Jump to content

2020 Playoffs - Projected Habs lineup


revvvrob
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oulette and Mete paired together..Dont like it...No sir don't like it at all!:flaming:

 

Here's a look at the day's lines and D pairings:


FORWARDS

Tatar - Danault - Gallagher  
Drouin - Suzuki - Armia  
Byron - Kotkaniemi - Lehkonen  
Weise - Domi - Weal
Hudon - Evans - Poehling

 

DEFENSEMEN

Chiarot - Weber
Kulak - Petry
Ouellet - Mete
Fleury - Juulsen
Olofsson - Folin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DON said:

Oulette and Mete paired together..Dont like it...No sir don't like it at all!:flaming:

 

Here's a look at the day's lines and D pairings:


FORWARDS

Tatar - Danault - Gallagher  
Drouin - Suzuki - Armia  
Byron - Kotkaniemi - Lehkonen  
Weise - Domi - Weal
Hudon - Evans - Poehling

 

DEFENSEMEN

Chiarot - Weber
Kulak - Petry
Ouellet - Mete
Fleury - Juulsen
Olofsson - Folin

 

Clearly no need to change after such a stellar performance ... 🙄 ... pure stubbornness by Julien

 

I appreciate Ouellette having been a good soldier in Laval for two seasons ... but Mete and Fleury (or even Juulsen) would be better IMO 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who else is sick of Danault being wedged into a top 6 role? It was fine when they didn't have more capable offensive players, as he is competent in a top 6 role. But now that they could be playing Domi and Suzuki in those roles? What is the point of playing one of your best offensive players on the 4th line? Put him and Suzuki on the top two lines and let Danault THRIVE as a top level 3rd line center. Let Kotkaniemi build himself back up on the 4th line in the short term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Fanpuck33 said:

Who else is sick of Danault being wedged into a top 6 role? It was fine when they didn't have more capable offensive players, as he is competent in a top 6 role. But now that they could be playing Domi and Suzuki in those roles? What is the point of playing one of your best offensive players on the 4th line? Put him and Suzuki on the top two lines and let Danault THRIVE as a top level 3rd line center. Let Kotkaniemi build himself back up on the 4th line in the short term.

I want KK to be a top liner, but at this point I don’t want him getting the job of shadowing Crosby or Malkin.  Suzuki sure.  Domi is not good enough either.  I would play him with Suzuki and Drouin with KK and have Evans/Poehling on the 4th line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Fanpuck33 said:

Who else is sick of Danault being wedged into a top 6 role? It was fine when they didn't have more capable offensive players, as he is competent in a top 6 role. But now that they could be playing Domi and Suzuki in those roles? What is the point of playing one of your best offensive players on the 4th line? Put him and Suzuki on the top two lines and let Danault THRIVE as a top level 3rd line center. Let Kotkaniemi build himself back up on the 4th line in the short term.

 

The Danault line has chemistry and it works.... its one of the best possession lines in the NHL. 

 

Its also one of the best even strength lines in the NHL, scoring points despite playing against the other team's best players. 

 

Tatar was 25th, Danault 31st, and Gallagher 53rd (despite missing 12 games) in Even Strength points this year. 

 

In 5v5 Points per 60 (minimum 30 gp)

Gallagher is 18th, Tatar 20th, Danault 30th.   Considering that there are 93 first line players in the NHL, that's damn good.

 

 

 

Danault gets 50-55 points over a full season with virtually no powerplay time or production.   That's very good especially since he also shuts down the other team's best line.

 

That line is one of the best things on this team.  

 

People keep saying that he needs to be on the third line, and that's just not backed up by stats.  Consider that he's going to be matched up against the other team's top line, so he's always going to be 1st or 2nd amongst centres in ice time (as the other team will use their top line a lot), so its good to put Gallagher and Tatar with him as they get a lot of ice time this way too, and that line produces.

 

What the team needs is to get a 1a/1b line.  They need Suzuki or Kotkaniemi to become a 60 point centre, with guys like Drouin or Domi or Caufield or someone on their wings; and also to produce on the PP.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Easy Ryder said:

Domi should play with Lekhonen and Byron. 

