Is 3 Scoring Lines A Good Idea As Compared To 2+Checking?

[Sandro17]

So ever since the Hodgson trade, I wondered if 3 scoring lines is better than 2 scoring lines + a checking line.

I heard that the utility of a checking line is ideal because the third line is supposed to shut down the opponents first line. Now if we were to throw out a 3rd scoring line, our opponents first line should score more and so should we.

I am just not sure which of the two idea's is better. I still find it hard to believe that 2 scoring + checking is better than 3 scoring.

[Duodenum]

You can win a cup with either. Which one is better is dependent on your team make-up.

[DeNiro]

Right now we have 3 scoring lines and 3 checking lines IMO. That's the beauty of it.

Scoring lines:

Sedin Sedin Whoever

Booth Kesler Higgins

Burrows Pahlsson Hansen

Checking lines:

Booth Kesler Higgins

Burrows Pahlsson Hansen

Lapierre Malhotra Kassian

A scoring line can also be a checking line and vice versa. I think with Burrows on the third line, it does give us three scoring line but also lets that third line reamain a solid shutdown line.

[Baka]

I think you are overlooking the fact their are different calibers of scoring lines. Even a strong scoring 3rd line isn't going to run up much offense. While a line 1 can consist of players scoring 70-100 or so points. So hypothetically if a team has a legit shutdown line 3 that can significantly slow down another teams top line the goals they prevent makes them far more productive.

I mean what seems to be a bigger factor? Players who scored 90 points suddenly struggling to buy a point or having a line of players who score 30-40 points?

[y0shi]

It comes down to the coach's confidence in the ability to put whoever out there.

3 scoring lines usually means a more possession-oriented team with the ability to trade chances and play any of them out there at any given time. A 2 scoring + checking usually means that you have to play matchups a bit more, but when the checking line is out there vs a top-6 line, it is way more likely they are just there to contain rather than score.

Usually, I like 3 scoring lines since scorers go into lulls, and it's better to have some scoring spread out. With the checking line, there's even bigger pressure on the top-6 to produce, and when they aren't it is really noticeable.

[ButterBean]

You need contribution from all 4 lines. You look at the recent past of Stanley Cup winners and they had shutdown 3rd lines who put up somewhere near 0.5 PPG in the playoffs.

[LostViking]

Canucks: 2 scoring, 2 checking

Opponent: 2 scoring, 2 checking

In theory: Both top lines shut down, the second lines become catalyst for offense

With the Kesler line performing better than the twins this could work well for us.

Canucks: 2 scoring, 2 checking

Opponent: 3 scoring, 1 checking

In theory: Shut down opposing top line, pit our 2 scoring lines against their bottom 2 scoring lines

This would seem to put us at the advantage.

[Phil_314]

I'd go with three scoring lines over two of each. Just that depth of talent is better imo (and you can technically teach defensive play and work ethic to most players) than two of each, whereas if the offensive lines dry up then you'll be hard pressed to score ANY scoring.

[DownUndaCanuck]

I'd rather have 3 scoring lines and a defensive checking line (like we did pre-Hodgson trade, after acquiring Pahlsson) than 2 scoring lines, 1 checking line and a hitting line but that's just me.

When you look at the last 5 or 6 Cup winners, all of them had 20-goal scorers on their 3rd line and it was these guys, not necessarily the big guns, who ended up scoring in the Cup finals. At the end of the day your stars can only get you so far, in the SCF is when you need your 3rd and 4th lines to contribute offence. Against Boston, their 3rd liners were simply better than ours. They filled injuries better (Marchand replaced Horton, Hansen and Higgins did not play well as replacements for Samuelsson and Raymond).

This season, we would have had Hodgson and Hansen who could have filled in and are much better players now. Honestly, I believe they would have been the difference.

[Ghostsof1915]

I'd rather have 3 scoring lines and a defensive checking line (like we did pre-Hodgson trade, after acquiring Pahlsson) than 2 scoring lines, 1 checking line and a hitting line but that's just me.

When you look at the last 5 or 6 Cup winners, all of them had 20-goal scorers on their 3rd line and it was these guys, not necessarily the big guns, who ended up scoring in the Cup finals. At the end of the day your stars can only get you so far, in the SCF is when you need your 3rd and 4th lines to contribute offence. Against Boston, their 3rd liners were simply better than ours. They filled injuries better (Marchand replaced Horton, Hansen and Higgins did not play well as replacements for Samuelsson and Raymond).

This season, we would have had Hodgson and Hansen who could have filled in and are much better players now. Honestly, I believe they would have been the difference.

[oldnews]

Cody Hodgson is not a scoring line.

[Real deal - Stan Smyl]

Cody Hodgson is not a scoring line.

[oldnews]

Cody might not be a scoring line, but he put up two more points than the entire Canuck team last night!

Steamer

[Guest The Brown Burrows]

I like 3 scoring lines. We had it until we traded Hodgson (Hansen and Hodgson kept the 3rd line an offensive threat, Pahlsson helps make it more of a checking line). Both are good.

In future years I would like to see MG try to copy Chicago (3 scoring lines, this year their 3rd line is somehow weaker than previous years).

* If we win the cup, IDK what he does.

[Real deal - Stan Smyl]

Hodgson is a good young player, but a one way role player who was a good fit on the third line - but not yet a legitimate second line center, and no more of an impact player than a dozen other forwards the Canucks can dress.

[Avicii]

This only works if you have 2 centerman who can perform in the playoffs no matter who they're playing against.

Zetterberg/Datsyuk

Crosby/Malkin

Toews/Sharp

Krejci/Begeron

[MistaT]

I trust Hansen to score more than I do Hodgson in the playoffs.

Ultimately MG and AV decided they would rather free up Kesler's 2nd line to score, as they've proven to be able to do, in the playoffs then have the 3rd line scoring. A 3rd scoring line with Cody means the 2nd line is facing more defensive ice time and not enabled to play as freely as you would like.

Ultimately - I trust Booth/Kesler/Higgins, the Sedins line and our D to score enough while believing in our defense and Luuu to keep enough out.

Not sure I feel the same if Booth/Kesler/Higgins are asked to play a role that limits their scoring abilities.

[Crazyhawk]

I like 3 scoring lines. We had it until we traded Hodgson (Hansen and Hodgson kept the 3rd line an offensive threat, Pahlsson helps make it more of a checking line). Both are good.

In future years I would like to see MG try to copy Chicago (3 scoring lines, this year their 3rd line is somehow weaker than previous years).

* If we win the cup, IDK what he does.

[Real deal - Stan Smyl]

He put up two points, but also was on the ice for as many goals against, in a 7-3 win, and has gone 8 straight without a plus game (seven minus and last night even)- on a team that, as a whole, is playing quite well.

As for the OP question - Hodgson's linemates had as many points as he did... (playing less games and without power play time). The ability of the third line to score was not the effect of Hodgson alone - having two two-way forwards as linemates helped considerably in covering up his weaknesses in his own end - something that is very obvious if you watch him attempting to play a second line center role in Buffalo.

In the end, whether your third line is considered a 'checking' or 'scoring' third line - the ideal regardless is to have two-way players - I certainly wouldn't consider Hodgson's play is in his own zone to be better that Pahlsson's in the offensive end of the ice...

Hodgson is a good young player, but a one way role player who was a good fit on the third line - but not yet a legitimate second line center, and no more of an impact player than a dozen other forwards the Canucks can dress.