Not sure you're giving Giroux enough to work with on the top line. I think he needs the skill of either Voracek or Schenn to fully utilize what he brings to the table.
- Baxter27

i agree with both of you, that laughton needs to be on the top line with G, and schenner needs to be with coots, since i think they have great chemistry together. that would leaves

21 - 28 - 93
10 - 14 - 17

think those two lines can click almost immediately, all have chemistry with one another, all have played time with each other throughout their time here. only wild card is laughton, and i fully think he should be given an opportunity to play in the top 6. if he pans out, then boom, u have ur cheap top line left winger for G, and at the same time you strengthen your bottom 6 by adding raffl there. if it doesnt work out, then you can put raffl or weise there until next year when we can make a play for a winger or someone from LHV or Konecny can snag it.

I still don't understand why Boyd Gordon should be a lock. He takes a ton of d zone faceoffs, which is fine -- but it isn't like you want him out to shutdown top 6 competition anyways. He can't do that. He will take a lot of d-zone faceoffs against bottom 6 players. Coots and G will still draw the top 6 duty. Gordon is a 33 year old coming off a 4 points in 65 game season.

He's not bad or anything as a face-off specialist 4C (if you believe in those) who can add some PK work, but when we can construct a bottom 6 with center competition from the likes of Cousins, Raffl, Lyubimov, Bardreau....I just don't get why Gordon should be some written in stone thing. Why is every B6 position up for grabs but that? The goal shouldn't be to have a 4C who takes the most defensive zone faceoffs (though you don't want them to be sheltered either); it should be to have the best player, who in his 9-12 minutes of ice-time impacts the game the most. I get that Giroux's responsibilities want to be eased, but you do want the team to be better in the process. A 3rd line of Read-Raffl/Cousins-Weise could more than take some D responsibilities.

Yes, the path was different. My point is that doesn't mean it's an indication of how Hextall feels about the player. Every player has areas of his game that needs to be worked on. If we want to use that logic, let's compare the contracts of one of the players you mentioned, Raffl to Schenn. Hextall agreed to a 3 year deal with Raffl for 2.35M a year. He just agreed to a deal with Schenn for 4 years at a little over 5M a year. Therefore, Hextall must like Schenn better than Raffl, and feels he's a more important player. A comment was made by another poster that Couturier is a more important player than Schenn is, which I agree with. Hextall must not feel the same because he agreed to pay Schenn 5.125 AAV compared to Couturier at 4.333M. The path was different simply because both sides stuck to their guns until the last minute. Schenn's camp used arbitration as leverage.
- MJL

Our two most important players by far are Claude Giroux for his ability to make everyone he plays with better and Sean Couturier for his ability to slow down the oppositions best talent. When one of these players aren't able to play, I for one am without confidence in this team's ability to win. I don't feel this way when Simmonds, Voracek or Schenn are out of the line up.

With this said, does anyone remember the comments Keith Primeau made when he made the All-Star Game as a third line checking center? Basically he couldn't believe he was added to the roster because he didn't think anyone respected his role outside of the Flyers dressing room. While we all respect what Sean Couturier means to this team, I do question who outside of the Flyers organization sees Sean Coturier as a star or a better player than Brayden Schenn. Sean Couturier is undoubtedly the more balanced player but in terms of offense, I think Schenn close to hit stride.

If Couturier is a star, I question how much more of a star that he is to Schenn.

Wow. Looks like Bernie will be doing some high sticking soon

I still don't understand why Boyd Gordon should be a lock. He takes a ton of d zone faceoffs, which is fine -- but it isn't like you want him out to shutdown top 6 competition anyways. He can't do that. He will take a lot of d-zone faceoffs against bottom 6 players. Coots and G will still draw the top 6 duty. Gordon is a 33 year old coming off a 4 points in 65 game season.

He's not bad or anything as a face-off specialist 4C (if you believe in those) who can add some PK work, but when we can construct a bottom 6 with center competition from the likes of Cousins, Raffl, Lyubimov, Bardreau....I just don't get why Gordon should be some written in stone thing. Why is every B6 position up for grabs but that? The goal shouldn't be to have a 4C who takes the most defensive zone faceoffs (though you don't want them to be sheltered either); it should be to have the best player, who in his 9-12 minutes of ice-time impacts the game the most. I get that Giroux's responsibilities want to be eased, but you do want the team to be better in the process. A 3rd line of Read-Raffl/Cousins-Weise could more than take some D responsibilities.
- Mononoke

Anything that takes some of the heavy lifting out of Giroux's hands is good with me.

