Early-season line combinations were already changing on Long Island before the Islanders had played their second game. Two days after a 2-1 loss in Toronto, Pete DeBoer moved Emil Heineman alongside Bo Horvat and Kyle Palmieri. Simon Holmström returned to Jean-Gabriel Pageau’s wing, with Anthony Duclair completing the trio.
New York needed more five-on-five offense. DeBoer also wanted to avoid constantly rearranging his lines.
There was the problem.
Every new partnership costs practice time, and the Islanders had little to spare. The NHL reduced its preseason to four games for 2026-27 while expanding the regular season to 84. Teams entered October with fewer opportunities to evaluate combinations against real competition.
Now those experiments counted in the standings.
For coaches, early-season line combinations reveal far more than scoring chemistry. They show which forwards recognize each other’s routes, recover from turnovers and handle difficult defensive assignments without constant protection from the bench.
One impressive scoring shift might earn another opportunity. Trust takes considerably longer.
Four preseason games changed the evaluation process
The old exhibition schedule gave coaches more opportunities to experiment without damaging their team’s record.
A center could play alongside a rookie in one game and a veteran in another. If neither combination worked, the staff still had time to revisit its options.
The shortened 2026 preseason removed much of that flexibility.
Washington coach Spencer Carbery discussed the problem before camp opened. Some teams faced only 12 days between their first practices and the start of the regular season.
That time had to cover considerably more than selecting forward lines.
Coaches needed to establish their forechecking structure, neutral-zone coverage and defensive-zone assignments. A 1-2-2 forecheck, for instance, requires three forwards to recognize their responsibilities almost simultaneously.
F1 pressures the puck carrier. F2 anticipates the next outlet, while F3 stays above the play to protect against a quick counterattack.
One winger pursuing the wrong opponent can open a passing lane through the middle.
Former NHL coach Dan Bylsma addressed the consequences in an Oct. 13, 2026, NHL.com Coaches Room analysis. He connected the shorter preparation period to early defensive breakdowns. Teams simply had fewer opportunities to establish their systems before meaningful games began.
Those habits demand repetition.
A struggling line might lack chemistry, or it might simply need another week to understand the system. The scoreboard offers no patience while coaches determine which explanation fits.
DeBoer’s Islanders returned to familiar partnerships
New York’s Oct. 2 adjustments reflected that tension.
DeBoer, who replaced Patrick Roy in April 2026, had seen his team struggle to generate offense during the preseason and opening night.
Rather than construct completely unfamiliar trios, he restored partnerships with established habits.
Heineman had previously played with Horvat and Palmieri. Holmström and Pageau knew each other’s tendencies through extensive time together, including penalty-killing assignments.
The Islanders’ official practice report captured DeBoer’s reasoning: New York needed more five-on-five goals, but he disliked repeatedly changing combinations.
That approach offered a useful compromise.
Horvat’s line could concentrate on improving its offensive execution without every player learning unfamiliar routes. Meanwhile, Holmström and Pageau could draw on their existing defensive understanding.
Adding Duclair gave that partnership another attacking option.
The challenge involved making those pieces work together.
When Duclair pressures a defenseman along the wall, Pageau must recognize whether to support the puck or cover the passing lane through the middle. Holmström needs to read the same situation from the opposite side.
Those decisions happen quickly.
The Islanders initially kept their new partnerships together, giving the combinations additional time to develop. Yet DeBoer continued adjusting as he gathered evidence.
By Oct. 12, Holmström had moved alongside Casey Cizikas and Matias Maccelli, while Ondřej Palát joined Pageau and Duclair. DeBoer wanted Holmström concentrating on puck battles and the smaller responsibilities of his game rather than pressing for goals.
That second adjustment revealed the limit of patience. Familiarity had value, but the coaching staff still needed results.
On Long Island, the question was how much continuity to preserve while searching for offense. Edmonton confronted the reverse problem. Its most dangerous forwards were producing together, leaving the coach to decide whether breaking them apart would help the rest of the lineup.
Edmonton’s top line challenges the idea of roster balance
Mike Babcock took over the Oilers on June 23, 2026, after Edmonton parted ways with Kris Knoblauch. He inherited two of hockey’s most productive forwards and a familiar strategic dilemma.
Should Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl remain together?
Separating the stars gives Edmonton two elite centers. Keeping them together creates an exceptionally dangerous first line, but leaves the coaching staff searching for offense elsewhere.
