I guy like Raffl should play higher then the 4th line on the 3rd line. He is fast, has good hockey sense, and he is all over the puck. When he's out there, and the Flyers don't have the puck, he is on the hunt. It's all about puck pressure. All over the ice, in all 3 zones. If you don't have it, get it back.
- MJL

I'd like to see Raffl and Bellemare on a line together.

Gun to your head who are you keeping for the 4th line if it were between Jones and Akeson?
- Just5

Jones or Bellemare?

I'd like to see Raffl and Bellemare on a line together.
- JAKEw1234

They would be a good pair. Like what I saw from Bellemare last game.

I'd like to see Raffl and Bellemare on a line together.
- JAKEw1234

Very similar players. I'd actually like to spread out their talents in the bottom 6. Utilize their speed and defensive ability on both the 3rd and 4th lines

Jones or Bellemare?
- SuperSchennBros

Bellemare. Hes a lock as far as Im concerned. But I would go Jones over Akeson.

Very similar players. I'd actually like to spread out their talents in the bottom 6. Utilize their speed and defensive ability on both the 3rd and 4th lines
- Just5

Absolutely. Not sure why it's hard for some to grasp the idea of having two good lines as the "third" and "fourth" lines.

I find it odd to see somebody say, "You can't play ______ on the fourth line" because I wouldn't play it like a fourth line. I'd have four good lines and they'd all see a good deal of ice time, with the so called "fourth" line seeing as many or more minutes as the so called "third" line.

People get hung up on semantics sometimes. Having a good "fourth" line is an easy way to get an advantage over an opposing team, especially if they want to dress a guy like Scott or Orr.

Bellemare. Hes a lock as far as Im concerned. But I would go Jones over Akeson.
- Just5

As far as your concerned?

They're cap restrictions to consider. If we waive Akeson, he could be claimed by another team. I also wouldn't called Bellemare a lock due to his two games, over Jones solid play all camp. It's a tough decision.

As far as your concerned?

They're cap restrictions to consider. If we waive Akeson, he could be claimed by another team. I also wouldn't called Bellemare a lock due to his two games, over Jones solid play all camp. It's a tough decision.
- SuperSchennBros

Not really. Jones has been a pedestrian NHLer for a number of years. There's a chance he gets claimed on waivers, but there's a better chance that Akeson does, because there's less of a track record at the NHL level.

Akeson might end up being a solid third liner. Jones has 17 points in 128 NHL games. Good camp or not, he's never been able to stick at the NHL level. If I was an opposing GM I'd roll the dice on Akeson on waivers before Jones.

Not really. Jones has been a pedestrian NHLer for a number of years. There's a chance he gets claimed on waivers, but there's a better chance that Akeson does, because there's less of a track record at the NHL level.

Akeson might end up being a solid third liner. Jones has 17 points in 128 NHL games. Good camp or not, he's never been able to stick at the NHL level. I'd roll the dice on Akeson on waivers before Jones.
- Jsaquella

Contradictions here. If there is a better chance that Akeson gets claimed, which I agree with. Why roll the dice on Akeson on waivers before Jones? I'd give Akeson an extended look, because I believe that Jones would clear. And I could call him back up if Akeson doesn't pan out.

As far as your concerned?

They're cap restrictions to consider. If we waive Akeson, he could be claimed by another team. I also wouldn't called Bellemare a lock due to his two games, over Jones solid play all camp. It's a tough decision.
- SuperSchennBros

I'm not worried about exposing Akeson to waivers. I think he's ok but I'm not sure if hes a better fit for the type of hockey Berube wants this team playing which is 200 ft solid in all ends. Bellemare is a lock, did you read Berube's quote last night on him? He likes the guy a lot. If it's b/w Akeson and Jones its a tough decision I'll agree on that. But they shouldn't let waivers dictate the roster spot if they believe one is better fit over the other.

Bellemare. Hes a lock as far as Im concerned. But I would go Jones over Akeson.
- Just5

Not considering all the variables. If you choose Jones over Akeson, you might only get to have Jones as a possibility. Better chance of having both players available, by choosing Akeson over Jones. Some speculation on who would or wouldn't make it through waivers of course.