 

Evans to replace Weise.

 

Hudon KK Evans

 

 

I like those changes, but would prefer Evans KK Weal as the fourth line because Wealnis better than Weis and Hudon and has earned a spot

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Fanpuck33 said:

Who else is sick of Danault being wedged into a top 6 role? It was fine when they didn't have more capable offensive players, as he is competent in a top 6 role. But now that they could be playing Domi and Suzuki in those roles? What is the point of playing one of your best offensive players on the 4th line? Put him and Suzuki on the top two lines and let Danault THRIVE as a top level 3rd line center. Let Kotkaniemi build himself back up on the 4th line in the short term.

I had Domi centering the top line and Suzuki centering the second like in my suggested line combinations... so I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2020 at 8:38 PM, xXx..CK..xXx said:

My lineup for the win.

 

Drouin-Domi-Gallagher 

Tatar-Suzuki-Byron 

Lehkonen-Danault-Armia

Hudon-KK-Weal

 

Chariot-Weber

Mete-Petry

Kulak-Fleury 

 😇

 

Now that I look at again though, I may switch Tatar and Drouin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

 😇

 

Now that I look at again though, I may switch Tatar and Drouin.

But do we really want our team to win ?

just asking what was posted before

for the draft I would go with

 

Drouin Domi Armia

Tatar Suzuki Gallagher

Lehkonen Danault Byron

Evans KK Poehling

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

But do we really want our team to win ?

just asking what was posted before

for the draft I would go with

 

Drouin Domi Armia

Tatar Suzuki Gallagher

Lehkonen Danault Byron

Evans KK Poehling

 

Domi as #1 centre? Not happening.

3 kids on 4th line also aint happening with this and most (all?) NHL coaches

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DON said:

Domi as #1 centre? Not happening.

3 kids on 4th line also aint happening with this and most (all?) NHL coaches

 

But we would get a chance at Lafreniere and give the kids playing time ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

But we would get a chance at Lafreniere and give the kids playing time ;)

But not reality, thats all.

I tend to always want the kids to get a regular shift as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

The Danault line has chemistry and it works.... its one of the best possession lines in the NHL.  Its also one of the best even strength lines in the NHL, scoring points despite playing against the other team's best players.  Tatar was 25th, Danault 31st, and Gallagher 53rd (despite missing 12 games) in Even Strength points this year. 

 

In 5v5 Points per 60 (minimum 30 gp), Gallagher is 18th, Tatar 20th, Danault 30th.  Considering that there are 93 first line players in the NHL, that's damn good.

 

Danault gets 50-55 points over a full season with virtually no powerplay time or production.   That's very good especially since he also shuts down the other team's best line.

 

That line is one of the best things on this team.  People keep saying that he needs to be on the third line, and that's just not backed up by stats.  Consider that he's going to be matched up against the other team's top line, so he's always going to be 1st or 2nd amongst centres in ice time (as the other team will use their top line a lot), so its good to put Gallagher and Tatar with him as they get a lot of ice time this way too, and that line produces.

 

What the team needs is to get a 1a/1b line.  They need Suzuki or Kotkaniemi to become a 60 point centre, with guys like Drouin or Domi or Caufield or someone on their wings; and also to produce on the PP.

 

I feel like most of what you are saying is making my point for me. He's a shutdown defender who is a capable offensive player. That is the very definition of a top-notch 3rd line center. Where are we as a fan base when these are the qualities desired in a #1 center? The fact that he doesn't play a major role on the powerplay is a huge red flag. If you're not good enough to be a big part of the powerplay, you can't call yourself a #1 center. He's a guy who is capable of playing that role on a bad team, but with young players who are more talented offensively, you can't keep playing just a capable offensive player with your top scoring talent. You play him on the 3rd line. You shut down the other team's top line and pitch in some points as a bonus.

