You don't think third line scoring has much impact on how successful a team is?
Teams aren't carried by their third lines lines. It has some impact, and probably more so in team's with a more balanced approach. But even in the Bruins's playoff run, the team heavily relied on their top players.
Look at Marchand. He was more impactful when he replaced Savard in the lineup.
Quote:
You don't think the fact that the Bruins had 12 players with 10 or more goals last season and 8 guys with 5 or more goals in the playoffs had anything to do with their success?
I think the real answer is two-fold.
The Bruins depended on their depth. Second-line players like Marchand, Peverley, Recchi, and Seguin played bottom-six minutes! Players like Campbell on the fourth line! But equally essential was their defense. When their top lines were outmatched by the opposition, Thomas and the defense came to the rescue. This was also true for the bottom lines. The line of Peverley-Ryder, and Kelly benefited greatley from the defense. This was incredibly apparent in the Tampa Bay series. Boston's top-end talent, for the forwards, was a little low. Boston had ONE 30-goal scorer and just 4 20-goal scorers that year.
Boston's depth really helped the most by providing Brad Marchand, who basically took Savard's top-six spot and reinforced their top-six. But when healthy, top-heavy teams like Pittsburgh and Detroit have been very successful.
Teams aren't carried by their third lines lines. It has some impact, and probably more so in team's with a more balanced approach. But even in the Bruins's playoff run, the team heavily relied on their top players.
Look at Marchand. He was more impactful when he replaced Savard in the lineup.
I think the real answer is two-fold.
The Bruins depended on their depth. Second-line players like Marchand, Peverley, Recchi, and Seguin played bottom-six minutes! Players like Campbell on the fourth line! But equally essential was their defense. When their top lines were outmatched by the opposition, Thomas and the defense came to the rescue. This was also true for the bottom lines. The line of Peverley-Ryder, and Kelly benefited greatley from the defense. This was incredibly apparent in the Tampa Bay series. Boston's top-end talent, for the forwards, was a little low. Boston had ONE 30-goal scorer and just 4 20-goal scorers that year.
Boston's depth really helped the most by providing Brad Marchand, who basically took Savard's top-six spot and reinforced their top-six. But when healthy, top-heavy teams like Pittsburgh and Detroit have been very successful.
Yeah, but top heavy teams like Pittsburgh and Detroit have a better Top 6 than we do. We have neither as dominating a Top 6 as the superstar-led elite teams or the depth of the more balanced elite teams. We have a roster comparable to any number of mid pack teams. All the best coaching in the world isn't going to change that.
Our team needs contributions from everybody, particularly the third line, in order to win and we're just not getting it.
Yeah, but top heavy teams like Pittsburgh and Detroit have a better Top 6 than we do. We have neither as dominating a Top 6 as the superstar-led elite teams or the depth of the more balanced elite teams. We have a roster comparable to any number of mid pack teams. All the best coaching in the world isn't going to change that.
Our team needs contributions from everybody, particularly the third line, in order to win and we're just not getting it.
The year that the Red Wings won the cup, their top two lines were:
Zets-Datsyuk-Franzen
Clearly-Filpulla-Samuelsson
Do you really think that is superior to the Sharks's top two lines now? They did have Lidstrom....
Pitts that one year was Crosby, Malkin, then nobody, then Gonchar, and then nobody.
Teams aren't carried by their third lines lines. It has some impact, and probably more so in team's with a more balanced approach. But even in the Bruins's playoff run, the team heavily relied on their top players.
Look at Marchand. He was more impactful when he replaced Savard in the lineup.
I think the real answer is two-fold.
The Bruins depended on their depth. Second-line players like Marchand, Peverley, Recchi, and Seguin played bottom-six minutes! Players like Campbell on the fourth line! But equally essential was their defense. When their top lines were outmatched by the opposition, Thomas and the defense came to the rescue. This was also true for the bottom lines. The line of Peverley-Ryder, and Kelly benefited greatley from the defense. This was incredibly apparent in the Tampa Bay series. Boston's top-end talent, for the forwards, was a little low. Boston had ONE 30-goal scorer and just 4 20-goal scorers that year.
Boston's depth really helped the most by providing Brad Marchand, who basically took Savard's top-six spot and reinforced their top-six. But when healthy, top-heavy teams like Pittsburgh and Detroit have been very successful.
Marchand got a lot of third line time in the playoff run and scored from that line. There was sub time on top lines but nowhere was he top 6 for any stretch.
I don't have the link now, but some other stats site did a points by line for each team. For a couple of years at least, the Sharks third line has been one of the poorest producing in the league, even among teams that were considered top 6 heavy. It was an eyeopener for me.
The year that the Red Wings won the cup, their top two lines were:
Zets-Datsyuk-Franzen
Clearly-Filpulla-Samuelsson
Do you really think that is superior to the Sharks's top two lines now? They did have Lidstrom....
Pitts that one year was Crosby, Malkin, then nobody, then Gonchar, and then nobody.
We're talking about right now and, yes, I would gladly swap our Top 6 for either Detroit's or Pittsburgh's, even with the risk Crosby never comes back. In a New York minute.
