Needs to be C or RW for Schenn... from that side of the ice, his playmaking and shot from distance become factors. From the left, he's like a slow-footed plug.
- Tomahawk

Is there more depth at RW or LW around hockey? Or is it equal?

Good point. Flyers were very fortunate last year in terms of injuries. Alt might be the first call up if they need a D man. Could also be Manning.
- MJL

with gus gone (i think) it means others will get a shot this year

Is there more depth at RW or LW around hockey? Or is it equal?
- PhillySportsGuy

Lot more (good) RW'ers, it seems.

I just think, given the personnel, that we can't pigeon hole guys. Me, I don't care where Schenn or Laughton play. Guys can be good defensive players and be wingers-look at Bob Gainey or Jari Kurri.

Looking down the road, I tend to agree that the top 3 centers should end up being Giroux, Couturier & Laughton. That said, It could very well be that Schenn ends up staying at center, because if Couturier stays as a defensive force, they might keep Schenn as the second offensive center, with Couturier doing the main defensive center role, which means Laughton is either a 4th liner or a winger.

All I'm saying is, that they have a bunch of good young players who could fit in at several spots. The best interest of the team could turn out to be something far different than any of us anticipate.

Also, if something is tried next season and works, that doesn't mean it's going to be the way things stay. Maybe Laughton plays LW next season. Doesn't mean he won't be the third line C in 2015-16.

I just think, given the personnel, that we can't pigeon hole guys. Me, I don't care where Schenn or Laughton play. Guys can be good defensive players and be wingers-look at Bob Gainey or Jari Kurri.

Looking down the road, I tend to agree that the top 3 centers should end up being Giroux, Couturier & Laughton. That said, It could very well be that Schenn ends up staying at center, because if Couturier stays as a defensive force, they might keep Schenn as the second offensive center, with Couturier doing the main defensive center role, which means Laughton is either a 4th liner or a winger.

All I'm saying is, that they have a bunch of good young players who could fit in at several spots. The best interest of the team could turn out to be something far different than any of us anticipate.

Also, if something is tried next season and works, that doesn't mean it's going to be the way things stay. Maybe Laughton plays LW next season. Doesn't mean he won't be the third line C in 2015-16.
- Jsaquella

I more so compare the development of Sean Couturier and Brayden Schenn to Mike Richards and Jeff Carter. Two young centers being developed on the Flyers around the same time. Then you consider RJ Umburger who also shared his rookie season with Richards and Carter. Adjustments had to be made for each young developing player but each was considered a center at the time. I'd say the majority of wing was saw by Umburger. Once we moved on from Umburger, it wasn't long until Giroux came along. More adjustments were made to fit Giroux in. Giroux started off as a winger but we found out quickly he was best effective at center. Nearing the end of Carter's time with the Flyers, he saw quit a bit of wing. It all depends on the state of the team. Right now we're very weak at the Left side.

I just think, given the personnel, that we can't pigeon hole guys. Me, I don't care where Schenn or Laughton play. Guys can be good defensive players and be wingers-look at Bob Gainey or Jari Kurri.

Looking down the road, I tend to agree that the top 3 centers should end up being Giroux, Couturier & Laughton. That said, It could very well be that Schenn ends up staying at center, because if Couturier stays as a defensive force, they might keep Schenn as the second offensive center, with Couturier doing the main defensive center role, which means Laughton is either a 4th liner or a winger.

All I'm saying is, that they have a bunch of good young players who could fit in at several spots. The best interest of the team could turn out to be something far different than any of us anticipate.

Also, if something is tried next season and works, that doesn't mean it's going to be the way things stay. Maybe Laughton plays LW next season. Doesn't mean he won't be the third line C in 2015-16.
- Jsaquella

One of the first things we need to do, in my opinion, is get rid of the idea of first line, second line, etc. As has been pointed out, Couts is the Flyers 2nd line center. Our 3rd and 4th line centers last season were, at various times, VL, Schenn, Raffl and Hall.