 

Your hope is for our young players to become 60 point players? Talk about low expectations. How can we expect to be a competitive team when 50-60 points is valued as a 1A/1B situation? I mean, you're basically hoping for a modern version of Tomas Plekanec and David Desharnais! Let's have higher hopes than that, for goodness sake! Let's hope for some guys who will make some All-Star teams, score a point per game, be true offensive threats!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Fanpuck33 said:

 

I feel like most of what you are saying is making my point for me. He's a shutdown defender who is a capable offensive player. That is the very definition of a top-notch 3rd line center. Where are we as a fan base when these are the qualities desired in a #1 center? The fact that he doesn't play a major role on the powerplay is a huge red flag. If you're not good enough to be a big part of the powerplay, you can't call yourself a #1 center. He's a guy who is capable of playing that role on a bad team, but with young players who are more talented offensively, you can't keep playing just a capable offensive player with your top scoring talent. You play him on the 3rd line. You shut down the other team's top line and pitch in some points as a bonus.

 

Your hope is for our young players to become 60 point players? Talk about low expectations. How can we expect to be a competitive team when 50-60 points is valued as a 1A/1B situation? I mean, you're basically hoping for a modern version of Tomas Plekanec and David Desharnais! Let's have higher hopes than that, for goodness sake! Let's hope for some guys who will make some All-Star teams, score a point per game, be true offensive threats!

 

He had 53 points in 2018-19

He had 47 points this year.... (again was gonna go over 50 points)

 

50 point players are not 3rd liners.  How many 3rd line centres score 50 points?

 

That's unrealistic expectations. 

 

As for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd line... how do you define it.  I define it by ice-time.  If Danault is going to play against the other team's top line (which given his skills, he should), his line is either going to be first or second on the team in ice time.  So having Gallagher and Tatar also get big minutes is good for them.

 

If we can get a PPG player out of one of Suzuki or KK, great.... 60 is my absolute minimum for what I expect out of the centre of that line, which will be 1a/1b with Danault.

 

Look at the Bruins, they have been a competitive team for a long time, and made three cup finals in the last 10 years with a Bergeron/Krejci duo down the middle.  That's the goal that I'm looking at, knowing that Danault is already playing Selke calibre hockey, he just isn't getting recognized for it cause we aren't a playoff team.  If his line played exactly the same, but the resto of this Habs team was better, he'd be a Selke nominee with the way he plays. 

 

We massively underrate what that line does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Commandant said:

... As for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd line... how do you define it.  I define it by ice-time.  If Danault is going to play against the other team's top line (which given his skills, he should), his line is either going to be first or second on the team in ice time.  So having Gallagher and Tatar also get big minutes is good for them...

 

Exactly ... this is reflected in the fact that all the Selke candidates in recent years have been top 6 players ... the days of Doug Jarvis and Guy Carbonneau matching up with the opponents 1C are long gone ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fanpuck33 said:

 

That's a fair point that we're probably defining lines a bit differently. To me, the top two lines are responsible for the lion's share of the offense, the third line is your defense first line who can chip in offensively, and then the 4th line is a bit of a grab bag. In terms of ice time, the top 3 lines should ideally get similar minutes, with the 1st and 3rd edging the 2nd a bit.

 

Playing on the 3rd line, no he probably wouldn't be a 50 point player. That's not the point, though. The point is that playing on the 1st line with the team's best offensive talent, he is a 50-60 point player. That's not good enough! That is capable offensive production from a player who is forced into a top line role ...

 

As it happens, Gallagher and Tartar mesh well with Danault defensively ... as Commandant said, if Danault is placed on a third line with (say) Lehkonen and Byron for the purpose of shutting down the opponents' top line then Gallagher and Tartar will lose ice-time

 

At some point (hopefully) Suzuki, KK or ?????? else will force Danault off that line because they can both provide much more offence than PD and drive more offence from TT and GB ... while either themselves be defensively responsible or driving so much time of possession as to offset and deficiencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

 

As it happens, Gallagher and Tartar mesh well with Danault defensively ... as Commandant said, if Danault is placed on a third line with (say) Lehkonen and Byron for the purpose of shutting down the opponents' top line then Gallagher and Tartar will lose ice-time

 

At some point (hopefully) Suzuki, KK or ?????? else will force Danault off that line because they can both provide much more offence than PD and drive more offence from TT and GB ... while either themselves be defensively responsible or driving so much time of possession as to offset and deficiencies.

 

Comparable 1st line centres Even strength points this year.

