Thread by @emanningwrites

Still awake, still thinking about the #Habs loss tonight. This is going to be a THREAD:

Once I moved on from my immediate reactions, I realized that the disheartening thing here is that for the past several games, wins or losses alike, the Habs have looked too much...

...like their old selves. So seeing them fall into bad habits and start to collapse feels familiar and ominous. Has it been a dream?

But then I remember the beginning of the season and it's clear: no, it wasn't. They came out strong. They were better than just good--they...

...were better than ever. People who have watched them for decades said so, not just novices like me.

Something has changed, and it doesn't take a detective to figure out what.

Remember the emphasis last month (has it really only been a month?)? It was said again...

...and again. It was said clearly, strongly, with determination. "We roll four lines. We. roll. four. lines. WE ROLL FOUR LINES."

Four lines, sent out as evenly as possible. Short shifts, keeping everyone fresh. That's what depth does for you when you use it right...

...and that's what we were doing. Was every forward getting exactly 15 minutes of ice time? No, because that's impossible in real game play. But "4 lines" was clearly the goal, and that was what was being attempted.

And cycling Fs and Ds alike in short...

...and "even-ish" shifts meant the pace of the game, that deadly pace that means so much more than mere speed, could be dictated on OUR terms. Your star center doesn't have time to get his gameplay going? Too bad. Your star shooter keeps being deprived of opportunities? Sorry...

...but we roll four lines, and this is the price you pay when you play the Habs.

AND IT WAS WORKING.

But the last few games have been strange. TOI times of ten minutes or less from some forwards. Very uneven usage of different D pairings. Some of it can be...

...explained by special teams usage, but not all of it. Some of it looks like slipping back into the idea of top-six and bottom-six forwards, and sorting the defensive pairs by a similar kind of ranking. But we can't win that way. We know we can't, right? Because the...

...teams that have a clear top six (in terms of forwards) and who weight those lines heavier in TOI usually have star players carrying that burden. The job of the bottom six becomes to shut down the opposition until the stars have caught their breath again. The...

...uneven ice times are a gamble that pays off for those teams because they rely on their stars to do enough damage in their long shifts.

But we are not that kind of team. We have plenty of talent, but no superstars. The "four lines rolling" strategy is a brilliant way...

...to match up against teams with all kinds of rosters because, at least in theory, we should be able to exhaust and outpace the star-player teams while also being able to deal with teams like the Sens on OUR terms, not theirs. The whole idea, as various Habs...

...have said, was that our strategy, our four lines, could play any kind of game you wanted, because our strength came from our ability to put four fresh sets of legs on the ice on a rotation that would wear you out and leave you breathless and make it impossible...

...for you to think straight because of our grueling pace and relentless pressure.

We saw that in every game--yes, even the two OT losses--until we met the Sens. Perhaps it was slipping even before then, and it was just the Canucks' woes that kept it from becoming...

...visible. Perhaps it was the Senators' trap system that broke the four-lines idea in pieces (though I don't see why). Perhaps it's the lack of discipline and the trips to the penalty box that have made the four-line strategy seem too risky. All I know is that...

...it was working, the Habs were winning games and looking dominant, and even when we lost we saw the whole fight and knew it was still good.

Now it looks different. I hope it gets fixed. The way to win is to remember 2 things:

We fight like a family.
And we roll four lines.