Time For Some New Lines

[calgARI '07]

It doesn't really matter that much because Schafer doesn't seem remotely inclined to try anything new with his combinations but he's gotta realize that the team's five-on-five offense is not even close to adequate.  The third line was the only line generating anything consistently this weekend and he moved Sawada off it in the third period for Carefoot and they didn't generate as much.  Moulson has one even strength goal, enough said.  The banger on the right side (Carefoot, Sawada) is not working.  And I've pretty much accepted the fact that the Abbotts won't be playing together.  But PLEASE abandon the Abbott-Pegoraro combination that has done absolutely nothing.  To me, both Barlow and Kennedy are capable of a lot more offensively than they are being given an opportunity to do on a regularly basis.


Mugford-Abbott-Sawada
Abbott-Kennedy-McCutcheon
Moulson-Bitz-Scott
Barlow-Pegoraro-Carefoot

[Will]

I guess we're all in agreement that Mugford - Chris Abbott - Sawada works pretty well on most nights and that Cam Abbott - Pegoraro doesn't.

[Trustnduzt]

I do not like the current

Kennedy-Scott-Barlow

line at all. Give Topher a proven scorer, like a Bitz or even one of the Abbotts, instead of two freshmen.

[MIke K]

I know this won't happen but i think it should. It's worked the times they have played together.

Abbott-Abbott-Sawada
Moulson-Bitz-Scott
Barlow-Kennedy-Mugford
McCutcheon-Pegs-Carefoot

PP 1:

Bitz-Moulson-McCutcheon
O.B-Sasha

PP 2:

Abbot-Scott-Sawada
Krantz-Seminoff

I would love to see what mark could do with that first unit. He has alot of talent.

[redhair34]

[quote calgARI '07]
Mugford-Abbott-Sawada
Abbott-Kennedy-McCutcheon
Moulson-Bitz-Scott
Barlow-Pegoraro-Carefoot[/quote]

I definitely like those lines.  Here's another alternative I like...

Mugford-Abbott-Sawada
Moulson-Pegoraro-Bitz
Abbott-Scott-McCutcheon
Barlow-Kennedy-Carefoot
(I'd have no problem switching Scott and Kennedy)

I like Pegoraro on the top line.  He's our best face-off man, he's fast and he's creative.  Maybe his increased defensive responsibilities this year have stiffled his offensive output.  I think the reason we don't see him on the top line is partly because of Schafer's understandable preference to have him take defensive zone face-offs.   Maybe it won't work, but I'd love to see it even for a period.

[Josh '99]

[quote Trustnduzt]I do not like the current

Kennedy-Scott-Barlow

line at all. Give Topher a proven scorer, like a Bitz or even one of the Abbotts, instead of two freshmen.[/quote]I've noticed, at times, Schafer will put a young group together and then keep that group stable for a few years, so that by the time they're all upperclassmen, they've got chemistry that's been built up over a period of time to go with the improved skills that come with age.  (The '02-03 top power play grouping of Bâby-Vesce-Paolini-Murray-McRae, for instance, played together for three full years, starting when Vesce was a freshman and the other four guys were sophomores, and we all saw how effective they were after having matured together.)  I'm obviously not in Schafer's head, but that could be what he's doing with this group.  Or, on the other hand, maybe he just likes the way they look together.  *shrug*

[oceanst41]

I actually really like the sound of Topher with Cam and McCutcheon. Topher controls the puck in traffic so well I think he would be able to create enough space to give Cam and McCutcheon some good scoring chances.

[Dafatone]

Mugford-Abbott-Sawada need to stay together, in my opinion.  As far as I can tell, they simply don't give up goals.  And they've some offensive power as well.

I like the sound of Moulson-Pegs-Bitz.  Moulson needs a good passer/creater to set him up, and those tried so far haven't worked.  Other than that... I like kennedy and barlow together.  Kindret's been good with them as well, but I don't know if anyone is worth sitting to put him in.

[billhoward]

Is there a hockey stat for the scoring value of a faceoff won? In football, say, a fumble lost is equated to being worth about ~ 2 points.

All other things being equal, you don't want two really good faceoff men on the same line.

But all other things not being equal, maybe you want a line that really can buy you a goal in the last five minutes. We seem to have four lines really good at preventing a goal against us in the last five minutes, but that ain't gonna help much in a 2-2 game, let alone being behind 3-2.

OTOH, it'd be great to ride in the ECACs as the top seed and even better to go into the NCAAs as one of the top four seeds, or at least not as a No. 4 regional seed to be sent wherever the NCAA figures it can most easily stick it to Cornell. What matters most is that the team is clicking around March 1.

