top players as well. When Mueller gets back thats one. Lindstrom or galiardi can fill his spot until then, but both of them shouldn't be on the second line. We need another top 6 player.

kento19 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2011, 03:25 AM
  #43
vGod
Registered User
 
vGod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 43
vCash: 500
On second thought I'd like to give this a try..

Hejduk-Statsny-Jones
Landeskog-O'reilly-Duchene
Lindstrom-Galiardi-Winnik
McCleod-McClement-Kobasew

vGod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2011, 03:43 AM
  #44
Avsboy
Registered User
 
Avsboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,406
vCash: 500
Jones-Stastny-Hejduk
Duchene-RoR-Landeskog
Lindstrom-Galiardi-Winnik
Mcleod-McClement-Kobasew

Avsboy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2011, 03:50 AM
  #45
Av-merican
@Av_merican
 
Av-merican's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Frozen Wasteland
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avsboy View Post
Jones-Stastny-Hejduk
Duchene-RoR-Landeskog
Lindstrom-Galiardi-Winnik
Mcleod-McClement-Kobasew
I actually wouldn't mind seeing this lineup in action.

Av-merican is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2011, 03:52 AM
  #46
TheStranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avsboy View Post
Jones-Stastny-Hejduk
Duchene-RoR-Landeskog
Lindstrom-Galiardi-Winnik
Mcleod-McClement-Kobasew
That is exactly the line up I would like to see. Gives two legit scoring lines, let's face it Winnik shouldn't be on one for an extended period and he also makes our 3rd line a legitimate one. Makes the team much more balanced, and those could be amazing scoring lines.

TheStranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2011, 10:11 AM
  #47
niwotsblessing
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: People's Republic
Country: Iceland
Posts: 1,323
vCash: 500
Lindstrom - Stastny - Jones
Galiardi - Duchene - Hejduk
Landeskog - O'Reilly - Winnik
McLeod - McClement - Kobasew

niwotsblessing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2011, 11:28 AM
  #48
CB Joe
Registered User
 
CB Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,684
vCash: 544
If we do split up Landeskog - O'Reilly - Winnik then I wouldn't mind seeing these lines for the next game

Winnik - Stastny - Jones
Landeskog - O'Reilly - Hejduk
Galiardi - Duchene - Lindstrom
McLeod - McClement - Kobasew

CB Joe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2011, 12:52 PM
  #49
AvsFan7*
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,186
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheStranger View Post
That is exactly the line up I would like to see. Gives two legit scoring lines, let's face it Winnik shouldn't be on one for an extended period and he also makes our 3rd line a legitimate one. Makes the team much more balanced, and those could be amazing scoring lines.
Why shouldnt Winnik be on a scoring line????? He's been one of if not our very best forward all year, hes scored 2 goals, and is playing incredibly good hockey, IMO he deserves to be on a scoring line right now!

I dont see how beaking up the Landy, Oreilly, Winnik line can possibly be a good thing, they've played exceptionally well every game we've played, and are the only line that has done that. They were the ones that scored the tying goal late last night, and were the ones that scored the late goal against Columbus to tie it!

To me there our 1st line right now, and breaking them up would not only be incredibly stupid, but wouldnt help the team at all, would probably hurt it!

Dont fix something that isnt broken!

AvsFan7* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2011, 01:20 PM
  #50
Nihiliste
Registered User
 
Nihiliste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,880
vCash: 500
Well, with the Duke-Staz-Jones line, now we finally have two viable lines but I feel that the O'reilly line would still be better served by being a 3rd line, and kind of being our depth line that can really hurt teams. When Duchene gets going, we're either going to need to have Mueller back and playing well, or acquire another winger to give us that third option.

Nihiliste is offline   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 04:06 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.