I'm not worried about exposing Akeson to waivers. I think he's ok but I'm not sure if hes a better fit for the type of hockey Berube wants this team playing which is 200 ft solid in all ends. Bellemare is a lock, did you read Berube's quote last night on him? He likes the guy a lot. If it's b/w Akeson and Jones its a tough decision I'll agree on that. But they shouldn't let waivers dictate the roster spot if they believe one is better fit over the other.
- Just5

Do you really want to find out if Akeson will make a good NHL player while he's playing on another team?

The difference between the two players isn't going to be that big, to dismiss the waiver issue from the situation.

Absolutely. Not sure why it's hard for some to grasp the idea of having two good lines as the "third" and "fourth" lines.

I find it odd to see somebody say, "You can't play ______ on the fourth line" because I wouldn't play it like a fourth line. I'd have four good lines and they'd all see a good deal of ice time, with the so called "fourth" line seeing as many or more minutes as the so called "third" line.

People get hung up on semantics sometimes. Having a good "fourth" line is an easy way to get an advantage over an opposing team, especially if they want to dress a guy like Scott or Orr.
- Jsaquella

Agreed. Raffl as a 4th liner is fine he plays with decent talent, gets 12 minutes a night and the other 3 lines are line a 1 and a 2a/2b or a 1a/1b and 2.

I want a lineup that can come at you in waves, vs. a lineup that has one line that really scares you.

Agreed. Raffl as a 4th liner is fine he plays with decent talent, gets 12 minutes a night and the other 3 lines are line a 1 and a 2a/2b or a 1a/1b and 2.

I want a lineup that can come at you in waves, vs. a lineup that has one line that really scares you.
- TheGreat28

Raffl is fine as a 4th line player. But he has more value as a 3rd line player on this team.

Maybe I'm too old, but I like some traditional. Make 2 scoring lines and a 3rd shutdown line each playing minutes in a tier like system. Line 1 getting the most, and so on down.

I think Line 1 is set for the future. Couturier now has a chance to show he can be part of the next tier down on the second. If not you have a monster 3rd line center and PK player.

While I enjoy seeing guys like Akeson, Raffl, Bellemare, etc I really don't think they should be playing any higher than top 9 on a cup winning team. Don't know if I see Laughton with enough offensive flair to be that 2nd line center, but a pair of him with Couturier on the 3rd line for the next 10 years is nothing to sniff at either.
- flyer_nutter

Tradition hasn't exactly brought the Flyers a cup lately.

Agreed. Raffl as a 4th liner is fine he plays with decent talent, gets 12 minutes a night and the other 3 lines are line a 1 and a 2a/2b or a 1a/1b and 2.

I want a lineup that can come at you in waves, vs. a lineup that has one line that really scares you.
- TheGreat28

That's just it. If I have a good line as my "fourth" line, I'm not going to say, "Well, they're the fourth line, so I can't play them as much". I doubt a guy like Lecavalier or Umberger will be too worried about being on the "fourth" line as long as they're playing a regular role that gives them a good opportunity to contribute to the team's success.

- Tomahawk

That's hilarious

That's just it. If I have a good line as my "fourth" line, I'm not going to say, "Well, they're the fourth line, so I can't play them as much". I doubt a guy like Lecavalier or Umberger will be too worried about being on the "fourth" line as long as they're playing a regular role that gives them a good opportunity to contribute to the team's success.
- Jsaquella

Players like Lecavalier and Umberger have a better opportunity to help the team playing on higher lines, with better players.

Now if they aren't playing well, and other players are playing better, then by all means demote them and elevate the player who are playing better. But putting Umberger or Lecavalier on the 4th line by design, doesn't make a lot of sense in my opinion.

Raffl is fine as a 4th line player. But he has more value as a 3rd line player on this team.
- MJL

That's only because they have some other holes in the lineup. This would be my lineup 2 years from now.

Sniper - G - Voracek
Schenn - Playmaking Center - Aube Kubel
Read - Couturier - Simmonds
Raffl - Laughton - Speedy 2way forward


I'm ok with Schenn at center on line 2 only if they get a more natural, creative winger than can carry the puck.

If they can trade Laughton and fill one of the gaps in my lineup, I do it and maybe plug Cousins into the 4th line.

