Peter Puck Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I think we may see Samsonov swap with Higgins. As much as I love the way the top line is playing, I think we need to separate Samsonov and Kovalev. Samsonov with Koivu makes more sense to me. I'm unsure whether this would work but I think Carbo may try it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoRvInA Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 mixing it tonight .... first Perez on that line then Lats then Sammy again... if that fails then its higgins and then repeat until something clicks! CLICK got damn it CLICK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaos Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 The problem is that Plekanec is not a 2nd line centreman. Atleast not right now. Ultimatley he's probably a 3rd line centreman, and simply put Montreal has 3 of them already, (Bonk, Begin and Plekanec). What Montreal needs is a centre who likes to shoot the puck and go to the net, since Samsonov fancies himself a playmaker and Kovalev likes to hold onto the puck and find room to shoot (not often scoring). I don't really see that kind of centreman in Montreal nor in their farm system right now. So the only options are 1. Stick with Plekanec 2. Try Bonk. Begin isn't worth trying. 3. Trade for a centreman...who doesn't really seem to be available around the NHL right now 4. Maybe try dropping Samsonov to the 3rd or forth line and promote either Perezhogin or Latendresse. Latendresse might be the best choice since he will take up a position infront of the net and he well actually shoot the puck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Why are people even suggesting you break up the first line that happens to be working very well, just because the second line is clicking as of yet? That suggestion is mind-bogglingto say the least...... I've been coaching and managing for years, and one thing you never do is mess with a line combination that is working for you. Yes maybe you play with a line that isn't gelling, but definitely not with your bread & butter one! And if you must then: A/ you at least have given it enough time to work out the kinks B/ you try to find the solutions from other lines/sources first C/ you don't punish them by benching them (unless it is related to their work ethic) Higgins/Koivu/Ryder is working at both ends of the rink, so unless Carbonneau sees something I don't, then they are at first untouchable - only when absolutely forced to do they even begin to contemplate messing with that one? And sometimes people need to have patience - it takes time to find out how to work together. That said - I believe I mentioned in an earlier post that this line was not guaranteed to work together. Just because it sounds good on paper doesn't always mean that it translates to reality. I had a feeling this combo might not be suited to each other for some reason. I don't think the gears are meshing here as well as initially hoped for. This is what a coach is paid for, and here is where the good ones are made or broken? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Why are people even suggesting you break up the first line that happens to be working very well, just because the second line is clicking as of yet? That suggestion is mind-bogglingto say the least...... I've been coaching and managing for years, and one thing you never do is mess with a line combination that is working for you. Yes maybe you play with a line that isn't gelling, but definitely not with your bread & butter one! And if you must then: A/ you at least have given it enough time to work out the kinks B/ you try to find the solutions from other lines/sources first C/ you don't punish them by benching them (unless it is related to their work ethic) Higgins/Koivu/Ryder is working at both ends of the rink, so unless Carbonneau sees something I don't, then they are at first untouchable - only when absolutely forced to do they even begin to contemplate messing with that one? And sometimes people need to have patience - it takes time to find out how to work together. That said - I believe I mentioned in an earlier post that this line was not guaranteed to work together. Just because it sounds good on paper doesn't always mean that it translates to reality. I had a feeling this combo might not be suited to each other for some reason. I don't think the gears are meshing here as well as initially hoped for. This is what a coach is paid for, and here is where the good ones are made or broken? Well I disagree. Sure the first line is working very well but there is no point in sticking with them if the team as a whole isn't playing up to Carbo's expectations. If Carbo is unhappy with the game results he needs to change something. Having identified the 2nd line as the problem he needs to change it. I agree he will look to players on the 3rd or 4th line or to calling someone up first. But, I don't see any real chance of fixing the 2nd line with any of these players. Trading for a 1st of 2nd line centre is everyone's preferred solution but there don't seem to be any available. Thus I predicted he may be forced to swap Higgins with Samsonov. Personally I think he is just calling out the 2nd line and he will stick with them a while longer. Don't forget that Gainey promised Samsonov plenty of time to start producing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataclaw Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 I personally believe the Plekovalevonov line can work, it just needs more time. If i were Carbo, i'd play the line as it has been until now for half the game, then experiment for the second half. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.