It’s time to make tweaks, not major changes
Hornqvist might be able to energize power play
The Penguins waited more than four-and-a-half months for their chance to play meaningful hockey. And, in a worst-case scenario, it could all be over in about four days.
After dropping Game 1 to Montreal in overtime, 3-2, the Penguins don’t have much time or margin for error in a shortened five-game series. OK, let’s not get irrational. The Penguins were one of the best teams in the Eastern Conference this year, and that was before they got everyone healthy and added players at the deadline.
To quote the great philosopher Buzz
Lightyear, “This is no time to panic.”
Or as Woody responded, “This is a perfect time to panic!”
To change the result, here are a few of the possibilities worth considering — or not.
• Suggestion: More Patric Hornqvist?
Analysis: Coach Mike Sullivan made it clear. The Penguins need to get to the front of the net more to take away Canadiens goalie Carey Price’s sight lines. There’s a pretty easy way to do that. His name is Patric Hornqvist. The 32-year-old isn’t just the Penguins’ best menace around the blue paint, he’s among the league’s most disruptive forces in front. A bold move would be to shake up the top line, playing Hornqvist alongside Jake Guentzel and Sidney Crosby. At a minimum, it’s hard to explain keeping Hornqvist off the top power play unit, which went just 1 for 7 and squandered 1:32 of 5-on3 time. The lone goal came from the second unit after a screen in front from Hornqvist. Go figure.
Verdict: Give Hornqvist the power play promotion. Wait and see on the
line shakeup. Guentzel played the net-front role on the top power play, racking up more than twice as many minutes as Hornqvist. Yes, he’s a 40-goal scorer with elite hockey sense and underrated toughness. But is a 180pound man the best option to stand in front of the net and absorb cross checks from 6-3, 225-pound Ben Chiarot?
• Suggestion: Make a goalie swap?
Analysis: Given his track record of postseason success, it was no surprise that Matt Murray earned the nod in the net. Murray gave up some troubling rebounds, however, the blame for the second goal is misplaced. Defenseman Brian Dumoulin’s poorly executed pinch led to the oddman rush. Even if Murray could have made that save, goal No. 1 came on a bad bounce and poor execution from Jack Johnson. Goal No. 3 was an absolute rocket through traffic.
Verdict: No. Just no. Sullivan might have to switch goaltenders at some point. But to change the goalie now would be an unnecessary overreaction.
• Suggestion: Mix up the blue line?
Analysis: Jack Johnson sometimes gets more criticism than he deserves. But on the first goal, he got his money’s worth. During the rough sequence, Johnson took Zach Aston-Reese out of the play and then contributed to a bad bounce that landed in the back of the net. Many fans have been clamoring for Juuso Riikola to supplant Johnson. It’s not happening. Riikola earned about a third of his starts at forward. Sometimes it’s best to trust the coaching staff knows more about its players than we do.
Well, what about balancing the blue line? Johnson’s advanced metrics aren’t good at all. But they are the best, by far, with Marino, when the rookie was using his mobility and intelligence to cover for the veteran. That idea makes sense in metrics land. But on the ice, the problem is it means playing Marino four fewer minutes in the third pair or Johnson four more minutes in the second. Neither is the right solution.
Verdict: The best approach might be to just limit the third pairing minutes. If it gets to a point that the Penguins make a personnel change, the righthanded Chad Ruhwedel playing his off side seems more likely than Riikola getting a jersey.
• Suggestion: Stop rolling lines?
Analysis: Three scoring lines led to back-to-back Stanley Cups for Sullivan and Co. How do you match up against Crosby’s line, Evgeni Malkin’s line and then a third scoring line? When it works, it’s a beautiful thing. But when it doesn’t work? Well, then you’re just taking ice time away from Crosby and Malkin for nothing.
Verdict: The series is shorter. Maybe the bench should be, too, from time to time. The third line didn’t get a ton of ice time, but this trend could continue even more.
• Suggestion: Add a spark off the bench?
Analysis: Rookie forward Sam Lafferty was consistently one of the most noticeable players on the ice during training camp. He brings some size, good speed and young energy. Evan Rodrigues is a Swiss Army Knife, who can play in any of the three forward spots. Perhaps injecting one could send a message.
Verdict: Where do they play? If Rodrigues comes in, Jared McCann could slide over to wing. Or if Lafferty earns a jersey, maybe Hornqvist goes to the top line and the rookie jumps in on the third line. It feels like too much of a change after just one game. Maybe a more subtle tweak to the forward corps makes more sense right now.
• Suggestion: Trust the process?
Analysis: Maybe the boldest move might be to stand pat. The Penguins stormed out of the gate in Game 1. In the first period, they outshot Montreal, 16-5. They outchanced them, 133. And they had six highdanger scoring chances to the Canadiens’ two, according to Natural Stat Trick.
Verdict: While the first period was lopsided, the Penguins weren’t nearly as dominant the rest of the way. In the second and third periods, the Penguins outchanced Montreal just 18-16 and had eight highdanger chances to Montreal’s six. Montreal dominated overtime, though, with 11 of the 18 chances and three of the four highdanger chances.
The Penguins should make tweaks, but not major changes. At least not yet.