No doubt but like I said, I don't want Simmonds to have to be the enforcee for this team. I'm aware of what both Detroit and Boston have done but this is Philadelphia. There are a lot more holes here and in my opinion not comparable to Stanley Cup winning teams at the moment.
- SuperSchennBros

I agree that we have holes and are not a cup contender. However I don't want to fill those holes with enforcers.

It's why I think he might be used at wing, at least this upcoming season. I could see him taking Downie's spot with Couturier & Read
- Jsaquella

That would be a nice line IMO

Those kind of players I like. I just think the day of the one dimensional enforcer is over and I would rather see Rosehill's spot go to someone who can contribute a bit more. Heck I'd rather waive Rosehill and re-sign Hall to be a spare. At least Hall can come in, play all 3 forward positions, win faceoffs and kill penalties. He'd be a nice 13th forward IMO
- BiggE

I agree in regards to Hall. He would be a good guy to keep

I agree that we have holes and are not a cup contender. However I don't want to fill those holes with enforcers.
- BiggE

I'm perfectly fine with Rosehill on the fourth line or as our 13th forward. I'm more concerned with Simmonds having to fight every battle for this team. I have no biased against Rosehill due to current state of the team.

I'm perfectly fine with Rosehill on the fourth line or as our 13th forward. I'm more concerned with Simmonds having to fight every battle for this team. I have no biased against Rosehill due to current state of the team.
- SuperSchennBros

Lets just agree to disagree when it comes to Rosehill. We are never going to see eye to eye on this one.

I very well could be wrong in how Laughton will be used by I totally buy what I've read on the Flyers web site.
- SuperSchennBros

I know they prefer playing him at C, but you never know how it's going to shake out. Lecavalier was signed to play second line C, he ended up all over the place.

I agree in regards to Hall. He would be a good guy to keep
- 3flyerkids

He seems like the perfect 13th forward to me:

Veteran....check
plays multiple positions....check
can help out on at least one facet of special teams....check
has some toughness....check
works hard, good team guy.....check

and as a bonus, he is awesome on faceoffs

I know they prefer playing him at C, but you never know how it's going to shake out. Lecavalier was signed to play second line C, he ended up all over the place.
- Jsaquella

My vote is for Schenn to play LW.

I know they prefer playing him at C, but you never know how it's going to shake out. Lecavalier was signed to play second line C, he ended up all over the place.
- Jsaquella

Plus, as a 20 year old rookie trying to make the team, he'd probably play goal if thats what it took to win a roster spot!

My vote is for Schenn to play LW.
- SuperSchennBros

Pretty sure the Flyers aren't counting any of our votes.

I'm perfectly fine with Rosehill on the fourth line or as our 13th forward. I'm more concerned with Simmonds having to fight every battle for this team. I have no biased against Rosehill due to current state of the team.
- SuperSchennBros

Simmonds cannot be " the enforcer", I totally agree. It's a hard call to make. Bring back Hall who can play some good minutes or keep Rosehill. I would keep Hall but Rosehill sure did bring some momentum to this team in games when they were down by a goal or two... He would drop the gloves and usually win a fight to bring some life into this team.

Lets just agree to disagree when it comes to Rosehill. We are never going to see eye to eye on this one.
- BiggE

I'm not arguing with you. It doesn't matter to me if we agree. My view is simply. We traded away Hartnell for a less gritty, less tough player. We allowed Downie and Hall to move on. We didn't sign a guy like Steve Ott. So to me we're now a less tough team, which to me proves we might need a guy like Rosehill.

My vote is for Schenn to play LW.
- SuperSchennBros

My vote is for whatever gives them the four best possible lines. If playing Schenn at 2C and Laughton as the 3rd LW gives them the best line combos, that's what I want. Outside of what works best, I have no preference. If the best lines include Schenn-Couturier-Read as a 2nd line & Laughton as the LW with Vinny & Akeson, I'm good with that as well

I'm not arguing with you. It doesn't matter to me if we agree. My view is simply. We traded away Hartnell for a less gritty, less tough player. We allowed Downie and Hall to move on. We didn't sign a guy like Steve Ott. So to me we're now a less tough team, which to me proves we might need a guy like Rosehill.
- SuperSchennBros

Well, they could at least still sign Hall. I just don't see how Rosehill playing 3-4 minutes per game adds any real toughness. If some guy wants to run at one of our skill players, do you really think having Rosehill in the lineup is going to deter him? The opposing player most likely won't drop the gloves with him so now what? Have Rosehill go out and retaliate by running someone else and, most likely, take a 5 minute major?

