Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Which Players Will Join The 3,000-Hit Club?

Managing the Forwards

With Steve Tambellini telling the world that the Edmonton Oilers aren't looking to add any forwards to the club I thought it might be a good idea to look at the forward group and talk some about how I might run the bench if I were in Tom Renney's shoes.  With Tambellini declaring that the team already has a few extra forwards, it's clear that one of the goals this year is going to be player development.  It's also something Tom Renney mentioned as an important goal for the club.  The question then becomes, how can the team best develop their young (cross your fingers) stars.

Star-divide

When Pat Quinn was removed as head coach of the Oilers, I and many others were relieved, figuring that one of the main reasons the team was so bad a year ago was Quinn's poor bench management.  It may come as a surprise, then, that if I were running the bench for the forwards, I wouldn't be matching lines.  Now, this assumes that I don't have the option to send any of Jordan Eberle, Magnus Paajarvi, or Taylor Hall when the season starts.  With those three plus young players like Andrew Cogliano, Gilbert Brule, and Sam Gagner, there just isn't going to be enough room to shelter everyone from the other team's big guns.  As such, I wouldn't even try.

But that isn't to say the rookies should be thrown to the wolves either.  For me, the roster would be broken into two parts with ten guys in the first part, and three guys in the bottom.  The first ten guys would be used to create three lines, and would each be composed of a "veteran," a "tweener," and a "rookie."   The actual lines don't matter much - in fact, I'd probably experiment quite a bit to see which combinations worked best - but I'd be dogmatic about using the V-T-R formula.  Here's an example:

Penner (V) - Brule (T) - Eberle (R)
Hall (R) - Gagner (T) - Hemsky (V)
Cogliano (T) - Horcoff (V) - Paajarvi (R)

With this set-up, each line has a "mentor" that they can talk with on the bench, and each veteran knows he's responsible as a leader.  Further, none of the "tweeners" (Brule, Cogliano, and Gagner) are being asked to carry a line, which I think is very important.  In my opinion, one of the things that made Cogliano's last season so difficult was the fact that he was the best player on his line.  To me, that's a bad development strategy, and it's something I hope is rectified this season.  And as for the rookies, they know that they can just play, which is a real blessing.  There's no need to be worried about racing to the bench if you see Henrik Sedin or Jarome Iginla.  Each group will get a taste of those tremendous players, and each group will also get the dregs at times.  One of the big advantages to this system is that it allows the coaches to evaluate how each one is handling a wide variety of competition, which will be valuable information to have going into the next several seasons when the Oilers are (hopefully) more ready to compete. 

You may recall that I mentioned ten guys in this top group.  The tenth player (not listed above) is Linus Omark.  Yep, another rookie.  Look, the NHL is very tough league.  For a lot of players, the first year can be a challenge, especially physically.  As such, I think it would be smart to rotate the rookies into the lineup on an even schedule, at least for the first twelve games.  Each rookie would then be on a pattern of playing three games, and then resting one out in the press-box.  That gives each young player extra time to recuperate, lessening the risk of injury, and also gives each guy a chance to learn by watching every fourth game from the sky with a coach.  Because it's on a schedule, each guy knows he's not being benched for underperformance.  He knows that it's an organizational decision to bring him along slowly, and to help him learn.  The organization would then also be able to evaluate all four of the rookies in game situations, which is particularly important in the case of Omark.  He's a talented player, and it would be a shame to see him immediately buried before getting his shot.  After those twelve games, maybe the team sends some of them away, but if not, I'd have no problem using that rotation for the rest of the year, or at least until injuries hit in a significant way.

And that brings us to the fourth line.  My fourth line would be Jones-Fraser-Stortini day in and day out, and they'd be getting fed DZ draws almost exclusively through the first two periods of the game.  It's not an elegant role, but it does serve to protect each of those top three lines a little bit, giving them a chance for more offense.  In the third period, you could substitute a player who's having an off-night with someone who's playing well on the fourth line, or use one of those players as a substitute for a rookie for a DZ draw, and then have him skate to the bench with the puck going up ice.  These three would have a difficult job, and it would be really nice to have at least one established veteran on that line (say, oh I don't know, Fernando Pisani), but then again, it's not likely that any of these players will become big offensive weapons.  As such, it gives the team a nice opportunity to evaluate their ability to get the puck moving the right way.  It may not be sexy, but it's a clear role, which is something players often thrive on.

