Tlusty on the first line?
by curiouscanesfan on Feb 15, 2011 1:17 PM EST
Email
PrintTlusty has good size, he's defensively responsible, he's an excellent passer and he's got a good, quick shot. Tlusty has been climbing up the ranks of Canes in goals and assists scored per 60 minutes. He's near the top in shooting percentage at 16%. Staal thrives on speed and at times has looked good with Boychuk for that reason. Tlusty doesn't look as fast as Boychuk but he is faster than Samsonov or Jokinen and bigger than Boychuk or LaRose. Tlusty has played well on other lines but maybe he's emerging as the best bird-in-the-hand way to upgrade the top line.
It's easy to visualize Tlusty hitting Cole and Staal with breakout passes to start the rush as well as setting up Staal both on the rush and in other situations. It's just as easy to see Tlusty in the slot taking a pass from Staal behind the net and putting a quick wrist shot in the back of the net.
Chad LaRose is a fast, talented player who thrives in some roles, but he is not playing on the first line because of scoring prowess. He has a low shooting percentage and so he's not much of a threat himself, making it easier for the opposition to double-team Staal. LaRose is not a playmaker either - he can't be setting up Staal often because LaRose has only got 11 assists on the season, which ranks him 11th on the team. That's pretty shocking for a guy who's gotten to play a lot on scoring lines and specifically with Staal. LaRose is a superior defensive player at this stage to some potential Staal linemates. It's fair to say that most of LaRose's strengths would fit better on other lines.
There's certainly a case for playing Jokinen on the top line--he is a playmaker and has an excellent shooting percentage too--but he doesn't have the kind of speed ideal for keeping up with Staal and Cole. That may limit the line in some ways even though Jokinen helps the line in others.
Assuming Jokinen and Carter come back soon, these lines might look reasonable for now:
Staal - Tlusty - Cole
Ruutu - Skinner - Jokinen
Sutter - Samsonov - LaRose
Carter - Dwyer - Bodie
In a couple of weeks, things could look better (in my opinion):
Staal - Tlusty - Cole
Ruutu - Skinner - Jokinen
Sutter - Boychuk -Dalpe
Carter - LaRose/Dwyer - Bodie
The top line would have good size, speed and scoring talent across the board. The Sutter line would have tremendous speed, great offensive potential from players who have played together, and, with Dalpe, reasonable size. I realize Sutter's defensive role but hate to see his offensive potential go to waste and that's a risk with some of the other potential linemates. If the third line has to be composed of primarily defensive players, you could move LaRose or Dwyer up and Dalpe down. I do see that Tlusty's combination of size, defensive responsibility and offensive talent works as well for Sutter as it might for Staal. This post is motivated primarily by the feeling that Staal is getting shortchanged in current line assignments and the Canes are getting shortchanged as a result.
Barring a trade and assuming Mo's line lotto doesn't render talk of lines pointless, what is the Canes' best option now at left wing on the top line?
25 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good Thoughts
as many Caniacs have yet to see just how good of a player Tlusty is or could be…and from what little i have seen I as as coach I’d give him a shot for a game or two and use # 19 also as needed as with Carter & Sutter,Dwyer as he has done a pretty decent job…and he realkly wants to show and thank the team for having continued faith in him despite his injuries…he reminds me in a way of a younger Jussi Jokinen as in hard working tries to stay and remain focused and is a team player…thanks for this…
as fans,are we expecting too much ??
Not enough size with Skinner on that line. Skinner is most successful when Ruu bangs—creates space and backs off the opposition. Nobody with that role there. Staal and Cole create their own space, they need more of a finisher to pass to when they win puck battles—something LaRose doesn’t bring. But Tlusty or Jussi could.
Disagree, Skinner doesn’t need a lot space, he needs a step and some to get him the puck, the more he touches the puck in a game the better he gets. Over the past 10 games Larose has done a poor job distributing the puck to Skinner, he carries it up the ice too often and either turns it over inside the blueline or dumps it into a space Skinner nor Ruutu can get to. I like Tlusty on the wing for 2 reasons, he’ll get the puck to Skinner in the neutral zone and he’ll dig pucks out deep in the offensive zone.
Interesting combinations on lots of levels. I think of Ruutu and Cole as right wings when Ruutu isn’t playing center. If that’s true, it’s a choice between Ruutu and Cole as Staal’s right wing. I also think of Samsonov as very skilled offensively and not suited to playing on the 4th line—doesn’t hit, isn’t physically aggressive.
It is tough reshuffling these lines because on the current roster, there are still more 4th liners than the 4th line has room for. It will be interesting to see if the Canes make a move, whether to clear a roster spot to make room for a prospect or to land an established top 6 winger. Because the Canes’ playoff chances could go either way, it’s hard to know what JR might do.