Wow. Looks like Bernie will be doing some high sticking soon
- twpguy

I'm guessing a LOT less than before he was married...lol

Forgot Schenn's first NHL goal was at CBP Winter Classic.

i agree with both of you, that laughton needs to be on the top line with G, and schenner needs to be with coots, since i think they have great chemistry together. that would leaves

21 - 28 - 93
10 - 14 - 17

think those two lines can click almost immediately, all have chemistry with one another, all have played time with each other throughout their time here. only wild card is laughton, and i fully think he should be given an opportunity to play in the top 6. if he pans out, then boom, u have ur cheap top line left winger for G, and at the same time you strengthen your bottom 6 by adding raffl there. if it doesnt work out, then you can put raffl or weise there until next year when we can make a play for a winger or someone from LHV or Konecny can snag it.
- sjk540

Not opposed to giving Laughton a shot. I have my doubts that his game can keep up with G & Jake but I'd love for him to prove me wrong.

I still don't understand why Boyd Gordon should be a lock. He takes a ton of d zone faceoffs, which is fine -- but it isn't like you want him out to shutdown top 6 competition anyways. He can't do that. He will take a lot of d-zone faceoffs against bottom 6 players. Coots and G will still draw the top 6 duty. Gordon is a 33 year old coming off a 4 points in 65 game season.

He's not bad or anything as a face-off specialist 4C (if you believe in those) who can add some PK work, but when we can construct a bottom 6 with center competition from the likes of Cousins, Raffl, Lyubimov, Bardreau....I just don't get why Gordon should be some written in stone thing. Why is every B6 position up for grabs but that? The goal shouldn't be to have a 4C who takes the most defensive zone faceoffs (though you don't want them to be sheltered either); it should be to have the best player, who in his 9-12 minutes of ice-time impacts the game the most. I get that Giroux's responsibilities want to be eased, but you do want the team to be better in the process. A 3rd line of Read-Raffl/Cousins-Weise could more than take some D responsibilities.
- Mononoke

I wouldn't say he's a lock. I'd just be very surprised if he wasn't on the roster come opening night since Hextall targeted him pretty aggressively. Stranger things have happened but it would be a clear million dollar mistake if he wasn't the 4th liner center on day 1.

Anything that takes some of the heavy lifting out of Giroux's hands is good with me.
- MBFlyerfan

I'm all for that, but I don't understand why Gordon is the end all, be all for that. Simply having 4th and 3rd lines that aren't explicitly sheltered -- as they were this year, to sub par results -- should adjust his zone starts. And we have more than enough PK'ers to take G off that and use someone else like Laughton or Raffl. But just having a guy to take some d zone starts because he's good at faceoffs doesn't mean your team is better or Giroux has less heavy lifting. That player has to be able to take tough zone starts AND be good afterwards AND be able to matchup against top 6 competition. Gordon does the first one. Rubtsov will probably be the real game changer if we want to see Giroux get real sheltering.

But even in the much mythologized Year of the Adam Hall, which people want replicated, Giroux took like 2 more offensive zone faceoffs every 5 games. That didn't exactly seem to release him from his burden.

I'm all for that, but I don't understand why Gordon is the end all, be all for that. Simply having 4th and 3rd lines that aren't explicitly sheltered -- as they were this year, to sub par results -- should adjust his zone starts. And we have more than enough PK'ers to take G off that and use someone else like Laughton or Raffl. But just having a guy to take some d zone starts because he's good at faceoffs doesn't mean your team is better or Giroux has less heavy lifting. That player has to be able to take tough zone starts AND be good afterwards AND be able to matchup against top 6 competition. Gordon does the first one. Rubtsov will probably be the real game changer if we want to see Giroux get real sheltering.

But even in the much mythologized Year of the Adam Hall, which people want replicated, Giroux took like 2 more offensive zone faceoffs every 5 games. That didn't exactly seem to release him from his burden.
- Mononoke

What ended up happening with Giroux and Hall was that Giroux would be put out with Hall in the defensive zone in case one of them was thrown out of the faceoff. It's rare that a complete 4th line is used for a defensive zone faceoff against a top line or even a 2nd line.

