Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

redfire11

Lines and Pairings for 2018/19 Season

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, MAC331 said:

I saw an article where Gaudreau would prefer to have Neal play with him and Monahan which makes the most sense IMO. Playmaker and two snipers.

Same could be said for Tkachuk with Backlund and Lindholm.

Not sure why everyone is putting Bennett back at C and Ryan on his wing, that takes two players out of their best positions. We should have learned by now that Bennett needs to play a simple game on LW and have two accomplished veterans Ryan and Frolik with him. If his game doesn't pick up playing with these two then it is time to write him off.

 

I don’t think we know if wing is Bennett’s best position. When he played C all he really had was Brouwer. Coach even said they have to try him at C again to really figure out whether he is or not. 

 

I get it, Bennett had his best year as a LW, but he also had players to play with them. When he was a C, basically nobody’s. If we got the guys to do it, gotta try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if Bennett will be more successful at C, LW, or at any position for that matter. I would say that it is more likely he ends up at LW. In part because that is where he has had the most success. In part because of the depth at C. We have six guys who could legitimately play in the top 9 at C this season. 

 

That said, a line of Tkachuk-Bennett-Neal is particularly exciting. At least to me. That is a line that would be incredibly hard to play against and could be one talked about across the NHL. 

 

Gaudreau-Monahan-Lindholm

Frolik-Backlund-Ryan 

Tkachuk-Bennett-Neal 

Mangiapane-Jankowski-Czarnik 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I don’t think we know if wing is Bennett’s best position. When he played C all he really had was Brouwer. Coach even said they have to try him at C again to really figure out whether he is or not. 

 

I get it, Bennett had his best year as a LW, but he also had players to play with them. When he was a C, basically nobody’s. If we got the guys to do it, gotta try it.

Personally I just don't think he is smart enough for the position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kehatch said:

I don't know if Bennett will be more successful at C, LW, or at any position for that matter. I would say that it is more likely he ends up at LW. In part because that is where he has had the most success. In part because of the depth at C. We have six guys who could legitimately play in the top 9 at C this season. 

 

That said, a line of Tkachuk-Bennett-Neal is particularly exciting. At least to me. That is a line that would be incredibly hard to play against and could be one talked about across the NHL. 

 

Gaudreau-Monahan-Lindholm

Frolik-Backlund-Ryan 

Tkachuk-Bennett-Neal 

Mangiapane-Jankowski-Czarnik 

I think it would be a mistake to put those 3 together for other obvious reasons. Also I don't think Ryan was brought here to play RW at all.

I like the idea of Mangiapane, Jankowski and Czarnik as a line, worth trying early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

I think it would be a mistake to put those 3 together for other obvious reasons. Also I don't think Ryan was brought here to play RW at all.

I like the idea of Mangiapane, Jankowski and Czarnik as a line, worth trying early.

 

Other than Jankowski, that’s a really small line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

Other than Jankowski, that’s a really small line. 

There would be a lot of buzz around Jankowski. LOL

If they wanted to go heavier against some teams they could have Klimchuk LW and Hathaway RW as alternatives. Have to see how it all shakes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MAC331 said:

I think it would be a mistake to put those 3 together for other obvious reasons. Also I don't think Ryan was brought here to play RW at all.

I like the idea of Mangiapane, Jankowski and Czarnik as a line, worth trying early.

 

What mistake? Peters was already talking about using Tkachuk-Backlund-Neal. It's not a big leap to putting Bennett on that line in place of Backlund. 

 

As for Ryan, a big part of his value is versatility to play both the wing and C. He played a bunch of wing under Peters in Carolina. Putting him in a wing also gives you two face off guys playing their strong side. 

 

Assuming Backlund, Jankowski, and Monahan are at C (very fair assumption) that leaves room for one more. Bennett, Ryan, and Lindholm are all good options. You could also put Dube, Gawdin, and Quine as options. I don't think Ryan is a guarantee at C anymore then those other guys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kehatch said:

 

What mistake? Peters was already talking about using Tkachuk-Backlund-Neal. It's not a big leap to putting Bennett on that line in place of Backlund. 

 

As for Ryan, a big part of his value is versatility to play both the wing and C. He played a bunch of wing under Peters in Carolina. Putting him in a wing also gives you two face off guys playing their strong side. 

 

Assuming Backlund, Jankowski, and Monahan are at C (very fair assumption) that leaves room for one more. Bennett, Ryan, and Lindholm are all good options. You could also put Dube, Gawdin, and Quine as options. I don't think Ryan is a guarantee at C anymore then those other guys. 