 

Sean Couturier 46 in 69 games
Sebastian Aho 44 in 68 games

Philip Danault 43 in 71 games

Ryan O'Reilly 42 in 71 games

Elias Pettersson 42 in 68 games

Alex Barkov 41 in 66 games

Kuznetzov 40 in 63 games
Kopitar 40 in 70

Tavares 39 in 63

Dubois 39 in 70

Patrice Bergeron 35 in 61

Getzlaf 33 in 69

Monahan 32 in 70

Duchene 31 in 66

 

 

At Even Strength, Philip Danault produces like a first line centre.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Commandant said:

... At Even Strength, Philip Danault produces like a first line centre.

 

I agree that at even strength he produces like a mid-level #1 centre ... I only suggested that I hope someone pushes him out of the way because they can do better ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say he's above average in ES production... considering he is scoring similarly to O'Reilly, Pettersson, Barko and Aho, and better than Bergeron.  People who are widely considered good first line centres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Commandant said:

He had 53 points in 2018-19

He had 47 points this year.... (again was gonna go over 50 points)

 

50 point players are not 3rd liners.  How many 3rd line centres score 50 points?

 

That's unrealistic expectations. 

 

As for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd line... how do you define it.  I define it by ice-time.  If Danault is going to play against the other team's top line (which given his skills, he should), his line is either going to be first or second on the team in ice time.  So having Gallagher and Tatar also get big minutes is good for them.

 

If we can get a PPG player out of one of Suzuki or KK, great.... 60 is my absolute minimum for what I expect out of the centre of that line, which will be 1a/1b with Danault.

 

Look at the Bruins, they have been a competitive team for a long time, and made three cup finals in the last 10 years with a Bergeron/Krejci duo down the middle.  That's the goal that I'm looking at, knowing that Danault is already playing Selke calibre hockey, he just isn't getting recognized for it cause we aren't a playoff team.  If his line played exactly the same, but the resto of this Habs team was better, he'd be a Selke nominee with the way he plays. 

 

We massively underrate what that line does.

 

That's a fair point that we're probably defining lines a bit differently. To me, the top two lines are responsible for the lion's share of the offense, the third line is your defense first line who can chip in offensively, and then the 4th line is a bit of a grab bag. In terms of ice time, the top 3 lines should ideally get similar minutes, with the 1st and 3rd edging the 2nd a bit.

 

Playing on the 3rd line, no he probably wouldn't be a 50 point player. That's not the point, though. The point is that playing on the 1st line with the team's best offensive talent, he is a 50-60 point player. That's not good enough! That is capable offensive production from a player who is forced into a top line role. 

 

Danault is probably in the same ballpark defensively as Bergeron, with Danault's lacking recognition because of the Selke's trend towards best two-way player as opposed to the best defensive forward. But Bergeron is nearly a third of a point per game better than Danault offensively. Sure, some of that is playing with guys like Marchand and Pasternak. But it's also that he is much more capable offensively and good enough to be used on the power play!  Or is Danault not being used in a major role on the PP our whole problem and he'd suddenly be a 70-80 point first line guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Commandant said:

I'd say he's above average in ES production... considering he is scoring similarly to O'Reilly, Pettersson, Barko and Aho, and better than Bergeron.  People who are widely considered good first line centres.

 

In Points per 60 (measured at even strength) Danault is 14th amongst centres ... meaning he scores at a mid-level, 1C pace ... legit even strength 1C ... but average, not elite ... in simple Points/Game he is 44th amongst centres ... reflecting his lack of PP time ... IMO an ideal 1C is also your 1st unit PP centre, or at very least 2nd unit.

 

I hugely respect Danault ... but he is not an ideal 1C ... that is all I am saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danault is a player's player. Very underrated. The issue is less "Danault" per se than the fact that the team has no clear, high-impact #2C. Domi did it for one year. We have a dog's breakfast of young C (KK, Domi, Suzuki) none of whom has solidified themselves as an impact player.

 

Danault as part of a 1-2 punch of strong C down the middle looks great. Danault as your "top centreman" looks pretty f**d up. That's not a slag on Danault, it's a slag on the Habs' weakness at C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...