And what about the other guys?  Hopefully they're in OKC, at least until someone gets hurt.  If Tambellini refused to send them down, they'd be in the pressbox night in and night out until Tambellini forced me to play them (if he wouldn't send them down), or one of the other players needed to be taken out due to injury, illness, performance, whatever.  Although, really, your performance would need to be pretty bad to get taken out for J-F Jacques.

Comment 18 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

This is a bloody brilliant article. How can we send this to one or all of Renney, Tambellini or Lowe because this is how they should treat the rooks. Great work Scott as always.

by theoil99 on Sep 2, 2010 6:41 PM MDT reply actions  

Yeah, I agree.

This is the best article I have seen on cnb, or at the very least the first that I’ve been in total agreement in.

Sure enough Zone has Cogliano playing on the 4th line with Strotini. That’s more like my usual experience.

by Traktor on Sep 2, 2010 9:24 PM MDT up reply actions  

Interesting. After reading bhommy’s article on lines, I’ve put some thought to it and arrived at something similar. I’d run something like this:

Penner - Brule - Eberle
Hall - Gagner - Hemsky
Paajarvi - Horcoff - Jones
Cogliano - Fraser - Stortini

It gets Paajarvi back on the port side – his natural position and Jones back to the right, his natural position.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Sep 2, 2010 8:51 PM MDT reply actions  

The actual lines I had up there would be really fluid, and the plan would require some guys moving around a bit positionally. If you want Paajarvi mostly on the left side though, it’s probably easier to have Cogliano play mostly RW instead of LW, or move Cogliano to the grind line and move Jones up to a spot on one of the other lines as you’ve done above (although I like Cogliano’s offensive upside more than Jones’).

by Scott Reynolds on Sep 2, 2010 9:15 PM MDT up reply actions  

I’m a big fan of playing people in the positions that they are accustomed to so that they have a chance to succeed.

I’d actually like Brule on the bottom line, especially if you are going to feed the DZ starts, but Cogliano’s experiences at center are..eesh. Out of all of the mighty mites, Brule and Gagner are a bit more reliable for DZ starts.

Though, if you keep Cogliano with Penner, Dustin can take the draws and slide over. It’s harder on Penner, but not as hard as playing chase after every faceoff.

(although I like Cogliano’s offensive upside more than Jones’).

Agreed, but Jones is a natural RW and it might give Horcoff some help in covering for a LW that:

I want to be offensive in my style and I want to play in the offensive zone as much as possible.

Maybe:

Hall – Gagner – Hemsky
Paajarvi – Horcoff – Jones
Penner – Cogliano – Eberle
Brule – Fraser – Stortini

WIth Penner taking the faceoofs. Brule can move up with Penner when you need a defensive zone draw out of Penner and Eberle and Horcoff isn’t available.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Sep 2, 2010 9:42 PM MDT up reply actions  

I might be wrong, but you’re talking about having something more consistent, correct? No Omark in here for three out of four, right? Personally, I don’t think it’s as helpful to talk about completely set lines, because that’s never what happens (injuries, poor play, general tinkering). Each of the lineups you’ve proposed look fine to me, especially if Jones shows well in camp. I would, however, be pretty adamant about treating the fourth group as a “sacrificial lamb” crew in the DZ to give the top three lines more offensive chances. Are you in agreement with the basic set-up of “no line-matching but more OZ starts” for the top three lines, or would you want to do that differently?

As far as positions go, a lot of these guys have played more than one position in junior (I know Eberle has done RW and C, and that Hall has done LW and C, not sure about Paajarvi and Omark). It would be nice to see them do it at the NHL level to see if there’s a fit. After all, if Penner is here for a while on LW, it might be nice to know if Hall, Paajarvi, and Omark can play something other than LW in the NHL.

by Scott Reynolds on Sep 2, 2010 9:52 PM MDT up reply actions  

I might be wrong, but you’re talking about having something more consistent, correct? No Omark in here for three out of four, right?

No, I was trying to take your lineup and shuffle people back towards their normal positions. Omark can slide in for Paajarvi or Hall. Even Cogliano and move Brule to center again.

Are you in agreement with the basic set-up of "no line-matching but more OZ starts" for the top three lines, or would you want to do that differently?

If I were the man in charge, this season would be about two things:

1. pumping Omark full to the bursting point with as many offensive zone starts and as much power play time as possible. Do everything you can to get him 25 goals. First man over on a delayed penalty. 5 on3 time. Time with Hemsky in the OZ. Play the hell out of him against other weak teams and get him to the press box against the best of the best. Showcase his shootout skills. Then use him in the off-season to get a defender in as soon as possible.