Think what you want, I think you will be wrong regardless. It is all just paper rosters at this stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

Think what you want, I think you will be wrong regardless. It is all just paper rosters at this stage.

 

Indeed they are. Seems appropriate in a thread about line combinations though. With new coaches, lots of options, and a bunch of new players we will all be wrong. Probably including the coaches themselves. But thanks for adding to the discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Personally I just don't think he is smart enough for the position.

 

It appears you’re not a Bennett fan. Last year he was 54.3% in faceoffs, and for the first time in his career he helped our team get more shots for than against when even strength. He is developing his game, and could be a very good centre in time. If he can maintain some discipline this year you may be surprised at what he could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the season started today, what do you think of this for a starting forward lineup assuming no one gets bought out or traded?

 

Gaudreau-Monahan-Neal

Tkachuk-Backlund-Lindholm

Frolik-Ryan-Czarnik

Bennett-Jankowski-Brouwer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 7wit said:

If the season started today, what do you think of this for a starting forward lineup assuming no one gets bought out or traded?

 

Gaudreau-Monahan-Neal

Tkachuk-Backlund-Lindholm

Frolik-Ryan-Czarnik

Bennett-Jankowski-Brouwer

 

I think the top 6 is very likely what we see post camp. The coaches will experiment with a bunch of combinations but ultimately that top 6 appears to be the best fit. Personally I would spread some of the talent to the bottom 6, but I am not sure if the coaches will.

 

I don't love the bottom 6. It lacks a strong defensive line which I think hurt us last season. I don't like putting Bennett and Jankowski on a fourth line with Brouwer. I think that could really hamper their development. I also think Foo or Mangiapane need some NHL time, though that may need to come via injury due to the number of bodies.

 

That said, I don't think you are too far of from what we might see. With the bottom 6 really being defined in camp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 7wit said:

 

It appears you’re not a Bennett fan. Last year he was 54.3% in faceoffs, and for the first time in his career he helped our team get more shots for than against when even strength. He is developing his game, and could be a very good centre in time. If he can maintain some discipline this year you may be surprised at what he could do.

 

Look at the number of draws taken.  Not that many.  54.3 or 53.4% is meaningless if you only take 273 or 89 or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 7wit said:

 

It appears you’re not a Bennett fan. Last year he was 54.3% in faceoffs, and for the first time in his career he helped our team get more shots for than against when even strength. He is developing his game, and could be a very good centre in time. If he can maintain some discipline this year you may be surprised at what he could do.

Actually I am a huge fan of Bennett and defended him lots here. It is just my perception that his style better suites him being on the Wing. There will always be aspects of his game that allows him to be successful taking faceoffs which bodes well for the line. As it stands right now I think our best foot forward down the middle is Monahan, Backlund, Ryan and Jankowski.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will take a look at this from a different angle.  Peter's (and most coaches) think in pairs.  So let's start there.  Gaudreau and Monahan are clearly a pair.  I would also put Backlund with Frolik.  You can make a case that Tkachuk is a better partner for Backund, but I am starting to move away from that thinking.  In part because Backlund and Frolik have played so well together. In part because I would like to broaden Tkachuk's role.  That gives you a starting point on two of your top three lines.  

 

Next, I am going to make the assumption that Gaudrea/Monahan and Backlund/Frolik can play with almost anyone and be competent.  I think it is a fair assumption that they have proven multiple times in the past.  Instead, I am going to focus on building another top 3 line and then match whomever is leftover as best I can with those four.  The players we have to work with:

 

  • Neal (RW/LW)
  • Tkachuk (LW/RW)
  • Lindholm (C/RW)
  • Brouwer (RW/Custodian)
  • Ryan (C/RW)
  • Bennett (C/LW)
  • Jankowski (C/LW)
  • Czarnik (RW)
  • Foo (RW)
  • Mangiapane (LW)

Some options for another top 3 line:

  • Tkachuk-Lindholm-Ryan: Lindholm is a good defensive two-way player who could helm a second defensive option (along with the Backlund line).  I think a large part of our struggles last season were a lack of good 5 on 5 options to play in the defensive zone.  As a result the Backlund line saw 2-more minutes a night and the D had to play without consistently strong defensive forwards.  I think we paid the price. That leaves Neal to play with Gaudrea/Monahan and Bennett to play with Backlund/Frolik
  • Tkachuk-Bennett-Neal: I really like this line.  I think it would be infamous across the league and it would do a bunch of damage.  That leaves Lindholm to play with Backlund/Frolik.  The top line would be an interesting discussion. Could a player like Czarnik or Foo establish themselves on that line?  Ryan is a good fall back. He puts up solid offensive numbers and could be the Hudler to our top line. 

