Everyone keeps assuming he'll get called up at some point. Aside from injuries, unless he flat-out dominates the AHL, he'd still be called up to the 4C role. Why not give him a shot to win it with the big club instead of skating with guys bound for juniors and the AHL?
- jmatchett383

I think he will get a shot once some preseason games are played. I think they are making him hungry.

All the talk about the 4th line - if we have the depth to put guys like VL or umberger on the 4th line, then great we should have a stacke team. I'm just not sure the depth is there yet with unknowns like Akeson and bellemare, etc.
- funmaster18

It may well not work out. However, I'd like to see the lines I posted be given a chance, rather than just blowing it off before they happen.

We've seen what happens with a 4th line featuring limited players, it gets used in a minimal role and the other players have to carry more burden. I'd rather have four lines who can all play 12+ minutes on a regular basis, limiting the wear and tear on guys like Giroux & Voracek.

It may well not work out. However, I'd like to see the lines I posted be given a chance, rather than just blowing it off before they happen.

We've seen what happens with a 4th line featuring limited players, it gets used in a minimal role and the other players have to carry more burden. I'd rather have four lines who can all play 12+ minutes on a regular basis, limiting the wear and tear on guys like Giroux & Voracek.
- Jsaquella

Trust me, I'm all for a 4th line that is more than just about going out and hitting everybody. If your lines work, then awesome. The flyers very well may have a lot of choices if some of these younger or unknown players can make an impact.

Everyone keeps assuming he'll get called up at some point. Aside from injuries, unless he flat-out dominates the AHL, he'd still be called up to the 4C role. Why not give him a shot to win it with the big club instead of skating with guys bound for juniors and the AHL?
- jmatchett383

Which, again, is why I suggest having a rather stacked 4th line, or more accurately, having two lines fully capable of being third lines, each playing significant minutes and not using a limited 4th line incapable of playing 10 minutes night in and out.

Trust me, I'm all for a 4th line that is more than just about going out and hitting everybody. If your lines work, then awesome. The flyers very well may have a lot of choices if some of these younger or unknown players can make an impact.
- funmaster18

And that's all I'm suggesting. I think they have the horses to have a really solid group of 12 forwards. If Akeson or Bellemare or anyone else stumbles, then, fine, bring in Rinaldo and revert to the good old limited fourth line.

Couturier is, what, 21 years old? I think that's a bit early to say he's "pigeonholed." Also, he played behind Giroux and Schenn who both projected as top-6 centers, so the 3rd line (call it what you will) was the perfect spot for him, given his abilities.

I don't think Laughton projects past a 3C with the team's current makeup. He'd have to pass 2 of Giroux, Couturier, and Schenn, not to mention VLC for the rest of his time here. Playing on the 4th line won't kill his confidence anymore than failing to stay with the NHL 3 straight seasons might. Also, starting a player in the bottom-6 is a fine place to start. It didn't hinder Mike Richards much. Let him get acclimated to the NHL game in a role where he can focus on his 2-way game and climb his way up the ladder.

Or, we can keep him in the AHL all year and have this same exact discussion next offseason, unless there's a major move in the center department.
- jmatchett383

I hear you, but I still prefer Laughton in the minors. Long term, I don't really see G-Couts-Laughton down the middle. I really don't. I don't think there are enough goals in that lineup. Schenn doesn't see to be dynamic enough as a 2nd line center. Again, not gonna scare anyone. I think that is why they brought in Vinnie - for a 1-2 punch with G. It just didn't work out. I'm betting they pick up another center in FA a year or two from now to be that true #2.

Honestly, I'd develop Laughton with the goal of trading him for a young winger. I would have said defenseman a year ago, but at this point I'm thinking 2-3 years out and by then you have at least 3 of the 4 kids on the roster.