That's just it. If I have a good line as my "fourth" line, I'm not going to say, "Well, they're the fourth line, so I can't play them as much". I doubt a guy like Lecavalier or Umberger will be too worried about being on the "fourth" line as long as they're playing a regular role that gives them a good opportunity to contribute to the team's success.
- Jsaquella

Yup. Like we said the other day - minutes, zone starts, linemates. That's what really needs to be looked at.

Honestly, I have doubts about Couturier being a true #2 center. But that's a premise, -- not a conclusion - because of the above. He hasn't been put in a position to succeed, to use an Andyism, with stable linemates and offensive draws. This year really will tell us alot I think.

Players like Lecavalier and Umberger have a better opportunity to help the team playing on higher lines, with better players.

Now if they aren't playing well, and other players are playing better, then by all means demote them and elevate the player who are playing better. But putting Umberger or Lecavalier on the 4th line by design, doesn't make a lot of sense in my opinion.
- MJL

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

What's a line number? Artificial moniker so coaches can tell what group to jump over the bench next.

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

What's a line number? Artificial moniker so coaches can tell what group to jump over the bench next.
- TheGreat28

Different lines have different roles, and play in different situations. Simply stating that playing a line more minutes, regardless of what number you assign to it, doesn't guarantee that it will be better.

Every team has a 4th line.

Yup. Like we said the other day - minutes, zone starts, linemates. That's what really needs to be looked at.

Honestly, I have doubts about Couturier being a true #2 center. But that's a premise, -- not a conclusion - because of the above. He hasn't been put in a position to succeed, to use an Andyism, with stable linemates and offensive draws. This year really will tell us alot I think.
- TheGreat28

I don't have doubts about Couturier being a second line center in his career, I agree that I'm not sure it will happen this year. Hopefully, the Flyers will give him the offensive opportunities he needs this year, which is why I advocate for four better lines. First having another line that can be relied upon to lessen the defensive load off Couts would be a great first step.

Not sure a "third" line of Lecavalier, Raffl and Umberger does that. I know a 4th line of Rinaldo, Akeson and Bellemare won't. It gets back to my overall view of lines.

If the Flyers dress a line of Umberger, Laughton & Bellemare, it'd be a pretty solid third line. If they dressed a line of Raffl, Lecavalier & Akeson, well that'd also be a pretty good third line.

Even if you flip those players around, and go Umberger, Vinny & Raffl and Bellemare, Laughton & Akeson, those are still both solid third lines.

So why focus on the stupid line number? Look at the usage, the ice time. Sure one of the lines would be a bit more defensively adept and the other more offensively inclined, but should that matter? Both lines would be very comparable in ability and skill, so to me the line designation stuff is pointless noise.

That's only because they have some other holes in the lineup. This would be my lineup 2 years from now.

Sniper - G - Voracek
Schenn - Playmaking Center - Aube Kubel
Read - Couturier - Simmonds
Raffl - Laughton - Speedy 2way forward


I'm ok with Schenn at center on line 2 only if they get a more natural, creative winger than can carry the puck.

If they can trade Laughton and fill one of the gaps in my lineup, I do it and maybe plug Cousins into the 4th line.
- TheGreat28

It doesn't have anything to do with holes in the lineup. It has to do with the skill set that Raffl has, what he brings to the ice, and where it can best be utilized.

Not interested in future hypotheticals and lineup with unnamed players.

I don't have doubts about Couturier being a second line center in his career, I agree that I'm not sure it will happen this year. Hopefully, the Flyers will give him the offensive opportunities he needs this year, which is why I advocate for four better lines. First having another line that can be relied upon to lessen the defensive load off Couts would be a great first step.

Not sure a "third" line of Lecavalier, Raffl and Umberger does that. I know a 4th line of Rinaldo, Akeson and Bellemare won't. It gets back to my overall view of lines.

If the Flyers dress a line of Umberger, Laughton & Bellemare, it'd be a pretty solid third line. If they dressed a line of Raffl, Lecavalier & Akeson, well that'd also be a pretty good third line.

Even if you flip those players around, and go Umberger, Vinny & Raffl and Bellemare, Laughton & Akeson, those are still both solid third lines.

So why focus on the stupid line number? Look at the usage, the ice time. Sure one of the lines would be a bit more defensively adept and the other more offensively inclined, but should that matter? Both lines would be very comparable in ability and skill, so to me the line designation stuff is pointless noise.
- Jsaquella

WHO'S ON FOURTH