Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
thehockeyguru wrote:I can't stomach playing a great 2 way player like Staal on wing.
sil wrote:thehockeyguru wrote:I can't stomach playing a great 2 way player like Staal on wing.
It's probably either that, or stomach trading him. If he agrees to stick around long-term...he'll play both C and W...some top-6, but also on the third line to help create matchup issues. It's never as simple as 1st, 2nd, or 3rd line.
thehockeyguru wrote:sil wrote:thehockeyguru wrote:I can't stomach playing a great 2 way player like Staal on wing.
It's probably either that, or stomach trading him. If he agrees to stick around long-term...he'll play both C and W...some top-6, but also on the third line to help create matchup issues. It's never as simple as 1st, 2nd, or 3rd line.
He's a C and the best defensive center on the team. I can stomach a Staal trade for a wing more than I can playing Staal at wing.
sil wrote:thehockeyguru wrote:sil wrote:thehockeyguru wrote:I can't stomach playing a great 2 way player like Staal on wing.
It's probably either that, or stomach trading him. If he agrees to stick around long-term...he'll play both C and W...some top-6, but also on the third line to help create matchup issues. It's never as simple as 1st, 2nd, or 3rd line.
He's a C and the best defensive center on the team. I can stomach a Staal trade for a wing more than I can playing Staal at wing.
He can still be a great two-way player and play both C and W.
thehockeyguru wrote:
There is no reason to play Staal at wing if he's the 2nd line center. Malkin and Crosby need to be playing together on the top line.
MRandall25 wrote:thehockeyguru wrote:
There is no reason to play Staal at wing if he's the 2nd line center. Malkin and Crosby need to be playing together on the top line.
And how has that worked out on the PP (or any time, really)?
Crosby and Staal (in some combination) is much more effective than Crosby and Malkin on the same line.
MRandall25 wrote:thehockeyguru wrote:
There is no reason to play Staal at wing if he's the 2nd line center. Malkin and Crosby need to be playing together on the top line.
And how has that worked out on the PP (or any time, really)?
Crosby and Staal (in some combination) is much more effective than Crosby and Malkin on the same line.
thehockeyguru wrote:MRandall25 wrote:thehockeyguru wrote:
There is no reason to play Staal at wing if he's the 2nd line center. Malkin and Crosby need to be playing together on the top line.
And how has that worked out on the PP (or any time, really)?
Crosby and Staal (in some combination) is much more effective than Crosby and Malkin on the same line.
I'd blame the lack of PP success on the unit not having a true QB. What was the PP clicking at the season of the Cup run when Gonchar was playing great on the point?
Hugo Stiglitz wrote:I think it's the opposite. I think we have too many QBs out there. I know you specifically mean a D at the point, but I think there's too many leaders on the ice. I think Letang is good as a PP QB, but he's got Malkin and Sid out there and of course you have to give the puck to them. There should just be two out of the three.
thehockeyguru wrote:Hugo Stiglitz wrote:I think it's the opposite. I think we have too many QBs out there. I know you specifically mean a D at the point, but I think there's too many leaders on the ice. I think Letang is good as a PP QB, but he's got Malkin and Sid out there and of course you have to give the puck to them. There should just be two out of the three.
Completely disagree. Teams had to defend the Gonchar shot from the point as well as the one time pass he would setup.
Letang can't hit the net and doesn't have the vision Gonchar did. Teams can pinch to the boards much more with Letang has PP QB
thehockeyguru wrote:MRandall25 wrote:thehockeyguru wrote:
There is no reason to play Staal at wing if he's the 2nd line center. Malkin and Crosby need to be playing together on the top line.
And how has that worked out on the PP (or any time, really)?
Crosby and Staal (in some combination) is much more effective than Crosby and Malkin on the same line.
I'd blame the lack of PP success on the unit not having a true QB. What was the PP clicking at the season of the Cup run when Gonchar was playing great on the point?
Hugo Stiglitz wrote:MRandall25 wrote:thehockeyguru wrote:
There is no reason to play Staal at wing if he's the 2nd line center. Malkin and Crosby need to be playing together on the top line.
And how has that worked out on the PP (or any time, really)?
That's really not true. I can recall countless times how Malkin and Sid playing together at ES and lighting it up.
shmenguin wrote:Hugo Stiglitz wrote:MRandall25 wrote:thehockeyguru wrote:
There is no reason to play Staal at wing if he's the 2nd line center. Malkin and Crosby need to be playing together on the top line.
And how has that worked out on the PP (or any time, really)?
That's really not true. I can recall countless times how Malkin and Sid playing together at ES and lighting it up.
they have a clear history of playing well together at even strength. i'm not saying i think that should be the solution to the lineup, but i hate when people pretend that they aren't extremely productive when playing together.
MRandall25 wrote:shmenguin wrote:Hugo Stiglitz wrote:MRandall25 wrote:thehockeyguru wrote:
There is no reason to play Staal at wing if he's the 2nd line center. Malkin and Crosby need to be playing together on the top line.
And how has that worked out on the PP (or any time, really)?
That's really not true. I can recall countless times how Malkin and Sid playing together at ES and lighting it up.
they have a clear history of playing well together at even strength. i'm not saying i think that should be the solution to the lineup, but i hate when people pretend that they aren't extremely productive when playing together.
But my main point is still there: they play better on separate lines.
DelPen wrote:Neal-Staal-Malkin
Kunitz-Crosby-Dupuis
What's the issue?
KG wrote:Shero needs to get back to bringing in players that make the team tougher/harder to play against.
The defense lacks physicality. The overall size of the team in height and weight was one of the smallest in the league this year, if not the smallest. Shero always prided himself on making this team gritty and tough to play against. He strayed from that the past few years.
Seeing the Kings this year and Boston last year both winning the cup I think Shero will have to change his philosophy again as they were two of the biggest, grittiest teams to play against.
This post season obviously shows that winning in the playoffs vs. the regular season are two very different things...
Users browsing this forum: BitterClinger, brwi, Crashguy66, DelPen, Ericf, farnham16, flame, Humperdink, IAmScore, Lesky, NashvilleCat, pensfaninhudsonvalley, pressure=9Pa, Stillerz Bar, Tonythepenguin, Zalapski33 and 62 guests