And that's all I'm suggesting. I think they have the horses to have a really solid group of 12 forwards. If Akeson or Bellemare or anyone else stumbles, then, fine, bring in Rinaldo and revert to the good old limited fourth line.
- Jsaquella

If those guys pan out, then our 4th line should be much improved. Can't wait to see how it plays out.

If those guys pan out, then our 4th line should be much improved. Can't wait to see how it plays out.
- funmaster18

Unfortunately, I think Berube will consistently use Rinaldo there, which sort of scuttles what I'd like to see

I hear you, but I still prefer Laughton in the minors. Long term, I don't really see G-Couts-Laughton down the middle. I really don't. I don't think there are enough goals in that lineup. Schenn doesn't see to be dynamic enough as a 2nd line center. Again, not gonna scare anyone. I think that is why they brought in Vinnie - for a 1-2 punch with G. It just didn't work out. I'm betting they pick up another center in FA a year or two from now to be that true #2.

Honestly, I'd develop Laughton with the goal of trading him for a young winger. I would have said defenseman a year ago, but at this point I'm thinking 2-3 years out and by then you have at least 3 of the 4 kids on the roster.
- TheGreat28

I think Couturier will be that true number two in a couple years. I really hope they give him enough offensive opportunities to develop and let him become a Patrice Bergeron type of guy.

Keep Schenn on the wing and Laughton ends up as the dynamic third line center that can spell in to the top six when needed and fills a bunch of roles.

Yep. If you move up Vinny, Schenn has to drop to third line. I agree with Berube's move.

His other choices-pairing Vinny & Umberger or using Akeson in a 4th line spot in the first place seem odd to me. As he said in Bill's blog, Akeson is a good playmaker and Vinny is a finisher, so why not go with that from the get go? Also Raffl is a good, young two way player with speed, putting him with Vinny and Akeson could give you a solid line that doesn't have to be sheltered.

That frees up Umberger to be an anchor of a solid 4th line and gives them a unit that can play a regular shift and doesn't have to be hidden or have Giroux or Couturier pop in for defensive zone draws (and more demanding shifts).

Much like the argument that using Lecavalier as a 4th liner would be a waste, why not use guys in roles that best suit their abilities from the get go?
- Jsaquella

Not Odd at all. Umberger is a good two way player who cipped in 18 goals last season, he would be a waste on the 4th line. His defensive abilities may help Lecavalier since he is a little soft in that area. Akeson is debatable. The thinking seems that they want to ease his transition to the NHL, lets face it. Akeson has never played a full NHL season, might be best to let him work his way up during the season.

Bill Meltzer ‏@billmeltzer 4m

Game in Philly: Emery, VL,,Umby, B. Schenn, Voracek, Raffl, Streit, Coburn, MacD.

Mason going to London and, as mentioned, Emery in Philly.

Rest of vets going to London and Toronto. Those staying in Philly won't go to Toronto. Only Berube.

Not everyone going to London will dress for that game. Some will play only in game in Toronto.

Berube said Thur game vs NJ should feature close to reg lineup

Not Odd at all. Umberger is a good two way player who cipped in 18 goals last season, he would be a waste on the 4th line. His defensive abilities may help Lecavalier since he is a little soft in that area. Akeson is debatable. The thinking seems that they want to ease his transition to the NHL, lets face it. Akeson has never played a full NHL season, might be best to let him work his way up during the season.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

I find it odd because I'd rather have two good lines in the bottom 6, rather than a third line and a fourth line that has to be sheltered and can't play more than 6-8 minutes regularly.

I'm saying, in essence, to have two third lines, both of which would play 12+ minutes a night, rather than have a 3rd line playing 14 minutes and a 4th line playing 8 minutes. It makes it easier to get guys in the top 6 more rest and lessen their burden and keep them more fresh for games when they are truly needed.

I'm tossing away the "3rd" and "4th" line monikers, because the way I would do it, there wouldn't be a 4th line like the ones the team has had in the past. Ideally, the "fourth" line would be that in name only.

