- Joined:
- Apr 10, 2011
- Posts:
- 16,341
- Liked Posts:
- 5,990
Your logical conclusion wouldn't work out well. You'd really be spreading the talent pool of the entire team thin considering the amount of talent their line-mates have. You can't really do that in this day of parity because of the cap. Also, you would be diminishing ice time of one elite forward who you want to be a "game breaker." Instead of two lines with serious potential to score, you'd end up with 3 lines that wouldn't score much at all. For example, is Frolik actually going to be able to snipe with Kane setting him up? Not likely. Out of the group you mentioned, Toews is probably the only one who you could move around like mad because of the game he plays (grinds in the corners so well, goes to the net) to such a high level that he'd elevate the play of whomever his line-mates are.
The reason why teams such as the Coyotes have success is because of the discipline of the defensive system that their entire team plays. They were able to keep a much more skilled Hawks team on the perimeter, where they are far less dangerous. They were willing to pay whatever prices (for example, the tons of blocked shots they accrued) in order to win and this is one example of how "will" beats "skill."
Fair enough. I didn't think there would be enough talent to surround those 3 guys with, just wanted to throw it out as a suggestion and see what a more knowledgeable hockey guy would think.
How about if the Hawks split the top two lines into Kane/Sharp and Toews/Hossa or some combo of the like?