If things work out with Laughton this coming season the way many of us hope and/or expect, we will hopefully have 4 solid lines eating up a lot of minutes to keep the team relatively fresh through the 82 game grind. Obviously there will be differences in time on ice depending upon the PK and PP, as well as time, place, situation, but I for one would rather have 4 lines that can be rolled wave after wave, game after game as opposed to carrying players who need to be hidden or sheltered with sub-10 minute games.

Edit: what we call the lines - first, second, etc. - doesn't matter, it's how they perform, the minutes they eat and what they do for the team that counts.

I more so compare the development of Sean Couturier and Brayden Schenn to Mike Richards and Jeff Carter. Two young centers being developed on the Flyers around the same time. Then you consider RJ Umburger who also shared his rookie season with Richards and Carter. Adjustments had to be made for each young developing player but each was considered a center at the time. I'd say the majority of wing was saw by Umburger. Once we moved on from Umburger, it wasn't long until Giroux came along. More adjustments were made to fit Giroux in. Giroux started off as a winger but we found out quickly he was best effective at center. Nearing the end of Carter's time with the Flyers, he saw quit a bit of wing. It all depends on the state of the team. Right now we're very weak at the Left side.
- SuperSchennBros

That's why both Schenn & Laughton could see time there in the near future. Hell, Umberger could end up as the top line LW.

One of the first things we need to do, in my opinion, is get rid of the idea of first line, second line, etc. As has been pointed out, Couts is the Flyers 2nd line center. Our 3rd and 4th line centers last season were, at various times, VL, Schenn, Raffl and Hall.

If things work out with Laughton this coming season the way many of us hope and/or expect, we will hopefully have 4 solid lines eating up a lot of minutes to keep the team relatively fresh through the 82 game haul. Obviously there will be differences in time on ice depending upon the PK and PP, as well as time, place, situation, but I for one would rather have 4 lines that can be rolled wave after wave, game after game as opposed to carrying players who need to be hidden or sheltered with sub-10 minute games.
- wolfhounds

Agreed wholeheartedly. The way the Flyers used lines last year, Giroux's line was the main offensive line, Couturier's was the main defensive one and the other lines were more or less used to spell those guys. The Simmonds-Schenn-Lecavalier line saw a lot of shielded minutes and starts, the Hall line was basically a secondary defensive line.

As to the second point, AMEN. The obvious benefit to being able to roll four lines is that the start scoring line, namely Giroux, faces less wear and tear and is fresher in the playoffs. The secondary benefit is, Couturier's line can be used more as an offensive threat, rather than the ridiculously heavy defensive lifting they did in both zone starts and quality of competition faced.

There's a lot of different ways to ice four solid lines that can be used in any and all situations and balance the work load. I don't think there's one "right" answer. They can split Giroux and Voracek. They can keep them together and move other guys around. They could try to make a non traditional 4th line of Lecavlier, Raffl and Bellemare which is certainly better than using Vinny with Rinaldo, Hall and Rosehill. Hell, they could put Vinny on a top line with Giroux.

The key is finding 4 solid lines that can be rolled and all provide solid play in any situation.

Agreed wholeheartedly. The way the Flyers used lines last year, Giroux's line was the main offensive line, Couturier's was the main defensive one and the other lines were more or less used to spell those guys. The Simmonds-Schenn-Lecavalier line saw a lot of shielded minutes and starts, the Hall line was basically a secondary defensive line.

As to the second point, AMEN. The obvious benefit to being able to roll four lines is that the start scoring line, namely Giroux, faces less wear and tear and is fresher in the playoffs. The secondary benefit is, Couturier's line can be used more as an offensive threat, rather than the ridiculously heavy defensive lifting they did in both zone starts and quality of competition faced.