There are plenty of options.  With a new coach, new players, NHL ready kids, and added versatility we are spinning our wheels with line combinations until at least the preseason.  But it is something to do I guess. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kehatch said:

I will take a look at this from a different angle.  Peter's (and most coaches) think in pairs.  So let's start there.  Gaudreau and Monahan are clearly a pair.  I would also put Backlund with Frolik.  You can make a case that Tkachuk is a better partner for Backund, but I am starting to move away from that thinking.  In part because Backlund and Frolik have played so well together. In part because I would like to broaden Tkachuk's role.  That gives you a starting point on two of your top three lines.  

 

Next, I am going to make the assumption that Gaudrea/Monahan and Backlund/Frolik can play with almost anyone and be competent.  I think it is a fair assumption that they have proven multiple times in the past.  Instead, I am going to focus on building another top 3 line and then match whomever is leftover as best I can with those four.  The players we have to work with:

 

  • Neal (RW/LW)
  • Tkachuk (LW/RW)
  • Lindholm (C/RW)
  • Brouwer (RW/Custodian)
  • Ryan (C/RW)
  • Bennett (C/LW)
  • Jankowski (C/LW)
  • Czarnik (RW)
  • Foo (RW)
  • Mangiapane (LW)

Some options for another top 3 line:

  • Tkachuk-Lindholm-Ryan: Lindholm is a good defensive two-way player who could helm a second defensive option (along with the Backlund line).  I think a large part of our struggles last season were a lack of good 5 on 5 options to play in the defensive zone.  As a result the Backlund line saw 2-more minutes a night and the D had to play without consistently strong defensive forwards.  I think we paid the price. That leaves Neal to play with Gaudrea/Monahan and Bennett to play with Backlund/Frolik
  • Tkachuk-Bennett-Neal: I really like this line.  I think it would be infamous across the league and it would do a bunch of damage.  That leaves Lindholm to play with Backlund/Frolik.  The top line would be an interesting discussion. Could a player like Czarnik or Foo establish themselves on that line?  Ryan is a good fall back. He puts up solid offensive numbers and could be the Hudler to our top line. 

There are plenty of options.  With a new coach, new players, NHL ready kids, and added versatility we are spinning our wheels with line combinations until at least the preseason.  But it is something to do I guess. 

 

 

I like the thinking about pairs, which is also what BT and BP seem to believe in as well.  I agree with the two obvious choices, JG-SM and MB-MF.  The third pair likely starts with Tkachuk and then who, ie which Centre?  Personally I would put Jankowski with Tkachuk rather than Bennett.  Besides the obvious fact that Bennett has not done as well at Centre as he has at wing, having all three agitators on one line is a waste and it would be better to spread the wealth.  I still foster hope for Bennett and think he could go with any of those three pairs.  But basically you could put Bennett at C, or Lindholm at C or Czarnik at C or Ryan at C or Dube at C.  At this point there are too many options which hopefully will translate into success though it may take a while to figure it all out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kehatch said:

I will take a look at this from a different angle.  Peter's (and most coaches) think in pairs.  So let's start there.  Gaudreau and Monahan are clearly a pair.  I would also put Backlund with Frolik.  You can make a case that Tkachuk is a better partner for Backund, but I am starting to move away from that thinking.  In part because Backlund and Frolik have played so well together. In part because I would like to broaden Tkachuk's role.  That gives you a starting point on two of your top three lines.  

 

Next, I am going to make the assumption that Gaudrea/Monahan and Backlund/Frolik can play with almost anyone and be competent.  I think it is a fair assumption that they have proven multiple times in the past.  Instead, I am going to focus on building another top 3 line and then match whomever is leftover as best I can with those four.  The players we have to work with:

 

  • Neal (RW/LW)
  • Tkachuk (LW/RW)
  • Lindholm (C/RW)
  • Brouwer (RW/Custodian)
  • Ryan (C/RW)
  • Bennett (C/LW)
  • Jankowski (C/LW)
  • Czarnik (RW)
  • Foo (RW)
  • Mangiapane (LW)

Some options for another top 3 line:

  • Tkachuk-Lindholm-Ryan: Lindholm is a good defensive two-way player who could helm a second defensive option (along with the Backlund line).  I think a large part of our struggles last season were a lack of good 5 on 5 options to play in the defensive zone.  As a result the Backlund line saw 2-more minutes a night and the D had to play without consistently strong defensive forwards.  I think we paid the price. That leaves Neal to play with Gaudrea/Monahan and Bennett to play with Backlund/Frolik
  • Tkachuk-Bennett-Neal: I really like this line.  I think it would be infamous across the league and it would do a bunch of damage.  That leaves Lindholm to play with Backlund/Frolik.  The top line would be an interesting discussion. Could a player like Czarnik or Foo establish themselves on that line?  Ryan is a good fall back. He puts up solid offensive numbers and could be the Hudler to our top line. 

There are plenty of options.  With a new coach, new players, NHL ready kids, and added versatility we are spinning our wheels with line combinations until at least the preseason.  But it is something to do I guess. 

 

 

The main difference between your thinking and mine is I want more out of Backlund and you only see him as a checking line forward. Tkachuk will always need some good skaters with him and so far having him with both Backlund and Frolik has worked OK not exceptionally. I believe Lindholm could be the catalyst to seeing a huge leap with both Tkachuk and Backlund. Frolik has more benefit to the team as that tenacious checking forward but with Ryan and Bennett (who has similar characteristics). We need totake better advantage of the players BT has brought in. Until Bennett shows some offensive upside I wouldn't try him at C again at all.

Gaudreau, Monahan, Neal (3x the player Ferland was here)= way more production

Tkachuk, Backlund, Lindholm (all players that should be in your top 6)

Bennett, Ryan, Frolik (solid checking line with plenty of room for offensive upside)

Mangiapane, Jankowski, Czarnik (plenty of buzz and should contribute some offense) also opportunity for others to sub in.

This is how I would like to see BP start out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep struggling with my perception of Bennett and what to do with him.

Has he been played with some meh players the last two years?  Hathaway, Brouwer, Lazar,  etc. Yes.

Did he play wing last season with a decent, if not better than average C? Yes.

Are his faceoff number good?  Not really impressive for the number taken, and for a guy in the league for 3 years.

He's an agitator, but his penalty differential is not like Tkachuk.

He's fairly good defensively, but loses position or his cool too often.

He shows some flair, some grit and some speed.

 

My quandry is how to use him.  Top 9?  Pair him with Backlund?  Give him less opportunity and make him earn the promotion?  Set him up on a scoring line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

I keep struggling with my perception of Bennett and what to do with him.

Has he been played with some meh players the last two years?  Hathaway, Brouwer, Lazar,  etc. Yes.

Did he play wing last season with a decent, if not better than average C? Yes.

Are his faceoff number good?  Not really impressive for the number taken, and for a guy in the league for 3 years.

He's an agitator, but his penalty differential is not like Tkachuk.

He's fairly good defensively, but loses position or his cool too often.

He shows some flair, some grit and some speed.

 

My quandry is how to use him.  Top 9?  Pair him with Backlund?  Give him less opportunity and make him earn the promotion?  Set him up on a scoring line?

I'm not so sure that is how to look at Bennett or the team in general really. If BP wants a balanced team with every player contributing to the overall play you need to get the lines right as a start. It isn't about Bennett earning a promotion necessarily over Tkachuk to play one line up. It should be about putting your talents to work so your line does what it is suppose to do. We have 4 very capable Cs heading into this next season and now with Ferland gone we need some help on LW, why not Bennett ? Keeps him in the top 9 and with 2 seasoned line mates which should help improve his performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prinary scoring line-Gaudreau-Monahan-Neal   

Shutdown/secondary scoring line-Tkachuk-Backlund-Lindholm

Defensively responsible line-Frolik-Ryan-Brouwer

Energy line-Bennett-Jankowski-Czarnik

 

I know people will cringe at seeing Brouwer play 3rd line minutes, but IMO it's better to play Brouwer away from any of the kids. The "4th" line could be a really effective energy line filled with a ton of youthful energy and could thrive against weaker competition

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Prinary scoring line-Gaudreau-Monahan-Neal   

Shutdown/secondary scoring line-Tkachuk-Backlund-Lindholm

Defensively responsible line-Frolik-Ryan-Brouwer

Energy line-Bennett-Jankowski-Czarnik

 

