Jump to content

The Ralph Krueger put Jeff Skinner on the 4th line discussion including an excerpt from the instigators thread


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I know, but you said he gets "just the same" regardless of who he plays with. It's not really the case. There are players he's proven to perform well with. 

This is like bypassing his faults - there are players he plays with where his faults are statistically minimized. Skinner doesn't have to *do* anything, they just have to configure the lines properly. 

So the whole team should just be designed around Jeff Skinner?

 

I think this shows why Krueger is taking the approach he is taking.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, erickompositör72 said:

So the whole team should just be designed around Jeff Skinner?

 

I think this shows why Krueger is taking the approach he is taking.

No, one line. Is this too incredible of a concept for Ralph to grasp? You can deploy one line differently!

Under Byslma, he let Jack carry it where others could not. Coaches do this stuff all the time rather than grandstanding a message home.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thorny said:

What if Ralph's structure was dump and chase? Wasn't Bylsma's? 

Bylsma has won a stanley cup, and NO ONE on here was telling Jack to rim it around the boards while Jack was in possession - we wanted his strengths to be maximized. 

Maximize the Old Dog's strengths, bench him, or trade him. Willingly torpedoing the roster is a waste of time and a mistake from Ralph. 

Many, including Ralph, I'm sure, would take extreme issue with this characterization.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Right now the entire blame is on Ralph, pairing him with Lazar and Sheahan trumps everything else, it's the most illogical thing done so far within this situation. It helps no one. 

If Skinner coasts, I'll blame them both. 

It doesn't matter though, Taro. You have to adjust the strategy to the pieces you have - Cozens may be a placeholder on that line but the game itself is not a placeholder - it's 1 out of 56. 

Rieder - Eakin - Sheahan 

Skinner - Lazar - Cozens

..gives us a checking line, and a Skinner/Cozens line that has a chance. 

Rieder - Eakin - Cozens

Skinner - Lazar - Sheahan 

...gives us a lot of time watching where the only thing of merit is how long it takes those lines to get off the ice so the top 6 can get back on. 

Somebody has to play 3RW on what will pretty clearly be the checking line tonight.  Leaving the top 6 set leaves the options for that spot as Rieder, Cozens, Skinner, Sheahan, or another kid.  If Rieder goes there, the options are still the same but the hole is now 3LW.  

Skinner is not getting put on a checking line in our lifetimes.  Leaving Cozens, Sheahan, or a kid to fill that spot.  (Which will btw get more ice time than 4RW gets.)  To me, this is more a lack of confidence in Sheahan & the other kids than it is a slap at Skinner.  That runs counter to the prevailing wisdom, but it is what it is.

And, totally get not wanting to waste a $9MM player on the 4th line.  But Skinner's salary doesn't, or shouldn't, factor into how to best make do with a checking line missing 2/3's of its pieces, IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I know, but you said he gets "just the same" regardless of who he plays with. It's not really the case. There are players he's proven to perform well with. 

This is like bypassing his faults - there are players he plays with where his faults are statistically minimized. Skinner doesn't have to *do* anything, they just have to configure the lines properly. 

He did just fine playing with a Derek Ryan.  Let's also not forget that he soured pretty bad in Carolina as well for one reason or another.  Not sure he should just be given the benefit of the doubt.

https://www.canescountry.com/2018/8/3/17647722/carolina-hurricanes-jeff-skinner-trade-inevitable-avoidable-don-waddell-bill-peters

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, erickompositör72 said:

Many, including Ralph, I'm sure, would take extreme issue with this characterization.

Of course. 

I appreciate the difficulty of the argument I'm waging, when the other side is "Ralph said it, so I believe it". I don't mean that in snark - it's just an inarguable position. The fact of the matter is Ralph could configure the lines any way he wants and the argument would be "coach knows best". You are welcome to the viewpoint I just don't share it - not when there are years and years of data on Skinner and a bunch of wishy-washy pump up quotes from Ralph and a whole lot of nothing for actual accomplishment at the NHL level. 

Just now, Derrico said:

He did just fine playing with a Derek Ryan.  Let's also not forget that he soured pretty bad in Carolina as well for one reason or another.  Not sure he should just be given the benefit of the doubt.

https://www.canescountry.com/2018/8/3/17647722/carolina-hurricanes-jeff-skinner-trade-inevitable-avoidable-don-waddell-bill-peters

 

 

Now compare Ryan's numbers to Lazar's and Sheahans. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Somebody has to play 3RW on what will pretty clearly be the checking line tonight.  Leaving the top 6 set leaves the options for that spot as Rieder, Cozens, Skinner, Sheahan, or another kid.  If Rieder goes there, the options are still the same but the hole is now 3LW.  

Skinner is not getting put on a checking line in our lifetimes.  Leaving Cozens, Sheahan, or a kid to fill that spot.  (Which will btw get more ice time than 4RW gets.)  To me, this is more a lack of confidence in Sheahan & the other kids than it is a slap at Skinner.  That runs counter to the prevailing wisdom, but it is what it is.