There's a lot of different ways to ice four solid lines that can be used in any and all situations and balance the work load. I don't think there's one "right" answer. They can split Giroux and Voracek. They can keep them together and move other guys around. They could try to make a non traditional 4th line of Lecavlier, Raffl and Bellemare which is certainly better than using Vinny with Rinaldo, Hall and Rosehill. Hell, they could put Vinny on a top line with Giroux.

The key is finding 4 solid lines that can be rolled and all provide solid play in any situation.
- Jsaquella

Im all for having 4 solid lines. Especially a fourth line.

I do not however agree with a shut-down centre and his line getting the majority of the minutes during the game. Especially on home ice. Like we saw in these last playoffs.

Play to win and for gods sake get Couturier some time away from always shutting down the other team's best players. If no other line can handle going head to head against the best we have other issues.

Agreed wholeheartedly. The way the Flyers used lines last year, Giroux's line was the main offensive line, Couturier's was the main defensive one and the other lines were more or less used to spell those guys. The Simmonds-Schenn-Lecavalier line saw a lot of shielded minutes and starts, the Hall line was basically a secondary defensive line.

As to the second point, AMEN. The obvious benefit to being able to roll four lines is that the start scoring line, namely Giroux, faces less wear and tear and is fresher in the playoffs. The secondary benefit is, Couturier's line can be used more as an offensive threat, rather than the ridiculously heavy defensive lifting they did in both zone starts and quality of competition faced.

There's a lot of different ways to ice four solid lines that can be used in any and all situations and balance the work load. I don't think there's one "right" answer. They can split Giroux and Voracek. They can keep them together and move other guys around. They could try to make a non traditional 4th line of Lecavlier, Raffl and Bellemare which is certainly better than using Vinny with Rinaldo, Hall and Rosehill. Hell, they could put Vinny on a top line with Giroux.

The key is finding 4 solid lines that can be rolled and all provide solid play in any situation.
- Jsaquella

Regarding Couts...Exactly! If Laughton can take some of the defensive load off Couts, that could be a huge bonus to this team. We don't sacrifice defensive zone draws or coverage while giving Couts confidence and creating a new offensive threat teams have to worry about matching against. This year or next, it's going to happen, and I am very excited to see it.

I'm really hoping Bellemare is another hard working player who busts his ass to prove he belongs in the NHL. You know he has no desire - or monetary incentive - to play in the AHL, so I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do.

This team has a boatload of potential, it just comes down to the old cliche - how deep down are they willing to dig to get to it.

Im all for having 4 solid lines. Especially a fourth line.

I do not however agree with a shut-down centre and his line getting the majority of the minutes during the game. Especially on home ice. Like we saw in these last playoffs.

Play to win and for gods sake get Couturier some time away from always shutting down the other team's best players. If no other line can handle going head to head against the best we have other issues.
- flyer_nutter

That's basically what Couturier has done his entire NHL career. His usage is among the toughest in the NHL.

That's why I want to shake things up. Just looking at the way the lines were used, it's pretty clear Berube had little faith in the 40-10-17 line in the D-zone, and they tended to be used against the weaker opposition lines. Meanwhile, the Hall-Raffl pair were used similarly to Couturier, mainly because of Hall's faceoff prowess. Occasionally, late in the season, Giroux would line up as a winger with Hall, to give a second good faceoff option.

But making the two weaker lines better, by shuffling the board a bit gives them the ability to throw a "third" line out for a D-zone draw and not be worried about a 45 second shift in their own end.

Regarding Couts...Exactly! If Laughton can take some of the defensive load off Couts, that could be a huge bonus to this team. We don't sacrifice defensive zone draws or coverage while giving Couts confidence and creating a new offensive threat teams have to worry about matching against. This year or next, it's going to happen, and I am very excited to see it.

I'm really hoping Bellemare is another hard working player who busts his ass to prove he belongs in the NHL. You know he has no desire - or monetary incentive - to play in the AHL, so I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do.

