When it comes to prospects panning out, who knows. But so far, for most of these kids, their progression has been very good to excellent and most scouts expect the following to all be successful NHL players:
Patrick
Lindblom
Sanheim
Morin
Hagg
Myers
Rubtsov

Heck back in 83, guys like Ron Sutter, Tocchet, Zezel, Mellanby, Derrick Smith, Eklund, Hextall, and Murray Craven(though he was still Vancouver property) were all prospects. I'm sure a lot of fans didn't think that they would all be NHL players. Guess they were wrong.
- BiggE

I am also sure not many fans, excluding yourself of course, even really knew who any of them were except for sutter. But hey they were so wrong

Filppula received less ice time in all 3 categories as a Flyer than Couturier averaged. So I'll ask you again, what is your basis for making that stament?
- MJL

Quite simply, I am making fun at the narrative that Couts is better as a 3C and in general pointing out how stupid it is to name them all. It was a joke.

How about this....How does Couturier score on the man advantage compared to other players on the Flyers? We can ignore the PP1 guys. It is just a matter of him getting more PP ice time with better players, right? So surely he compares favorably to others that aren't on PP1?

You guys can talk all morning about how he would be better if this or that happened, the bottom line is that every single statistic during his career hints to him not being very good with the man advantage.

You look at the same stats at even strength and Coots is a monster. Luckily, that is where most of the game is played and where the Flyers NEED the help.
- YuenglingJagr

The PP is a completely different animal. To answer a question you asked another poster, yes Couturier has contributed to the 2nd unit PP not being good. The next step is to analyze why that is. Is he not capable of it, does he not have the right amount of talent on the 2nd unit, is he being asked to play in a role that he is not suited for such as the PP QB on the half wall versus a different role on the PP? To ignore the possibility that if he is put in a different spot with better offensive talent around him on the PP that there is a possibility that he could be more effective at it, is short sighted. It's the same BS in looking at the 5 on 5 stats for Wayne Simmonds last year and being narrow minded and saying he can't be a strong player at 5 on 5. Perhaps as the talent around them gets better, things can change for players.

Quite simply, I am making fun at the narrative that Couts is better as a 3C and in general pointing out how stupid it is to name them all. It was a joke.
- YuenglingJagr

Nice try for a save but not going to fly.

The PP is a completely different animal. To answer a question you asked another poster, yes Couturier has contributed to the 2nd unit PP not being good. The next step is to analyze why that is. Is he not capable of it, does he not have the right amount of talent on the 2nd unit, is he being asked to play in a role that he is not suited for such as the PP QB on the half wall versus a different role on the PP? To ignore the possibility that if he is put in a different spot with better offensive talent around him on the PP that there is a possibility that he could be more effective at it, is short sighted.
- MJL

He has moved to different spots. He has played with different personnel.

If he finds himself in a situation where he is on the PP and does okay, fantastic, but the stats how that there is most likely someone else that would do better. Flyers are better off without him on the PP

The PP is a completely different animal. To answer a question you asked another poster, yes Couturier has contributed to the 2nd unit PP not being good. The next step is to analyze why that is. Is he not capable of it, does he not have the right amount of talent on the 2nd unit, is he being asked to play in a role that he is not suited for such as the PP QB on the half wall versus a different role on the PP? To ignore the possibility that if he is put in a different spot with better offensive talent around him on the PP that there is a possibility that he could be more effective at it, is short sighted. It's the same BS in looking at the 5 on 5 stats for Wayne Simmonds last year and being narrow minded and saying he can't be a strong player at 5 on 5. Perhaps as the talent around them gets better, things can change for players.
- MJL

I also feel people look at it like the 2nd unit is getting the same benefits as the 1st one.

People have to admit, the 2nd unit usually starts at a disadvantage compared to the 1st unit.

Nice try for a save but not going to fly.
- MJL

You're right. I have never criticized the practice of assigning players to imaginary lines

Does anyone think they have tried #14 on the top pp in practice at all? its possible they have and didn't like what they saw no?

He has moved to different spots. He has played with different personnel.

If he finds himself in a situation where he is on the PP and does okay, fantastic, but the stats how that there is most likely someone else that would do better. Flyers are better off without him on the PP
- YuenglingJagr

The sample size of him moving to different spots is very small and the different personnel that has been tried has not been the right mix of players. I disagree that the stats show that there is most likely someone else who would do better. That's a guess on your part which is fine because my feeling that provided he plays in the correct role and with the right players surrounding him he can be a more effective player on the PP. I'm willing to be open minded about it.

You're right. I have never criticized the practice of assigning players to imaginary lines
- YuenglingJagr

Strawman. Your original statement complete with the "duh" emoticon was not an attempt at humor, it was a failed attempt at belittlement.

Strawman. Your original statement complete with the "duh" emoticon was not an attempt at humor, it was a failed attempt at belittlement.
- MJL

Whatever makes you feel better

The sample size of him moving to different spots is very small and the different personnel that has been tried has not been the right mix of players. I disagree that the stats show that there is most likely someone else who would do better. That's a guess on your part which is fine because my feeling that provided he plays in the correct role and with the right players surrounding him he can be a more effective player on the PP. I'm willing to be open minded about it.
- MJL

Fantasic...I'm willing to be realistic

You're right. I have never criticized the practice of assigning players to imaginary lines
- YuenglingJagr

It's funny that in this #fancy era people still cling to that old-school notion

Fantasic...I'm willing to be realistic
- YuenglingJagr

So you claim that thinking that there is a possibility that moving Couturier into a different role and surrounding him with better talent could result in improved production from Couturier is unrealistic? Interesting.

It's funny that in this #fancy era people still cling to that old-school notion
- Scoob

Except that is a misrepresentation of the actual conversation. We weren't talking lines but were discussing a specific player.

So you claim that thinking that there is a possibility that moving Couturier into a different role and surrounding him with better talent could result in improved production from Couturier is unrealistic? Interesting.
- MJL

It is still attempting to make one of your worst PP forwards not as bad on the PP instead of just replacing him with a better one. Not smart

It's funny that in this #fancy era people still cling to that old-school notion
- Scoob

Agreed. It is a nice little way of knowing something about someone right away. Like wearing socks with sandals or white pants (as a male)

Except that is a misrepresentation of the actual conversation. We weren't talking lines but were discussing a specific player.
- MJL

Understood. My comment was just a general one

I say that the Flyers should extend Simmonds. Te team needs some veteran leadership for the young guys to look up to. Keep up the good work, Bill.