I know people will cringe at seeing Brouwer play 3rd line minutes, but IMO it's better to play Brouwer away from any of the kids. The "4th" line could be a really effective energy line filled with a ton of youthful energy and could thrive against weaker competition

 

Should Brouwer be here I could see him being utilized as you have him. He responds best when with veterans carrying out that type of role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Prinary scoring line-Gaudreau-Monahan-Neal   

Shutdown/secondary scoring line-Tkachuk-Backlund-Lindholm

Defensively responsible line-Frolik-Ryan-Brouwer

Energy line-Bennett-Jankowski-Czarnik

 

I know people will cringe at seeing Brouwer play 3rd line minutes, but IMO it's better to play Brouwer away from any of the kids. The "4th" line could be a really effective energy line filled with a ton of youthful energy and could thrive against weaker competition

 

 

I cringed for a split second until I saw the 4th line. The great thing about it is if that 4th line can take a step forward, the coach can get a feel for the players who are going and they get the playing time. Essentially it can make the team better because it’ll turn into a competition for ice time. But if a line isn’t feeling it, no worries, another line can pick up the slack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

I keep struggling with my perception of Bennett and what to do with him.

Has he been played with some meh players the last two years?  Hathaway, Brouwer, Lazar,  etc. Yes.

Did he play wing last season with a decent, if not better than average C? Yes.

Are his faceoff number good?  Not really impressive for the number taken, and for a guy in the league for 3 years.

He's an agitator, but his penalty differential is not like Tkachuk.

He's fairly good defensively, but loses position or his cool too often.

He shows some flair, some grit and some speed.

 

My quandry is how to use him.  Top 9?  Pair him with Backlund?  Give him less opportunity and make him earn the promotion?  Set him up on a scoring line?

 

Bennett had the best F.O. win percentage on the team last year for players that took at least 100 draws, winning 54.3%.  Jankowski was at 48.8 %, ahead of only Brouwer and Lazar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at Vegas last year, the argument can easily be said that a big part of why they had success was putting players in positions to succeed that previously were relegated to 3rd and 4th line duties.  It's a lot easier to be effective when you're playing 12-15 minutes a night than when you're playing 3-5 minutes.  That goes for our young guys, and guys like Brouwer.  He can't be effective in a 4th line role.  The question is does he still have what it takes to be effective in a 3rd line role?  I actually like the line up with him on the 3rd line, if nothing else to put him in a position to succeed, get his confidence back, and then trade him in January for depth picks...or if he's really being a contributor, keep him for the playoff run.  I think he's still got value to the group...maybe not enough value to fully justify his contract...but we just need to help him get his game and confidence back and then I think he can turn into a solid player.  Or maybe that's just the eternal optimist in me.  But that also goes for the 4th line proposed of Bennett - Janko - Czarnik....none of those guys will be difference makers if they only play 4th line minutes.  We have both a blessing and curse in our logjam of young talent needing more opportunities.  There just isn't enough opportunities to go around to continue to develop them properly.

 

A lot has been discussed on the forward group, and for good reason, we've got more guys that can be difference makers now, we've arguably significantly improved our depth scoring while at the same time improving our 200 foot game and possession stats, and we're carrying too many players, so one or two players that deserve to be in the NHL will need to be traded or sent down.  That's all on paper mind you, so we'll see what happens on ice.

 

What about the D pairings?  I know it's been discussed too, but take Valimaki for instance, even if he deserves a spot in the big league I don't think we should have him up here.  With Kylington, Andersson and Kulak, we've got 3 young guys fighting for that 6th spot, plus we'd burn a year off his ELC...which could turn around to bite us 3 years from now.  I think you could pretty much slot him down in Stockton to start and finish the season down there...no way would I bring him up for more than 9 games and burn that year.  I know that goes against the "always earned" mantra, but burning a year off an ELC for a young stud D man who will most likely be a strong piece for us in his last two years of his ELC would be huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ABC923 said:

 

Bennett had the best F.O. win percentage on the team last year for players that took at least 100 draws, winning 54.3%.  Jankowski was at 48.8 %, ahead of only Brouwer and Lazar.

 

Brouwer took 217 draws to Bennett's 219.  Monahan took 1407 and Backlund took 1410.

Stajan took more than double of Bennett's and Janko took almost 4x as many.

Sorry, but that few draws doesn't show a lot.  Did he take draws after Janko was kicked out?

 

In 1383 draws for his career Bennett was 47.3%.  That's less draws then Monahan took in 2017/8 alone.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...