This team has a boatload of potential, it just comes down to the old cliche - how deep down are they willing to dig to get to it.
- wolfhounds

Couturier still gets ripped for not tapping his offensive potential. Make me scream. Kid had 39 points, playing an extraordinarily tough defensive role. Start using him like Boston used Bergeron in the wake of the Savard injury and I think he can easily be a 50 point guy.

Bellemare to me is just a nice option to have. He gives you a guy who skates well and has shown a scoring touch for a "bottom six" role. I think a line of him, Lecavalier and Raffl or Akeson could be a really solid unit that can be effective for 10-12 minutes a night.

That's basically what Couturier has done his entire NHL career. His usage is among the toughest in the NHL.

That's why I want to shake things up. Just looking at the way the lines were used, it's pretty clear Berube had little faith in the 40-10-17 line in the D-zone, and they tended to be used against the weaker opposition lines. Meanwhile, the Hall-Raffl pair were used similarly to Couturier, mainly because of Hall's faceoff prowess. Occasionally, late in the season, Giroux would line up as a winger with Hall, to give a second good faceoff option.

But making the two weaker lines better, by shuffling the board a bit gives them the ability to throw a "third" line out for a D-zone draw and not be worried about a 45 second shift in their own end.
- Jsaquella

Im a little traditional in things. Enjoy pairs of players who have proven success.

bSchenn-Giroux-Voracek
Read-Couturier-Simmonds
Umberger-LeCavalier-Akeson
Bellamere-Raffl-Rinaldo

I personally have no issues with Laughton being the go to guy in the AHL. Make that team a champion, and create a winning culture early. In terms of the NHL line-up I see both line 1 and 2 being able to go up against the oppositions best. LeCavalier kind of throws a wrench into things but he is the odd man out in my eyes, especially long term. I don't want him taking minutes from the kids. Cant be so worried about defending to forget about going out there to win. Play your best and dont be so focused on shutting down as a team. The pendulum cant swing too far D first imo.

There is going to be a weak link on this team, just have to hope that 3rd line can overcome. I am personally not in favour of spreading out the talent too much just make them better defensively as a group. Play to win, be aggressive.

That's why both Schenn & Laughton could see time there in the near future. Hell, Umberger could end up as the top line LW.
- Jsaquella

The Flyers still had a strict idea of who was playing where. Richards and Carter were not being off their center positions for Umburger. The same way the team felt Giroux wasn't coming off center, onne of Richards or Carter had to come off.

The Flyers still had a strict idea of who was playing where. Richards and Carter were not being off their center positions for Umburger. The same way the team felt Giroux wasn't coming off center, onne of Richards or Carter had to come off.
- SuperSchennBros

True. But the GM and coach of those teams are no longer in charge. The last guy the Flyers employed that said Laughton was strictly a center was Laviolette.

Im a little traditional in things. Enjoy pairs of players who have proven success.

bSchenn-Giroux-Voracek
Read-Couturier-Simmonds
Umberger-LeCavalier-Akeson
Bellamere-Raffl-Rinaldo

I personally have no issues with Laughton being the go to guy in the AHL. Make that team a champion, and create a winning culture early. In terms of the NHL line-up I see both line 1 and 2 being able to go up against the oppositions best. LeCavalier kind of throws a wrench into things but he is the odd man out in my eyes, especially long term. I don't want him taking minutes from the kids. Cant be so worried about defending to forget about going out there to win. Play your best and dont be so focused on shutting down as a team. The pendulum cant swing too far D first imo.

There is going to be a weak link on this team, just have to hope that 3rd line can overcome. I am personally not in favour of spreading out the talent too much just make them better defensively as a group. Play to win, be aggressive.
- flyer_nutter

Agreed on all counts. But I'm not necessarily worried about making the lines better defensively, but better at 5 on 5, better at controlling the puck and the tempo of the game.

Get me a line that spends most of their time with the puck and I'm not that worried about the defense, so long as it's not totally horrible.

Agreed on all counts. But I'm not necessarily worried about making the lines better defensively, but better at 5 on 5, better at controlling the puck and the tempo of the game.