I still don't understand why Boyd Gordon should be a lock. He takes a ton of d zone faceoffs, which is fine -- but it isn't like you want him out to shutdown top 6 competition anyways. He can't do that. He will take a lot of d-zone faceoffs against bottom 6 players. Coots and G will still draw the top 6 duty. Gordon is a 33 year old coming off a 4 points in 65 game season.

He's not bad or anything as a face-off specialist 4C (if you believe in those) who can add some PK work, but when we can construct a bottom 6 with center competition from the likes of Cousins, Raffl, Lyubimov, Bardreau....I just don't get why Gordon should be some written in stone thing. Why is every B6 position up for grabs but that? The goal shouldn't be to have a 4C who takes the most defensive zone faceoffs (though you don't want them to be sheltered either); it should be to have the best player, who in his 9-12 minutes of ice-time impacts the game the most. I get that Giroux's responsibilities want to be eased, but you do want the team to be better in the process. A 3rd line of Read-Raffl/Cousins-Weise could more than take some D responsibilities.
- Mononoke

Because the way Hextall targeted him and has spoken of him since the signing. We already have seen Cousins, Laughton and Bellemare fail to be much more than mediocre at faceoffs and it seems pretty clear(with the retention of Laperierre as coach) that they feel the PK issues are personnel more than scheme.

That's why I guess, at least for the start of the season, Gordon is pretty much a lock.

Forgot Schenn's first NHL goal was at CBP Winter Classic.


- Pixote Andolini

Just go to the net. Classic Schenn. Sprinkle in some short ranged scopes.

I still don't understand why Boyd Gordon should be a lock. He takes a ton of d zone faceoffs, which is fine -- but it isn't like you want him out to shutdown top 6 competition anyways. He can't do that. He will take a lot of d-zone faceoffs against bottom 6 players. Coots and G will still draw the top 6 duty. Gordon is a 33 year old coming off a 4 points in 65 game season.

He's not bad or anything as a face-off specialist 4C (if you believe in those) who can add some PK work, but when we can construct a bottom 6 with center competition from the likes of Cousins, Raffl, Lyubimov, Bardreau....I just don't get why Gordon should be some written in stone thing. Why is every B6 position up for grabs but that? The goal shouldn't be to have a 4C who takes the most defensive zone faceoffs (though you don't want them to be sheltered either); it should be to have the best player, who in his 9-12 minutes of ice-time impacts the game the most. I get that Giroux's responsibilities want to be eased, but you do want the team to be better in the process. A 3rd line of Read-Raffl/Cousins-Weise could more than take some D responsibilities.
- Mononoke

I totally agree here. What do we miss Adam hall or something? I'm not into face off specialists

What ended up happening with Giroux and Hall was that Giroux would be put out with Hall in the defensive zone in case one of them was thrown out of the faceoff. It's rare that a complete 4th line is used for a defensive zone faceoff against a top line or even a 2nd line.
- PhillySportsGuy

I understand that, but how did that alleviate his defensive burden? Giroux would still be sent out. I believe in having a 4th line that is better than your opponent's 4th line, and so on and so forth up the lineup. I'm ok with Gordon if he wins it out of camp, but I simply don't get why that's the only spot in the entire bottom 6 that is locked up (Weise too, I guess).

I understand that, but how did that alleviate his defensive burden? Giroux would still be sent out. I believe in having a 4th line that is better than your opponent's 4th line, and so on and so forth up the lineup. I'm ok with Gordon if he wins it out of camp, but I simply don't get why that's the only spot in the entire bottom 6 that is locked up (Weise too, I guess).
- Mononoke

I'm agreeing with you, (frank)face

I'm agreeing with you, (frank)face
- PhillySportsGuy

I was disappointed when I saw you actually wrote "(frank)" and didn't write "(frank)"

i agree with both of you, that laughton needs to be on the top line with G, and schenner needs to be with coots, since i think they have great chemistry together. that would leaves

21 - 28 - 93
10 - 14 - 17

think those two lines can click almost immediately, all have chemistry with one another, all have played time with each other throughout their time here. only wild card is laughton, and i fully think he should be given an opportunity to play in the top 6. if he pans out, then boom, u have ur cheap top line left winger for G, and at the same time you strengthen your bottom 6 by adding raffl there. if it doesnt work out, then you can put raffl or weise there until next year when we can make a play for a winger or someone from LHV or Konecny can snag it.
- sjk540

I don't understand why Scott Laughton has to ve on the top line with G. Simmonds and Schenn finally had that opportunity and thrived. It took years for Simmonds to reach this point and now a handful of fans want to hand this opportunity to a player who doesn't look top line ready.

