NHL Forward Lines: How Do You Rate Them?

[420since1974]

Discussion: What are your criteria for ranking the forward lines as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th?

 

Is it Points Production? Time On Ice? Quality Of Opposition? Role for the Team? Or something else entirely?

 

I see statements like: no way Bouma/Jones should be on the 2nd line or Frolik/Bennett have to play on the 2nd line. Both comments could be true or false depending on what you perceive each line's role to be.

 

Personally, I like the TOI factor, with a touch of Quality of Opposition.

 

Using the Calgary Flames as an example:

First Line = Gaudreau - Monahan - Hudler (top scoring line, played anywhere)

Second Line = Bouma - Backlund - Jones (shutdown line, mainly D zone starts)

Third Line = Raymond - Bennett - Frolik (secondary scoring, mainly O zone starts)

Fourth Line = Bollig - Stajan - Jooris (grit/energy when needed)

 

Many of you might use Points Production as your main criteria, in that case, the 2nd and 3rd lines would be reversed in this scenario.

 

Please try to not get too hung up on which specific players are on which lines in the above example, Hartley loves to play around with his lineup and injuries will occur.

 

I'm really just interested in how you all would define the lines themselves.

 

[The_People1]

I don't recall teams using lines to identify combos until EA NHL games came along in the early 90s and assigned line numbers.  I may be wrong but that's what established a definition for lines and their use.  Up until that point, most teams played a mix of 3 lines without names and then carried a couple goons purely for fighting.

 

Generally speaking,

1st line = primarily for scoring (usually with no consideration for defense)

2nd line = flex line that can bring secondary scoring and two-way play

3rd line = primarily for stopping the other team's 1st line from scoring

4th line = energy/crash bang line

 

There are no rules though and Bob Hartley's ideal setup is,

1st line = primarily for scoring

2nd line = two-way play

3rd line = two-way play

4th line = two-way play

[AlbertaBoy12]

I don't recall teams using lines to identify combos until EA NHL games came along in the early 90s and assigned line numbers.  I may be wrong but that's what established a definition for lines and their use.  Up until that point, most teams played a mix of 3 lines without names and then carried a couple goons purely for fighting.

 

Generally speaking,

1st line = primarily for scoring (usually with no consideration for defense)

2nd line = flex line that can bring secondary scoring and two-way play

3rd line = primarily for stopping the other team's 1st line from scoring

4th line = energy/crash bang line

 

There are no rules though and Bob Hartley's ideal setup is,

1st line = primarily for scoring

2nd line = two-way play

3rd line = two-way play

4th line = two-way play

I would agree with this, also I think the game has changed alot. Basically top 6 is your guys who play on the PP and get o zone starts, and your bottom 6 is your D zone starts, grit/energy.

[DL44]

I think with parity, and increasing talent pool depth, line definitions have been becoming a little more blurred...

 

You have your elite level scorers.. or go to players forming the top line...and then we are seeing more of a Middle-6 for the next 2 lines..

 

Elite top heavy talented teams like the Hawks have a top 6 and bottom 6...  but i think the majority of the rest of the league is moving toward having a top line, 2 middle 6 lines, and 4th...  

 

the Canucks last yr had a top line and three 3rd lines the way the coach rolled his lines out...  

 

To me it seems we are moving towards average to good teams designed to able to use their 2nd/3rd lines interchangeably..

Ice time would be weighted toward whichever line has the stronger center.  but line usage between 2 and 3 will become a wash.

 

Also the 4th line will be moving away crashers and bangers and moving more toward the traditional 3rd line design with physicality... i.e. built with more utility and IQ.

 

 

At the end of the day... how a team designates their lines is completely dependent on the personnel of each team... so any team will be different than the next with the traditional line definitions blurred to hell.. 

[cross16]

I think what has really changed in the last 10 years is the concept of line matching and advanced stats. Scotty Bowman use to be on the cutting edge of line matching and now its basically a requirment of any decent coach. Combine that with the advanced tracking of starts etc and I think you have new concepts of how you deploy lines.

 

I also disagree the concept of offensive lines versus defensive lines. IMO, everyline is a defensive line. Yes you count on certain lines to score more but I don't agree with the concept that your first line all you care about is offence and the heck with two way play. I believe with parity now in the league you can't afford to have any line not be responsible at both ends of the ice and you need EVERYONE buying into two way play.