Get me a line that spends most of their time with the puck and I'm not that worried about the defense, so long as it's not totally horrible.
- Jsaquella

The defensive side of the puck will be this team's weakness. You can slap some make-up on a dude and call him Betsy but he is still a dude.

Its a development phase for me in my eyes, and my biggest thing is putting the kids into the proper roles, consistent defined roles that enable them to grow and reach the upper limits of their potential.

That's my goal. Not a fart at the playoffs just so everyone can feel all warm and fuzzy. Having a guy like Umberger or LeCavalier in the top six will be annoying to me. Irrelevant players to the future.

Here's my thing with Laughton. I want the best for him and our other young players. He's not going to move our needle to being a contender, nor will any of our young players. So, like Hexy has said, it certainly has never hurt anyone to spend some time in the A. Let him go there and play against men for a full year.

Rangers in seven.
- KGBflyers10

ouch

True. But the GM and coach of those teams are no longer in charge. The last guy the Flyers employed that said Laughton was strictly a center was Laviolette.
- Jsaquella

You're right but this current GM has put a large exhumation point on development. Which is exactly why I believe Scott Laughton will likely do what I've read on the Web Site. Sure it's one blog writer's opinion but he's made a really good argument as to why Laughton should play only center and only within the top nine or simply go down to the minors. Could I be wrong within my belief? Of course I can be. I'm not asking any of you to agree with me. To me the AHL is still pro hockey and still another level above the OHL. If Laughton cannot get the proper ice time and the proper responsibility with the best suited line mates, I have zero issue with him becoming the first call up after the first injury we have at forward. Come to think of it, Brayden Schenn was about the same age Scott Laughton when he came here. I know money was apart of the reason but Schenn still saw 7 games with the Phantoms that season. Regardless of the reasons why, he still had to play those games when he was a lock to be a full time NHLer from training camp on.

I haven't lived in Canada in about two and half years now but when I did (especially when I was a kid), Toronto was the rumoured destination spot for every big name out there. Joe Thornton, Glen Murray, Ryan Smyth, Paul Kariya. You name that player and they were all going to Toronto. Then they'd end up with Jason Blake or another play they built up to be something special but never really was. Sadly Eric Lindros over an overwhelming amount of time was the only rumour that proved to be true. I'm not convinced anyone wants to play for their childhood "favourite team".

I haven't lived in Canada in about two and half years now but when I did (especially when I was a kid), Toronto was the rumoured destination spot for every big name out there. Joe Thornton, Glen Murray, Ryan Smyth, Paul Kariya. You name that player and they were all going to Toronto. Then they'd end up with Jason Blake or another play they built up to be something special but never really was. Sadly Eric Lindros over an overwhelming amount of time was the only rumour that proved to be true. I'm not convinced anyone wants to play for their childhood "favourite team".
- SuperSchennBros

Money talks

Here's my thing with Laughton. I want the best for him and our other young players. He's not going to move our needle to being a contender, nor will any of our young players. So, like Hexy has said, it certainly has never hurt anyone to spend some time in the A. Let him go there and play against men for a full year.
- Just5

Exactly.

I think people's fascination with young players gets in the way of what's best in the big picture.

I haven't lived in Canada in about two and half years now but when I did (especially when I was a kid), Toronto was the rumoured destination spot for every big name out there. Joe Thornton, Glen Murray, Ryan Smyth, Paul Kariya. You name that player and they were all going to Toronto. Then they'd end up with Jason Blake or another play they built up to be something special but never really was. Sadly Eric Lindros over an overwhelming amount of time was the only rumour that proved to be true. I'm not convinced anyone wants to play for their childhood "favourite team".
- SuperSchennBros

YOU SHUT YOUR MOUF!

/BOB RYAB

Needs to be C or RW for Schenn... from that side of the ice, his playmaking and shot from distance become factors. From the left, he's like a slow-footed plug.
- Tomahawk

Schenn can play the left side.