2. Forcing Cogliano to play center the way it’s supposed tot be played or play the freaking wing. I’ve been saying the same thing for three summers now.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Sep 2, 2010 10:09 PM MDT up reply actions  

cogs and horc

I like the idea of Cogs playing on Horcs wing and I think he’s looked better on the right hand side. It might be good for him to play along side someone who knows the position well and his speed would be an asset to the role Horcoff will inevitably take. Jones might compliment those two well late in a game.

Also like the idea of rotating the youngsters.

by rent a goalie on Sep 3, 2010 8:04 AM MDT reply actions  

I think Gagner and Hemsky need to be seperate and Gagner-Penner have always seemed to have good chemistry together.

I kind of disagree about the linematching part, I think that’s what the Oilers need to do (at least in their own zone). I think the Oilers are also better off as using pairs of forwards and swapping in and out as needed. It ends up leaving us with one “exposable” line, but I think the first 2 lines make up for that. The only line I’d leave as a trio is the 4th line.
  
Gagner-Penner
Horcoff-Hemsky
Cogliano-Brule
Stortini-Fraser-Jones

From there I’d try and match fits using Eberle, MPS, Omark and Hall. There would probably be a rotation of the first 3 from the AHL to the NHL depending on how they were playing.

The only other thing I’d do is use Fraser & Jones as an option for own zone draws to replace one of the kids (and get off once the puck is out). I don’t mind letting them play defence, but against the big lines I’d rather it happen not starting in their end.

I’d roll either 1 or 2 vs the heavies in our end, but I’d probably do the Quinn 1-2-3-1-2-3-4 outside of the zone. Stortini would be about a 8-9 minute player and everyone else over 12.

Cogs & Brule each get the season to see who can be an effective centre.

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 3, 2010 8:07 AM MDT reply actions  

Can You Say Lottery

3 of the top 9 forwards can be “trusted” against the vaunt
3 have had varying degrees of success in sheltered roles
3 have never fired a shot in anger in the show

I am not disagreeing with your strategy because that is all Renney has to work with. Add this to fact that forward is the strength of the team, what with the defensive depth and goaltending situation, I am already planning for Larssons arrival. I think it’s going to be another long season folks.

by Matt.N on Sep 3, 2010 8:15 AM MDT reply actions  

I can’t really see any other way of doing things. Going for a real PvP group (Penner-Horcoff-Hemsky) leaves the rest of the line-up dramatically exposed.

by Kent Wilson on Sep 3, 2010 8:34 AM MDT reply actions  

I dont know. Something doesnt feel right about this. Idea sounds cool and looks good when you present it, however I dont think we need to shelter that many lines.
Hall-Horcoff-Hemsky facing the toughs
Penner-Gagner-Eberle facing the second toughs
MP-Brule-cogs facing the dregs, the most sheltered line of the 4.
the 4th line getting the role you designed.

I think this is the season when Gagner should be ready to face at least the second toughs in the NHL. I think that line can play against the Matt Cullens and Dubinsky’s of the NHL.

Sins can be forgiven but conscience is a killer.

by SumOil on Sep 3, 2010 8:39 AM MDT reply actions  

I favor your setup as well.

I would also swap Hall/MP and Eberle/Brule depending on OZ/DZ draw with the formers being sent in the DZ more often. On paper, I believe there is a realistic shot at surviving the roles.

Scott’s sounds like a very logical way to develop the players, but seems like every line would be in rough waters against opponents’ top guns, and those are the matchups that would cause a lot of L’s.

by till_horcoff_is_coach on Sep 3, 2010 9:39 AM MDT up reply actions  

Every line would be in rough waters in terms of opposition some of the time, but every time one line takes on the toughs, the other two get easier matchups. For the most part, the rooks will end up with very favourable ZoneStarts as well, what with the fourth line subbing in to fogo in the third and just taking a bunch of DZ draws in the first and second.

The plan above is mostly about development and evaluation, and less about winning. If this costs them, say, five to ten points in the standings versus strict line-matching (and that seems like a high estimate, I’m not convinced that it will cost them anything), I think the team is still further ahead in terms of development and evaluation. They’ll have a much better idea of what these players are capable of.

My other concern with Sum’s lineup above is the Rookie-Tweener-Tweener line. If the team is somewhat concerned about developing guys like Brule and Cogliano, they probably shouldn’t be asked to “lead” a line. When either guy was put in that situation a year ago, he struggled.

by Scott Reynolds on Sep 3, 2010 10:19 AM MDT up reply actions  

My other concern with Sum’s lineup above is the Rookie-Tweener-Tweener line. If the team is somewhat concerned about developing guys like Brule and Cogliano, they probably shouldn’t be asked to "lead" a line.

