When/If Malkin Returns This Season

[columbia]

Rolling three likes like described above would be problematic for any team to handle. Let's hope they go far enough to see it happen.

[FistOfCaufield]

I'm going to say it - I don't think the second line, nor the team, suffers at all if Malkin comes back and is put back at center on line 2.

Now - that's not to say that at this moment, putting Malkin on a third line wouldn't also benefit the team simply because you have the luxery right now of getting offense from a line that has Bonino at center, but I don't think putting Malkin on the second line would kill that line at all as has been suggested by certain radio personalities.

The second line has been generating scoring chances a fair number of ways including offensive zone and neutral zone turnovers. Malkin would thrive doing this - and the benefits of having Malkin there to finish these scoring opportunities along with Kessel/Hagelin would benefit the line far more than harming it. In terms of the rush - it's not like Nick Bonino is the sole player moving the puck - I think you are seeing the benefits of the Penguins defensemen and the mentality in general in terms of the breakout - I have no doubt Malkin as well would take advantage of this.

In general this team would have hit this grove if Malkin was in the lineup - it's not just a single second line thing ,it's a team thing right now.

Again - this is not to say the penguins get far enough to make this decision - that Malkin centering a 3rd line however constructed wouldn't also benefit in other ways. It's a good problem to have, but I think the idea that Malkin centering the 2nd line would destroy it is simply ludicrous.

[NTP66]

I can't find it, but my cousin texted me yesterday telling me that he read a quote from Sullivan saying that he would play Malkin on the 3rd line if/when he returned, opting to keep the current Kessel line as-is. At this point, I think that just getting Malkin back, regardless of where he plays, would be optimal.

[FistOfCaufield]

I can't find it, but my cousin texted me yesterday telling me that he read a quote from Sullivan saying that he would play Malkin on the 3rd line if/when he returned, opting to keep the current Kessel line as-is. At this point, I think that just getting Malkin back, regardless of where he plays, would be optimal.

I don't think it's the wrong move - but the idea that Malkin would destroy the second line is absurd. The second line would be fine if not better with Geno on it. The discussion would be that since you have a very effective second line now, and as we know Malkin would make any line a threat, why not put him on a third line so that you have 3 lines that are a real threat to score. It's an absolute luxery the Penguins are lucky to have if they can get to a point where Malkin comes back.

[dodint]

Malkin? More like Malkant, amirite?

[Silentom]

Boo! Hiss!

[mikey]

I don't think the question is destroy, it's a matter of utilization. Kunitz-Crosby-Hornqvist = makes three useful players. Hagelin-Bonino-Kessel = makes three useful players. Sheary-Malkin-Rust (or whatever) should yield two to three useful players. Kuhnhackl-Cullen-Fehr should be a good fourth line (or whatever)...

Whereas, you had situations where Malkin-Kessel means that Kessel doesn't get as many touches or has many rushes. Losing a useful player. Bonino playing with lesser linemates hurts his offensive capability, now he can produce while still being the defensive conscious for a line that is scoring too. Malkin adds a three-zone puck carrier in the depths of the lineup - very few teams in the league can match that.

That means you have 87, 81, 71, 58, and 6 as three-zone carriers throughout the lineup...that is noteworthy, as most teams probably only have 1 or 2...

[Silentom]

I support a 3 line threat.

1st line
2A line
2B line
4th line

[Beveridge]

Mikey said better what I was thinking than I could say so ditto.

[dodint]

Boo! Hiss!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

Seriously though, I'll be shocked if we see him before training camp.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

did we ever find out what his injury was? or did he just hurt his "upper body meat"?

[mikey]

My guess is that he fractured a bone in his forearm/wrist or some such...

[Algernon]

I'd be willing to bet a large deal of money that he has a fractured Scaphoid

[NTP66]

We'll find out during the offseason, but Molinari did mention recently that Malkin hadn't been wearing any type or brace or anything during his on-ice workouts. I know that doesn't mean much, but if he really did fracture something, I'd have expected a brace.

I'd much prefer a fracture over a break, too, and the fact that he's already working out probably rules out the latter.

[King Colby]

For me, putting malkin on a different line has much less to do with disrupting the chemistry of one line than adding another scoring threat line.

In other words, you know the current bonino line can score. Malkin-bennett-fehr looks a lot better than bonino-bennett-fehr

[FistOfCaufield]

I don't think the question is destroy, it's a matter of utilization. Kunitz-Crosby-Hornqvist = makes three useful players. Hagelin-Bonino-Kessel = makes three useful players. Sheary-Malkin-Rust (or whatever) should yield two to three useful players. Kuhnhackl-Cullen-Fehr should be a good fourth line (or whatever)...

Whereas, you had situations where Malkin-Kessel means that Kessel doesn't get as many touches or has many rushes. Losing a useful player. Bonino playing with lesser linemates hurts his offensive capability, now he can produce while still being the defensive conscious for a line that is scoring too. Malkin adds a three-zone puck carrier in the depths of the lineup - very few teams in the league can match that.

That means you have 87, 81, 71, 58, and 6 as three-zone carriers throughout the lineup...that is noteworthy, as most teams probably only have 1 or 2...

Oh I agree it's a matter of utilization,and if the second line as constructed continues to score - it's a huge bonus to the Penguins who are now free to move Malkin to another line.

I think I should clarify that the nonsense that Malkin would drag the second line production down is an statement made to elicit a response on a radio show as opposed to something based on any type of sound hockey. I think the second line would do just fine with Malkin replacing Bonino - but you weaken the third line by doing that and make your team easier to match up against.

[Factorial]

For me, putting malkin on a different line has much less to do with disrupting the chemistry of one line than adding another scoring threat line.

In other words, you know the current bonino line can score. Malkin-bennett-fehr looks a lot better than bonino-bennett-fehr

[Faubert5]

Geno-Sid-Hornqvist??

The winger we've always wanted for Sid? I think I'd like Geno on a third line and leave the current top two intact.

[Silentom]

They did it with Sid and they can do it with Geno.

[NTP66]

Source of the post The winger we've always wanted for Sid?

I've always considered Kunitz that person.

[Faubert5]

Source of the post The winger we've always wanted for Sid?

I've always considered Kunitz that person.

I wouldn't break up either of our top two lines right now. The Pens have moved up to third in goals scored. It definitely isn't broke.

[Gaucho]

The Pens have moved up to third in goals scored.

Wow, I had no idea.