Some moves seem out of the question because of money (a real top 6 forward who’s an upgrade over what the Canes have now), some because they would compromise the future without really improving the present (budget vets), and others because they seem incompatible with the coach (giving prospects a real shot in a significant role). Any of the moves would be a gamble. It will be extremely disappointing if the Canes give up anything to get a marginal veteran forward to spare PM the agony of playing a prospect and then PM hands the marginal veteran substantial ice time with marginal results.
by curiouscanesfan on Feb 15, 2011 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
Most guys don’t care what wing they play on, although it seems Cole plays better on the off-wing, I don’t think it matters as much for Ruutu, he seems to play fine where ever you put him, I’m a little surprised he’s a -6, he’s still better on the wing.
You can shuffle this lineup 9 different ways and it probably doesn’t make a big difference, it really just depends who shows up.
In terms of adding another player, I’m all for it, especially if it’s someone we can keep at least a year.
Maybe
From his scouting report: Is very creative with the puck, and has both playmaking and finishing skills. Can play all three forward positions. So sounds good, but also say “european floater, inconsistent”…
…He has shown the hand skills lately, especially before he went out injured. If he has found consistent inner drive and desire his skills will continue to rise to the surface—and he could turn out very nice.
But right now, he’s still trying to develop those NHL skills—he’s still young to the NHL—and has had injury issues so consistency and continuity have stopped him from showing he has those skills now. We will have to wait and see how the season plays out with him, but for now, He’d be iffy on the top line, but it could also improve him and bring out his skills—the same argument I have for Dalpe and Boychuck. Right now we don’t know.
Right now we don’t know about Dalpe, Boychuk or Tlusty, but we do know the limits of the veterans who have played top 6 positions for 50+ games. Some are good in that role, some can hack it and some can’t. There doesn’t seem much to lose by substituting a prospect who might be able to do the job for a veteran who has failed to do the job. The third alternative is to trade for a veteran who can definitely do the job and let the prospects play on in the AHL.
by curiouscanesfan on Feb 15, 2011 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
"Limits" or not...
We’re currently in a playoff spot. Why would we risk that on trying to force a young kid into the lineup just to see if he’s going to fall on his face or not.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Feb 19, 2011 1:35 PM EST up reply actions
That view seems reasonable today. For the past couple of weeks, it’s seemed as though the Canes were slipping out of the playoff spot by trusting their fate to LaRose etc on top lines and so had nothing to lose by trying a different approach.
Part of the Canes’ good fortune is being in the Eastern Conference. In the Western Conference, they would be tied for 11th place with Chicago and Columbus. Only three teams out of 15 would be beneath them in the standings. The last team in the Western Conference would be in 10th place in the East with 57 points, still harboring playoff aspirations.
The status quo is the 8th spot by the grace of God, not because LaRose and the other overslotted vets can consistently produce like the kind of forwards you want on scoring lines. You have to think twice about continuing to trust your fate to players who have carried you no higher than 20th in a league of 30 teams.
by curiouscanesfan on Feb 19, 2011 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
You play the hand you're dealt.
The same argument could be said of the other NC pro team in playoff contention, the Bobbies. In the West, they’d be a laughingstock. But the league doesn’t seed the playoffs based on league standing, but conference, and we’re doing just fine for that. I think they’ll get stomped even if they make it, but surely you know the axiom…once you get to the tournament, anything can happen.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Feb 19, 2011 7:32 PM EST up reply actions
The votes so far are interesting
With 17 votes in, there’s a clear preference for Jokinen or Tlusty over Boychuk or the other alternatives listed. You could describe Jokinen as toward the upper end of the young vet spectrum—he’s certainly beyond being a prospect. Tlusty isn’t a raw prospect—he hasn’t played big minutes, but he’s played in over 100 NHL games now over 4 seasons, with 16 goals and 19 assists. Tlusty is on the cusp of turning into a young vet. He seems a safer bet than Boychuk, and a more hopeful bet than LaRose.
by curiouscanesfan on Feb 15, 2011 4:55 PM EST reply actions
After 62 votes, LaRose has one and Samsonov two
It’s debatable whether the wing in question should be Jokinen, Boychuk or Tlusty based on the results. Mo has moved Jokinen to the top line. Tlusty is playing very, very well with Sutter so it’s probably best not to mess with that combination. Boychuk is in Charlotte.
The clock is ticking on the trade deadline. If JR’s intention is to turn this team into a playoff contender, he’s got 7 days to do it.
Think what the finish of the season will look like if the Canes keep Samsonov and LaRose, keep the prospects in Charlotte and still miss the playoffs. Present failure without gaining momentum for the future.
That is what a lot of us feared going into the season with the veterans on this roster. Cole has been a pleasant surprise and Samsonov and LaRose have been OK, but otherwise the wisdom of sticking with veteran forwards instead of gambling on kids and getting them substantial NHL experience in big roles is looking more dubious by the day as the focus shifts from this season to next.
by curiouscanesfan on Feb 21, 2011 10:21 AM EST reply actions
Unfortunately, we have no evidence (except evidence to the contrary) that either of the two prospects would result in any more production than what we are getting from LaRose and Samsonov.
So, in my mind, hard to make the argument that making this change this season is imperative.