Then again with the Horcoff line you have there is the problem that Horcoff will have to cover for both Cogliano and MPS. Furthermore, Horc is not talented enough to be able to lead his line offensively. Cogliano is a mess in the offensive zone. He is fast enough to blow by defenders and take the puck to the offensive zone, but he is clueless about what to do with it. MPS is a rookie. So we wont be looking for much offensive production from that line then.

Sins can be forgiven but conscience is a killer.

by SumOil on Sep 3, 2010 10:33 AM MDT up reply actions  

I’d like to reiterate that I have nothing invested in the actual lines. They’re just an example of the V-T-R formula and they’d all be changing frequently anyway. The larger problem you’ve identified is Horcoff being a weaker player in the OZ than either Hemsky or Penner, to the point that you don’t think he should be the offensive leader on a line, and that is an issue. That said, I don’t see how putting Brule in for Horcoff will make that group any better offensively; it will surely make them worse defensively. With the change, you’re left sheltering a line that you expect to be ineffective. If the goal was winning games, I could see that as being advantageous. But if the goal is development, I don’t see much reason to do it.

by Scott Reynolds on Sep 3, 2010 1:09 PM MDT up reply actions  

That said, I don’t see how putting Brule in for Horcoff will make that group any better offensively
if the goal is development, I don’t see much reason to do it.

Point taken

Sins can be forgiven but conscience is a killer.

by SumOil on Sep 3, 2010 1:48 PM MDT up reply actions  

I actually don’t expect Horcoff to be the offensive leader on his line. I expect one or both of his wingers to be. Horc’s job is to get them the puck.

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Sep 3, 2010 2:13 PM MDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Edmonton Oilers community.

Northwest Standings

GP W L OTL PT
Vancouver 52 32 15 5 69
Minnesota 51 25 19 7 57
Colorado 54 26 25 3 55
Calgary 52 24 22 6 54
Edmonton 51 20 26 5 45

(updated 2.4.2012 at 4:07 PM MST)

20 - 26 - 5

Won 2

Clear Victory Standings

Western Conference

  1. Detroit Red Wings (22-7, .759)
  2. San Jose Sharks (13-5, .722)
  3. Vancouver Canucks (17-7, .708)
  4. St. Louis Blues (11-6, .647)
  5. Chicago Blackhawks (16-11, .593)
  6. Nashville Predators (11-10, .524)
  7. Los Angeles Kings (9-9, .500)
  8. Phoenix Coyotes (11-12, .478)
  9. Dallas Stars (11-14, .440)
  10. Edmonton Oilers (11-14, .440)
  11. Anaheim Ducks (10-14, .417)
  12. Colorado Avalanche (8-13, .381)
  13. Calgary Flames (9-15, .375)
  14. Minnesota Wild (7-13,.350)
  15. Columbus Blue Jackets (5-19, .208)

Eastern Conference

  1. Boston Bruins (20-3, .870)
  2. New York Rangers (17-8, .680)
  3. Pittsburgh Penguins (16-8, .667)
  4. Philadelphia Flyers (14-9, .609)
  5. Washington Capitals (12-12, .500)
  6. Toronto Maple Leafs (12-12, .500)
  7. Montreal Canadiens (10-10, .500)
  8. Ottawa Senators (10-11, .476)
  9. Winnipeg Jets (10-13, .435)
  10. Florida Panthers (7-10, .412)
  11. Carolina Hurricanes (9-13, .409)
  12. New Jersey Devils (8-12, .400)
  13. Buffalo Sabres (7-14, .333)
  14. New York Islanders (6-14, .300)
  15. Tampa Bay Lightning (8-19, .296)

Division Standings

  1. Central (50-38, .568)
  2. Northeast (46-37, .554)
  3. Atlantic (45-37, .549)
  4. Pacific (36-36, .500)
  5. Northwest (33-43, .434)
  6. Southeast (32-51, .386)

The Oilers Top 25 Under 25


Managing Editor

Kurri_small Derek Zona

Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small Scott Reynolds

Columnists

Batman_small ryanbatty

0615pisani_small dawgbone98

Okc_shoulder_small Eric Rodgers

Neal_small Neal Livingston

Mike_small Mike Wntrz

Contributors

Mccurdycloseup_small Bruce McCurdy

Esaandstanley_small Benjamin Massey

Me_smyth_bobblehead3__1_of_1__small Lisa McRitchie

Small Triumph44

Gyi0062208469-bobrovsky_small Chase W

Small JaredL