I get the issue. Here's the list (in order) of our top 9 OZ start user-uppers: Laughton, Cousins, Umberger, White, Schenn, Giroux, Raffl, VDV, PEB. That's gross. Obviously Coots will continue to shoulder his burden because, much like Bergeron, the worse his usage is, the stronger he grows. Most teams don't have a Couturier. But your bottom 6 cannot be leaches, toothless ones at that.

It's fair to argue that Cousins & Co. actually did well with the minutes (yet, somehow the 4th was maybe the worst line in hockey) and especially with Coots, not everyone has to be killed with usage.....I actually think Cousins was strong enough 2-way where he could be tried with a touch more balanced minutes. But Giroux, even if I'd like him to get less pressure, is still one of the elite face-off men in the NHL and a top notch 2-way center. He's not going to be sheltered. But if the bottom 6 could take the edge off and score doing it, that's enough. Using the pieces of Cousins, Raffl, Read, Weise, Lyubimov, Laughton, Bardreau, Leier, Gordon, PEB, Mathers....I think there's enough there to more than do that. But I don't see Gordon as being some necessary ingredient.

schenn signed for schwartz money oh yea we only have 1.3 mil of cap space now

I don't understand why Scott Laughton has to ve on the top line with G. Simmonds and Schenn finally had that opportunity and thrived. It took years for Simmonds to reach this point and now a handful of fans want to hand this opportunity to a player who doesn't look top line ready.
- roenick97

thrived? simmonds stats were borderline the exact same from two seasons ago playing without G. Schenn finally turned it on after taking almost 3 full seasons to get it together. the fact is, G makes everyone around him better. another fact is that schenn and coots seem to have amazing chemistry together. putting laughton with G has more of a chance of improving his game than with coots, and i fully think laughton has the potential to be a solid top 6 guy, think he can be another schenn who skates a little better. well never know until we try it. additionally, adding raffl to our bottom 6 only improves it as a group, while taking laughton out of a log jammed bottom 6 will help decipher roles for the bottom 6 guys.

if it doesnt work, than u know what u have with laughton, end of discussion.

its a win win win in my eyes. and one we should do sooner than later before we start competing for a cup each year. this is when we need to iron out the wrinkles.

are people rioting in Philly yet? If the DNC was held in California they'd have burned the place down by now

are people rioting in Philly yet? If the DNC was held in California they'd have burned the place down by now
- 2Real

Yeah, but it are they really going to try and take credit for a wild fire?

again, missing my point. im not talking about the length or money, at all, im talking about how we arrived where we are today, on the verge of arbitration, something we have no gotten close to with any of the other aforementioned players. please show me where i said i think hextall feels about his players by the money he offers them. the point ive been trying to make is that the path towards getting brayden a new contract felt, and in fact was, a lot different than any before him. and, due to this, it seems to me that hextall feels differently about schenn's future with the flyers. of course, a deal got done today in the 11th hour, so hexy seems to think he is a part of their future. but there was a lot of doubt and to me, in my opinion, Hexy isnt quite as sold on schenn in conjunction with the amount he used to retain him, compared to contracts he has done in the past.
- sjk540

I didn't miss your point, I think your point is the wrong way of looking at it, as I've explained how contract negotiations sometimes work. My point of comparing money and term of other players was not to suggest that you said that, but to show how looking at certain things that happen, can give a false impression. I think you're badly misreading the situation, and the fact that the negotiation went to the 11th hour, does not indicate in any way how Hextall feels about the player.

Based on my math and projected line up below, I think the Flyers will be slightly under the cap on opening night. A forward can be sent down 3 games later to create the necessary breathing room.

Raffl-Giroux-Voracek
Weise-Couturier-Simmonds
Read-Cousins-Laughton
Lyubimov-Gordon-Bellemare
Vandevelde
Schenn

MDZ-Gudas
Ghost-Macdonald
Provorov-Streit
Schultz
Manning(Signed for 750K x 2)

Mason
Neuvirth
- Baxter27

You get cap relief for a suspended player.