And, totally get not wanting to waste a $9MM player on the 4th line.  But Skinner's salary doesn't, or shouldn't, factor into how to best make do with a checking line missing 2/3's of its pieces, IMHO.

lol then don't play the Eakin line the most. 

I know you know for a fact I'm not arguing from the position of needing to maximize his salary. 

Sheahan would be totally fine in the checking line role. We aren't going to "lose" any of Cozens offense from this spot, because there isn't going to be any to be found on a checking line. 

Of course you put Sheahan there, and give Skinner an actual chance. It's a no brainer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Of course. 

I appreciate the difficulty of the argument I'm waging, when the other side is "Ralph said it, so I believe it". I don't mean that in snark - it's just an inarguable position. The fact of the matter is Ralph could configure the lines any way he wants and the argument would be "coach knows best". You are welcome to the viewpoint I just don't share it - not when there are years and years of data on Skinner and a bunch of wishy-washy pump up quotes from Ralph and a whole lot of nothing for actual accomplishment at the NHL level. 

That's not actually the argument I'm making. I'm saying that Ralph has an idea of what he wants to do, and is assembling lines to try to accomplish that. They might not work, in which case, he will 1) not adapt, and create more outrage on this forum, or 2) adjust things to bring out the best of the players, without compromising his system.

 

Your argument is that his dislike of Skinner is prompting to intentionally sabotage the team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on Ryan is not a great hockey player by any stretch.  My point is also that this isn't the first time or team that Skinner has moved up and down the lineup.  It's not just RK.  It happened before and its happening again.  Maybe both NHL coaches (not sure who Caronlina's was at the time) are morons or maybe, just maybe, there's a reason for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:

That's not actually the argument I'm making. I'm saying that Ralph has an idea of what he wants to do, and is assembling lines to try to accomplish that. They might not work, in which case, he will 1) not adapt, and create more outrage on this forum, or 2) adjust things to bring out the best of the players, without compromising his system.

 

Your argument is that his dislike of Skinner is prompting to intentionally sabotage the team.

Yup, that's exactly what I said. Your argument is the setup in his mind fits what he wants to do. Of course it does. Why wouldn't it? I take issue with what he wants to do. 

My argument is not that he's trying to intentionally sabotage, my argument is he doesn't understand how to use Skinner. 

3 minutes ago, Derrico said:

Oh come on Ryan is not a great hockey player by any stretch.  My point is also that this isn't the first time or team that Skinner has moved up and down the lineup.  It's not just RK.  It happened before and its happening again.  Maybe both NHL coaches (not sure who Caronlina's was at the time) are morons or maybe, just maybe, there's a reason for it.

Great at hockey or not isn't the data point in question - it's whether or not he represents an upgrade on Lazar. And he assuredly does. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'm doing is being unafraid to take a position on his assembly of the lines. He could be right - maybe the Eakin Rieder Cozens line actually performs really well, and Skinner is ok with Lazar - it could happen! At which case I'll just admit I am wrong, I'm no stranger to that. It's just not what I think is going to happen, currently. 

I want Ralph to be correct more so than me to an exponential degree. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Yup, that's exactly what I said. Your argument is the setup in his mind fits what he wants to do. Of course it does. Why wouldn't it? I take issue with what he wants to do. 

My argument is not that he's trying to intentionally sabotage, my argument is he doesn't understand how to use Skinner. 

Great at hockey or not isn't the data point in question - it's whether or not he represents an upgrade on Lazar. And he assuredly does. 

this or he understands and is unwilling. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

My argument is not that he's trying to intentionally sabotage, my argument is he doesn't understand how to use Skinner. 

 

16 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Maximize the Old Dog's strengths, bench him, or trade him. Willingly torpedoing the roster is a waste of time and a mistake from Ralph. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, erickompositör72 said:

 

That was poorly worded by me. What I meant was I don't think he understands that he's not going to change Skinner by asking him to. In his mind he's taking one step back to achieve 2 steps forward success. 

I don't think anyone thinks he's *intentionally* trying to make us lose. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

lol then don't play the Eakin line the most. 

I know you know for a fact I'm not arguing from the position of needing to maximize his salary. 

Sheahan would be totally fine in the checking line role. We aren't going to "lose" any of Cozens offense from this spot, because there isn't going to be any to be found on a checking line. 

Of course you put Sheahan there, and give Skinner an actual chance. It's a no brainer. 

Maybe the Eichel line will eat the Ovi line's lunch & the Staal line kicks the Kuznetzov's line's bippies & then the checking line won't need to be the 3rd most used line & the bottom 6 can mix again.  But if either isn't the case, the checking line WILL get the 3rd most usage tonight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thorny said:

That was poorly worded by me. What I meant was I don't think he understands that he's not going to change Skinner by asking him to. In his mind he's taking one step back to achieve 2 steps forward success. 