Babcock entered training camp favoring the second approach. By October, Vasily Podkolzin had emerged as a productive third member of the unit.
Through Edmonton’s first six games, McDavid, Draisaitl and Podkolzin combined for 37 individual points, including 15 goals and 22 assists. Those totals reflect their overall scoring, not exclusively production while sharing the ice.
The trio reinforced the experiment during a 4-1 victory over Los Angeles on Oct. 13. McDavid recorded four points, while Podkolzin scored twice.
Podkolzin gives the arrangement another dimension.
His forechecking and puck-retrieval work can create opportunities for McDavid and Draisaitl to attack off recovered possessions. Instead of asking both stars to win every battle below the goal line, Edmonton can use Podkolzin’s physical game to sustain offensive pressure.
However, one outstanding line cannot solve every roster problem.
Opposing coaches can concentrate defensive resources against Edmonton’s stars. The home team’s last-change advantage also creates unfavorable matchups on the road.
Babcock must weigh that concentrated production against the opportunity to create two dangerous scoring lines.
That calculation explains why early-season line combinations cannot be evaluated independently.
The strongest possible first line does not automatically create the strongest possible team. Edmonton’s challenge is preserving a successful unit without asking the remaining forwards to survive on whatever opportunities it leaves behind.
Toronto offers another variation on that problem. Instead of deciding how to distribute two established stars, the Maple Leafs are discovering how much responsibility their youngest forwards can handle.
Toronto’s rookie shuffle measures readiness as much as chemistry
The Maple Leafs entered training camp with a significant challenge after selecting Gavin McKenna first overall in June 2026.
Toronto opened the season with McKenna alongside John Tavares and William Nylander.
The arrangement offered immediate benefits.
Tavares provided experience through the middle, while Nylander’s creativity gave McKenna another skilled player capable of maintaining possession under pressure.
McKenna was still skating with them against Nashville on Oct. 6.
Two days later, Toronto changed its combinations.
Easton Cowan joined Tavares and Nylander, while McKenna moved alongside Nick Paul and Colton Sissons, according to NHL.com’s Oct. 8 projected lineup against Vegas.
The move gave coach Jim Hiller another way to evaluate both young forwards.
McKenna could develop his offensive instincts against different matchups. Cowan received an opportunity alongside established scorers.
Neither arrangement guaranteed better production.
Toronto needed to determine how each youngster handled the puck when defenders eliminated his preferred options.
A rookie accustomed to controlling possession can take an extra stickhandle along the boards. Against NHL forecheckers, that hesitation may be enough to lose the puck.
The coaching staff sees more than a turnover.
It sees how quickly the player recognizes pressure, whether his linemates provide support and how the group responds when the attacking sequence breaks down.
For early-season line combinations, development and immediate results often compete.
McKenna’s ideal role in October may differ from the one he earns later in the season.
The video room tests what the scoresheet cannot
The Islanders, Oilers and Maple Leafs are dealing with different roster questions, but their coaches need the same evidence.
They want to know whether productive shifts come from repeatable decisions or favorable circumstances.
A line can score twice and still concern its coaching staff.
Consider an offensive-zone turnover.
The center carries the puck toward the blue line while both wingers attack beneath him. An opposing defenseman intercepts the pass, and neither winger has a useful angle to slow the counterattack.
Now three forwards are chasing the play.
The scoresheet records their earlier goals. Video exposes the positioning that could eventually cost one.
Modern analytics departments provide additional evidence.
Corsi-for percentage measures a team’s share of shot attempts while particular players are on the ice. Expected goals per 60 minutes, or xGF/60, estimates the quality of scoring opportunities over a standardized period.
High-danger chance share helps identify whether those opportunities come from threatening areas.
Coaches use these metrics alongside video rather than treating one number as a verdict.
A trio might generate plenty of perimeter shots while allowing opponents repeated opportunities from the slot. Another could create excellent chances but suffer through an early stretch of poor finishing.
Neither case necessarily requires an immediate lineup change.
Small samples make the evaluation harder. A deflected shot can inflate a line’s early shooting percentage, while one excellent goaltending performance can hide an otherwise productive night.
Coaches need repeated evidence before deciding whether a combination works.
Defensive support determines which lines earn difficult minutes
A particularly useful test begins behind the team’s own net.