If we get a good offer for either or both, then no harm done, I might believe. But I’m expecting points to fall, not increase, if we have to reach for the reserves. Injuries may get them some action, but other than that, their mission is to get better and try to make the team out of camp next season. They’re just not yet ready.
Here we are now...entertain us.
by Elsker on Feb 21, 2011 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Feb 21, 2011 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
In that we're sitting in 8th in the standings...
Aren’t we a “playoff contender” already?
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Feb 21, 2011 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
The Canes are 20th in a 30 team league. If the Blues win today, the Canes will be 21st in a 30 team league, 5 points out of 24th place. Do you want JR to go all-in for a playoff run if the Canes’ squeak in despite being among the league’s worst teams?
If the Canes put together a winning streak, everything changes. Maybe they’ll knock off the Rangers, Pens and Canadiens between Tuesday and Saturday and start to look like real contenders. I’m disappointed that the Canes have been staring a golden opportunity in the face and have won 3 of their last 10 games, two by an eyelash over the collapsing Thrashers and one on Rod Brind’Amour night when adrenalin was high. Very little would have had to change for the Canes to be 1-7-2 rather than 3-5-2.
If the Canes drop the next three games but Buffalo, Atlanta and Florida do the same, will you still think of the Canes as contenders? If you are awarded a playoff spot despite failing to contend—to be competitive on the ice knowing a playoff spot is on the line—are you still a contender?
by curiouscanesfan on Feb 21, 2011 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
No, and why would I?
But the implication was made that we would not qualify as a “playoff contender” without making moves to improve our team. I would suggest, however, that, by definition, we are already a playoff contender as long as we’re in position to make the position or to compete for a spot in them. And yes, if we go 0-10-0 in our next ten, I’ll still consider us contenders—so long as we’re in a playoff spot, or within shouting distance of one. It may be an issue of semantics here, and maybe you’re discussing the notion of whether we are CUP contenders. If that’s the grade we should judge by, I’d obviously say hell no. But when it comes to having a better-than-decent shot to qualify, make a couple mil in bonus revenue, and get few national games and some exposure, I think we’re right there, and that’s more than I would have hoped for back in October.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Feb 21, 2011 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
P.S.:
Once you get to the tournament, anything can happen.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Feb 21, 2011 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
OK, we think about what it means to be a contender differently. I think of a team that actually contends, the way the Canes have in previous playoff years. It’s a matter of semantics since you get into the playoffs if you’re 8th best even if you’re awful. The difference to me is that JR might feel justified in spending more/trading more to maximize what he gets from a team that’s contending in my sense.
by curiouscanesfan on Feb 21, 2011 6:59 PM EST up reply actions
He might, but I don't think he will, and I hope he won't.
Really, what would one or two additions do for this team, the kind we could afford both to trade for and then to pay once we acquired them? Maybe get us to a sixth or seventh game in the first round rather than ending after five? Maaaybe. But I think that tradeoff, even at its best and most effective (say, a high pick or one of our promising prospects for a trip to the second round) would be nowhere close to worth it.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
Panthers '010: Save the Richardson family coffers! We'll take the winning if we stumble into it.
by MichaelProcton on Feb 21, 2011 9:22 PM EST up reply actions
You’re slightly more pessimistic than I am about this year’s playoffs, and that’s saying something.
I can’t rule out this farfetched wish/possibility: JR adds a couple of big-time players, perhaps one a rental and one under contract. JR also clears one or two roster spots for top prospects, and it’s possible—just possible—that we’d be looking at a very competitive team. Skinner has taken the possibilities up a notch. With both him and Staal on board and strong supporting players like Jokinen, Ruutu and Cole, add one more real scoring or playmaking forward for Staal’s line or a really good 2nd line center and one solid defenseman, have Dalpe or Boychuk or both come through with speedy skating and sniping, and you might be looking at a team that’s very competitive in the East from here on out. The players I’d subtract are Samsonov and LaRose or Dwyer or perhaps even both LaRose and Dwyer. The defense might be OK with one more defenseman—I mean literally OK, not really good, so this all assumes that the Canes would win with offense while containing the other team enough of the time with defense to give up one goal less than the Canes score. The offense might really start to roll if JR can bring in the right forward. At this point, I have no idea who that might be except he wouldn’t be another little guy, he wouldn’t be old and slow and he’d be an upgrade over Samsonov at both ends and on the power play (conceding that Samsonov IS good on the power play—the new guy would be better).
If the defense could hold it’s own and the Canes added a big-time linemate for Staal, the Canes could be rolling three or even four lines that can score.
Staal-Jokinen – Big-Time Scoring Rightwing (don’t know who)
Ruutu – Skinner – Cole (this line worked great for a while)
Sutter – Tlusty – Dalpe
Carter – Boychuk – Bodie
Thanks to Skinner, the Canes are very close to having enough firepower 5 on 5 to go toe to toe with most teams. If the new guy on the first line worked out and Dalpe started scoring, anything from Boychuk would be gravy—and Boychuk would have a bodyguard in Bodie.
Pipedream?
by curiouscanesfan on Feb 22, 2011 2:33 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Canes Country
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