Yes, and what I meant was, let's see if this fails or succeeds before flipping out.

Edited by erickompositör72
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, erickompositör72 said:

Yes, and what I meant was let's see if this fails or succeeds before flipping out.

Maaaaaybe if I had made an all caps post full of swearing or something I'd get this but..

I've been making these same arguments for weeks. I don't really consider it flipping out. 

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Maybe the Eichel line will eat the Ovi line's lunch & the Staal line kicks the Kuznetzov's line's bippies & then the checking line won't need to be the 3rd most used line & the bottom 6 can mix again.  But if either isn't the case, the checking line WILL get the 3rd most usage tonight.

And I think it would be very very close to the same net output with Sheahan, and even in lesser minutes, the net gain of the Skinner line will be greater than that potential slim loss on the checking line. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to post
Share on other sites

The checking line remains functionally the same with Sheahan instead of Cozens. The benefit to moving Cozens to play with Skinner could be huge. 

This is similar to the Olofsson needs to be in the top 6 argument to me. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Maaaaaybe if I had made an all caps post full of swearing or something I'd get this but..

I've been making these same arguments for weeks. I don't really consider it flipping out. 

And I think it would be very very close to the same net output with Sheahan, and even in lesser minutes, the net gain of the Skinner line will be greater than that potential slim loss on the checking line. 

And it might pan out in the end that that is correct.  But Krueger doesn't trust Sheahan in that role.  The proof being, he has a rookie in his 1st NHL game there ahead of him.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Taro T said:

And it might pan out in the end that that is correct.  But Krueger doesn't trust Sheahan in that role.  The proof being, he has a rookie in his 1st NHL game there ahead of him.

 

I mean, right. I know that because he doesn't have him there. 

I'm not really interested in "well because Krueger said so" arguments. It's not that I don't think there aren't concrete reasons inside Ralph's head for why he doing it - I feel like that goes without saying. 

I don't think anyone expects the coach to do things against his better judgement? What we are discussing and debating is the judgement, not the merits of whether or not Krueger is being true to himself. 

- - - 

This is like that old thing: "I believe, KRUEGER believes, he's doing the right thing."

If that's open and shut case, I'll yield. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I mean, right. I know that because he doesn't have him there. 

I'm not really interested in "well because Krueger said so" arguments. It's not that I don't think there aren't concrete reasons inside Ralph's head for why he doing it - I feel like that goes without saying. 

I don't think anyone expects the coach to do things against his better judgement? What we are discussing and debating is the judgement, not the merits of whether or not Krueger is being true to himself. 

- - - 

This is like that old thing: "I believe, KRUEGER believes, he's doing the right thing."

If that's open and shut case, I'll yield. 

It's because this ad nauseam argument, without actual empirical evidence (stats of Skinner in an actual game with these actual lines) made by people who haven't even seen these lines practice, gets tiresome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RK is wrong in his handling is Skinner.  Pegula approves Skinner’s monster contract and Pegula approved the hiring of RK.  

 

Now Pegula needs to tell RK that Skinner needs to be in the top 6, no matter what.  

Edited by LabattBlue
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LabattBlue said:

RK is wrong in his handling is Skinner.  Pegula approves Skinner’s monster contract and Pegula approved the hiring of RK.  

 

Now Pegula needs to tell RK that Skinner needs to be in the top 6, no matter what.  

The owner dictating to the coach who to play and how to use players is a recipe for disaster. The coach is going to be held accountable for his decisions. If there is interference in how to coach the team he will lose his authority and respect from the players. There is nothing wrong in keeping the owner informed about what and why the coach is doing. But forcing him to follow what the owner is recommending is an awful way to run a hockey operation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I mean, right. I know that because he doesn't have him there. 

I'm not really interested in "well because Krueger said so" arguments. It's not that I don't think there aren't concrete reasons inside Ralph's head for why he doing it - I feel like that goes without saying. 

I don't think anyone expects the coach to do things against his better judgement? What we are discussing and debating is the judgement, not the merits of whether or not Krueger is being true to himself. 

- - - 

This is like that old thing: "I believe, KRUEGER believes, he's doing the right thing."

If that's open and shut case, I'll yield. 

And with the lines set as they are, Skinner will be playing 3rd pair D &/or 4th liners.  Skinner scores 2 ways predominantly: off rebounds or off zone exits he steals the puck from.  Is he really going to be getting many of the former w/ or w/out Cozens especially going against tougher opponents than the Caps 4th line?

But how many more opportunities does he have to "self help" against the 4th line relative to the other lines?  That's probably substantial.

And, pretty sure we all agree Cozens, even in his 1st game, is a better player than Sheahan so he should get more ice time than him.  Playing on the defensive bottom 6 line will get him more than playing on the offensive bottom 6 line.

Skinner will get time w/ the top 6.  Cozens won't.

Link to post
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...