A defenseman retrieves a hard rim. Two forecheckers arrive quickly, threatening to trap the puck along the boards.
His center drops toward the low circle and offers a short passing option. The strong-side winger stays available along the wall instead of accelerating toward neutral ice.
Two passes turn the pressure into a controlled breakout.
The play may not generate a scoring chance, but the coach sees three forwards making compatible decisions.
That reliability matters during defensive-zone starts and difficult road matchups.
A third line that exits cleanly and protects the middle can handle assignments that would otherwise fall to the top six. A fourth line that sustains possession gives exhausted teammates valuable recovery time.
Those contributions help determine how many forwards a coach can trust.
That is why early-season line combinations receive scrutiny well beyond their goal totals.
A useful trio gives the coaching staff another dependable option, not another group that requires favorable matchups to survive.
Knowing when not to change a line
Every adjustment carries a cost.
One center prefers his winger to remain wide through neutral ice. Another expects that player to cut underneath for a short pass.
Both patterns can work.
Problems arise when a winger anticipates one route while his new center expects the other. The forecheck closes before they recognize the mistake.
Former NHL assistant Dan Lambert discussed that challenge in a November 2025 Coaches Room analysis. He advocated building around complementary pairs, then finding a third forward whose strengths fit the partnership.
That structure provides flexibility without forcing every player to start over after a poor game.
DeBoer initially applied a similar principle when he restored familiar Islanders combinations, then made another adjustment when Holmström needed a different role. Babcock chose continuity with an Edmonton top line that had already produced heavily.
Toronto had different priorities as it evaluated young forwards against new opponents.
The appropriate decision depends on what a coaching staff needs to learn.
Keep an ineffective trio together too long, and the team risks losing points. Break it apart too quickly, and the players never receive enough repetitions to establish chemistry.
Coaches must recognize the difference between temporary inconsistency and a partnership that cannot meet the team’s demands.
November trust begins with October decisions
By November, coaching staffs should understand considerably more than which forwards have produced the most goals.
They need to know which partnerships survive difficult matchups, which groups create chances without favorable starts and which players can change roles without disrupting the entire lineup.
That knowledge becomes valuable when injuries arrive.
A winger might move into the top six in December. A center could lose his regular partner for several weeks. Another forward may earn additional responsibility after demonstrating dependable defensive habits.
Those moves become easier when players have already established familiarity with several teammates.
Early-season line combinations provide much of that preparation.
Edmonton’s opening production gives Babcock evidence for keeping his stars together. Toronto’s experiments help Hiller evaluate what McKenna and Cowan can handle at this stage of their development.
On Long Island, DeBoer continues adjusting his forwards to find more offense without sacrificing defensive structure.
Each coach faces a different roster problem, but the underlying judgment remains similar.
How much evidence does a line need before the staff decides whether to keep it together?
A scoring streak cannot answer that alone. Coaches need repeated examples of sound decisions under pressure, particularly when opponents take away a line’s favorite routes.
The shortened preseason has made that evaluation more demanding. With fewer exhibition games, coaches must complete much of the work during an 84-game regular season.
By winter, the combinations that survive may not feature the three most talented forwards available.
They will feature players who anticipate one another’s decisions, protect dangerous areas and continue creating chances when the game becomes uncomfortable.
October reveals which forwards can produce together. The difficult shifts show which ones coaches trust enough to keep together.
READ MORE: Controlled defensive zone exits reveal an NHL team’s real speed
FAQs
Q1. Why do NHL coaches change line combinations early in the season?
Coaches test chemistry, improve five-on-five offense and fix defensive problems. October gives them meaningful games to judge which forwards work together.
Q2. How many preseason games do NHL teams play in 2026-27?
NHL teams play four preseason games under the revised schedule. That gives coaches less time to experiment before the regular season begins.
Q3. Why do Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl play on the same line?
Keeping them together creates a powerful offensive unit. Edmonton must balance that production against its need for scoring throughout the lineup.
Q4. How do NHL coaches evaluate line chemistry?
Coaches study puck support, defensive positioning, scoring chances and shot-attempt data. They also review video to identify mistakes and reliable habits.
Q5. Why don’t NHL coaches always put their three best forwards together?
Talent alone doesn’t guarantee chemistry. Coaches need complementary playing styles, defensive reliability and enough scoring depth across the lineup.