Pointless IMO

My vote is for whatever gives them the four best possible lines. If playing Schenn at 2C and Laughton as the 3rd LW gives them the best line combos, that's what I want. Outside of what works best, I have no preference. If the best lines include Schenn-Couturier-Read as a 2nd line & Laughton as the LW with Vinny & Akeson, I'm good with that as well
- Jsaquella

My vote is for whatever gives them the four best possible lines. If playing Schenn at 2C and Laughton as the 3rd LW gives them the best line combos, that's what I want. Outside of what works best, I have no preference. If the best lines include Schenn-Couturier-Read as a 2nd line & Laughton as the LW with Vinny & Akeson, I'm good with that as well
- Jsaquella

I'm thinking a top nine that looks like...

Schenn-Giroux-Simmonds
Umburger-Lecavalier-Voracek
Raffl-Couturier-Read

Fourth line is still up in the air, which I view as a bad thing.

I'm thinking a top nine that looks like...

Schenn-Giroux-Simmonds
Umburger-Lecavalier-Voracek
Raffl-Couturier-Read

Fourth line is still up in the air, which I view as a bad thing.
- SuperSchennBros

I'm fine with those lines and for a 4th line, I wouldn't be opposed to re-signing Hall and going with: Bellemare-Laughton or Hall-Hall or Rinaldo

I'm fine with those lines and for a 4th line, I wouldn't be opposed to re-signing Hall and going with: Bellemare-Laughton or Hall-Hall or Rinaldo
- BiggE

edit: I may want to flip Raffl and Umberger.

Well, they could at least still sign Hall. I just don't see how Rosehill playing 3-4 minutes per game adds any real toughness. If some guy wants to run at one of our skill players, do you really think having Rosehill in the lineup is going to deter him? The opposing player most likely won't drop the gloves with him so now what? Have Rosehill go out and retaliate by running someone else and, most likely, take a 5 minute major?

Pointless IMO
- BiggE

Your just allowing your mind to wonder to the worse case scenario to make your case. Your right, Rosehill doesn't play a lot but I have yet to see him hurt this team. In fact back in November when Giroux finally turned it on, it was Rosehill in the line up, not Raffl.

I'm thinking a top nine that looks like...

Schenn-Giroux-Simmonds
Umburger-Lecavalier-Voracek
Raffl-Couturier-Read

Fourth line is still up in the air, which I view as a bad thing.
- SuperSchennBros

I don't view it as bad, just unknown. They have enough pieces. It could be Bellemare-Laughton-Rinaldo. They have enough guys to make it work.

I'm not a huge fan of that 2nd line, but again if it works, I'm fine with it

I'm fine with those lines and for a 4th line, I wouldn't be opposed to re-signing Hall and going with: Bellemare-Laughton or Hall-Hall or Rinaldo
- BiggE

I'm actually hoping we don't have to use Laughton on the fourth line.

I don't view it as bad, just unknown. They have enough pieces. It could be Bellemare-Laughton-Rinaldo. They have enough guys to make it work.

I'm not a huge fan of that 2nd line, but again if it works, I'm fine with it
- Jsaquella

I don't know anything about Bellemare, so I agree with the unknown.

I'm actually hoping we don't have to use Laughton on the fourth line.
- SuperSchennBros

I'm fine with it as long as he gets some time on the pk and occasional spot shifts on other lines.

Wouldn't it be great if Laughton came to camp and blew everyone's socks off and forced this lineup:

Schenn-G-V
Read-Coots-Simmer
RJ-Laughton-Raffle
Belle-Vinny-Rinaldo (in unicorn happy land Winnik)
Rosehill

Wouldn't it be great if Laughton came to camp and blew everyone's socks off and forced this lineup:

Schenn-G-V
Read-Coots-Simmer
RJ-Laughton-Raffle
Belle-Vinny-Rinaldo (in unicorn happy land Winnik)
Rosehill

- coffee junkie