[redhair34]

[quote billhoward]
All other things being equal, you don't want two really good faceoff men on the same line. [/quote]

I agree. But, I don't think this team has a really good faceoff man outside of Pegoraro.  Chris Abbott is probably second best.  Consequently, I don't think you'll ever seen a line with Pegoraro and Chris Abbott.

[Q]
But all other things not being equal, maybe you want a line that really can buy you a goal in the last five minutes. We seem to have four lines really good at preventing a goal against us in the last five minutes, but that ain't gonna help much in a 2-2 game, let alone being behind 3-2.
[/q]

This is an interesting idea.  If I had to send out a "score a goal in the waning minutes of the 3rd period" line it would be Abbott-Abbott-Moulson.  I'd let Chris and Cam go nuts with Moulson lurking around.  If the defense concentrated on Moulson I think the brothers could take advantage.  Also, I like the idea of Chris and Cam leading a rush with Moulson trailing looking for rebounds.

[Scersk '97]

[quote redhair34]
If I had to send out a "score a goal in the waning minutes of the 3rd period" line it would be Abbott-Abbott-Moulson.  I'd let Chris and Cam go nuts with Moulson lurking around.  If the defense concentrated on Moulson I think the brothers could take advantage.  Also, I like the idea of Chris and Cam leading a rush with Moulson trailing looking for rebounds.[/quote]

Or why not Abbott-Abbott-McCutcheon?  McCutcheon, after all, is a more natural RW and has similar lurking powers to Moulson.

I think there's an eight-hundred pound gorilla sitting in the background of these hypothetical line combos:  fatigue.

McCutcheon, for example, isn't going to make his way onto a regular power play unit anytime soon because of his penalty killing duties.  McCutcheon and Carefoot with Pegoraro doesn't make a lot of sense unless you want Pegoraro sitting waiting for the other two to rest up from the penalty kill.

So, when you're coming up with lines, you have to think about spreading out the duties between even strength, power play, *and* penalty kill.  Oh, and then take into account players' natural positions and balancing strength and speed.  And then try to keep together individual matchups.

Not an easy job.

[Dpperk29]

my best shot at lines would be...

Abbott-Abbott-Sawada
Moulson-Pegoraro-Carefoot
Bitz-Scott-McCutcheon
Barlow-Kennedy-Kindret

only problem is I don't have a spot for Mugford, and I think he is deffinatly a neccessary part of the lineup... I really like the freshman line of B-K-K though...

this is why Schafer is the coach and I am a fan...

[ebilmes]

[quote Dpperk29]
Barlow-Kennedy-Kindret

I really like the freshman line of B-K-K though...
[/quote]

I agree. I'd love to see Kindret get more ice time.

[redhair34]

[quote Scersk '97]
Or why not Abbott-Abbott-McCutcheon?  McCutcheon, after all, is a more natural RW and has similar lurking powers to Moulson. [/Q]

I have no problem with that (it actually crossed my mind).  I chose Moulson over McCutcheon because Moulson commands more attention from the opposition and because Moulson is Moulson--the best goal scorer Cornell has had in years.  Also, if Moulson's role is "lurking" and looking for rebounds, I don't think its much of a negative that he'd be forced to play RW.

[Q]
I think there's an eight-hundred pound gorilla sitting in the background of these hypothetical line combos:  fatigue.[/Q]

I agree.

[Q]
McCutcheon, for example, isn't going to make his way onto a regular power play unit anytime soon because of his penalty killing duties.[/Q]

McCutcheon is actually a regular on the second powerplay unit.  He also, as you said, spends a fair amount of time killing penalties.  Any fatigue factor this has, hypothetically speaking (I'm not suggesting his duties would make him more fatigued relative to the other players), would work against placing him on the desperation offense line.      

[Q]
 McCutcheon and Carefoot with Pegoraro doesn't make a lot of sense unless you want Pegoraro sitting waiting for the other two to rest up from the penalty kill.[/Q]

I'm confused here.  Was this line just a hypothetical?  Also, seeing how Pegs is on the ice for as much if not more PK time than any other forward wouldn't he have to rest along with the other two?

Late game fatigue on this team is going to have a lot less to do with special teams duties than basic endurance if for no other reason but for the fact that everyone is involved with special teams--there isn't a player on the team that doesn't see time on a power play unit and or kill penalties.

[Q]
Not an easy job.[/quote]

No it isn't.  Thank you coach Schafer for doing it :-D

[jtwcornell91]

[quote Dafatone]I like kennedy and barlow together.  Kindret's been good with them as well, but I don't know if anyone is worth sitting to put him in.[/quote]

It might be nice to platoon him with someone to give that line a chance to play together, as an investment for the future.