 

I agree with how Burke approaches building a team. YOu have a top 6, you have a 3rd line and you have an energy line. Sometimes within that top 6 you will have a top line emerge like th eFlames did last year that winds up being the best to deply in offensive zone situation but something you have a situation like the Blackhawks that basiclaly had two top lines they could deploy. I don't think its necessarily that you need to say this is my top line and this is my seoncd line becuase from game to game if you've got a good team your top line one night isn't going to be your top line the next night.

 

Then you have your 3rd line which is your defensive matchup line when you can use them and an energy line. In todays game though you need offence from your 3rd line but for me an energy line is exactly as it sounds. Provide energy and keep the puck out of our net, and if you've got a enforcer that can actually play the game 5 on 5 thats gravy.

[Flyerfan52]

I see it less as set lines than set pairs of 2 with the 3rd changing depending on the team you are playing. Usually it's a center & 1 winger that are magic but the other wingman changing according to situation.

That's why your PP setup is different than 5 on 5 & same on PK.

[Khrox]

Ya, I think the concept of lines is definitely a tough one. You do frequently see duo's emerge with a third wheel (Backstrom/Ovi, Benn/Seguin, Nash/Brassard, Toews/Hossa etc...) and sometimes you start seeing the odd trio emerge (like JH/Mony/Huds). I don't like looking at it as "offensive" vs "defensive" lines because in todays NHL, everyone is expected to do both (unless your Edmonton.... then you just sortof do... whatever it is they actually do). I see it more as the following:
Primary Scoring (still expected to not be a liability, but is expected to score more than the other lines. Gets favorable zone starts, all 3 forwards see PP time, even if one is on second unit)

Secondary Scoring (Expected to help the Primary line scoring, especially if the Primary is in a slump. 1-2 of these players get frequent PP time, and one of these players may be placed throughout the game or even start the game in the Primary scoring line if things need a shake up)
Shut-Down Specialist (Expected to carry the hardest defensive minutes. Preserving a lead with a defensive zone faceoff with a minute left. 2 of these guys see regular PK time. Expected to still chip in offensively, but not expected to carry the load).
Energy-Line (Odds are 1 of these guys sees PK time on a regular basis, and 1-2 may see PP minutes from time to time as reward for good play. These guys are expected to play hard, play fast. Expected to chip in some goals but primarily there to create havoc for the other team, aggravate, play physical and help spark our team).

[cccsberg]

Ya, I think the concept of lines is definitely a tough one. You do frequently see duo's emerge with a third wheel (Backstrom/Ovi, Benn/Seguin, Nash/Brassard, Toews/Hossa etc...) and sometimes you start seeing the odd trio emerge (like JH/Mony/Huds). I don't like looking at it as "offensive" vs "defensive" lines because in todays NHL, everyone is expected to do both (unless your Edmonton.... then you just sortof do... whatever it is they actually do). I see it more as the following:

Primary Scoring (still expected to not be a liability, but is expected to score more than the other lines. Gets favorable zone starts, all 3 forwards see PP time, even if one is on second unit)

Secondary Scoring (Expected to help the Primary line scoring, especially if the Primary is in a slump. 1-2 of these players get frequent PP time, and one of these players may be placed throughout the game or even start the game in the Primary scoring line if things need a shake up)

Shut-Down Specialist (Expected to carry the hardest defensive minutes. Preserving a lead with a defensive zone faceoff with a minute left. 2 of these guys see regular PK time. Expected to still chip in offensively, but not expected to carry the load).

Energy-Line (Odds are 1 of these guys sees PK time on a regular basis, and 1-2 may see PP minutes from time to time as reward for good play. These guys are expected to play hard, play fast. Expected to chip in some goals but primarily there to create havoc for the other team, aggravate, play physical and help spark our team).

Although I agree in general with your set-up, I think the designations and line-matching are way overrated.  At home, teams can pretty much do what they want with the last change, but the opposite is true on the road.  Lots of teams just roll their 4 lines with TOI variations mainly due to PP and PK differences and not throwing out particular lines much more than others.  Every line needs to be able to defend, and I think the match-ups are mostly with D men versus actual lines.  This often changes when a team needs scoring (behind), or preserving a lead i.e. D-zone face-offs but for most of the game, don't think so.  

 

The designations of lines is mostly dependant on personnel, and what they can actually accomplish on the ice.  I'm sure Edmonton fans are thinking they are going to have two #1 lines and possibly three if Draisatl and Yak can mesh and dependent on how the lines are put together.  We could do the same depending on line combos and if Ferland, Poirier, Granlund, Smith etc develop....