I think Couturier will be that true number two in a couple years. I really hope they give him enough offensive opportunities to develop and let him become a Patrice Bergeron type of guy.

Keep Schenn on the wing and Laughton ends up as the dynamic third line center that can spell in to the top six when needed and fills a bunch of roles.
- Jsaquella

I'd love for that to happen. I just have my doubts. Ultimately I want a Lindros-Primeau or, I think I'm gonna throw up in my mouth saying this, a Cindy-Malkin. I want a 2nd line center that could be the #1 guy on 20 teams.

But I do want Couturier playing with skilled wingers and generating more offense even if that is in a "3rd" line role. I love him playing with Simmonds and Read.

I'd love for that to happen. I just have my doubts. Ultimately I want a Lindros-Primeau or, I think I'm gonna throw up in my mouth saying this, a Cindy-Malkin. I want a 2nd line center that could be the #1 guy on 20 teams.

But I do want Couturier playing with skilled wingers and generating more offense even if that is in a "3rd" line role. I love him playing with Simmonds and Read.
- TheGreat28

I'd be really happy with a Krejci-Bergeron, myself.

I find it odd because I'd rather have two good lines in the bottom 6, rather than a third line and a fourth line that has to be sheltered and can't play more than 6-8 minutes regularly.

I'm saying, in essence, to have two third lines, both of which would play 12+ minutes a night, rather than have a 3rd line playing 14 minutes and a 4th line playing 8 minutes. It makes it easier to get guys in the top 6 more rest and lessen their burden and keep them more fresh for games when they are truly needed.

I'm tossing away the "3rd" and "4th" line monikers, because the way I would do it, there wouldn't be a 4th line like the ones the team has had in the past. Ideally, the "fourth" line would be that in name only.
- Jsaquella

I agree with you. The line numbers don't matter. The line combinations, minutes, zone starts, etc is what really matters.

I agree with you. The line numbers don't matter. The line combinations, minutes, zone starts, etc is what really matters.
- TheGreat28

Exactly. A line of Umberger, Laughton and Bellemare would be more defensive than a line of Raffl, Lecavalier or Akeson, but if Akeson can do what he did over 8 games for an extended period and Raffl can build off his rookie season, that's a really good bottom six that can give a coach all sorts of matchup options and not have to worry about overtaxing his top six.

If the two younger guys build off last season and continue to improve, then it's also two lines who you don't have to try to shelter. Last year, Berube felt the need to shelter the DZ starts of the 40-10-17 line and the Hall line, when Rinaldo was on the ice. Towards the end of the year, or late in tight games, we'd often see Giroux and Couturier out as wingers with Hall, not just for faceoff ability, but because Berube lacked the faith in the other options.

If it doesn't work, or if one of the young, untested guys falters, then you can always go back to sliding Umberger up and bringing in Rinaldo and using a less capable fourth line.

Bill Meltzer ‏@billmeltzer 4m

Game in Philly: Emery, VL,,Umby, B. Schenn, Voracek, Raffl, Streit, Coburn, MacD.

Mason going to London and, as mentioned, Emery in Philly.

Rest of vets going to London and Toronto. Those staying in Philly won't go to Toronto. Only Berube.

Not everyone going to London will dress for that game. Some will play only in game in Toronto.

Berube said Thur game vs NJ should feature close to reg lineup
- Jsaquella

Thanks for the info

Thanks for the info

- funmaster18

Thanks to Bill. Didn't see any of the beat guys posting it.

Exactly. A line of Umberger, Laughton and Bellemare would be more defensive than a line of Raffl, Lecavalier or Akeson, but if Akeson can do what he did over 8 games for an extended period and Raffl can build off his rookie season, that's a really good bottom six that can give a coach all sorts of matchup options and not have to worry about overtaxing his top six.

If the two younger guys build off last season and continue to improve, then it's also two lines who you don't have to try to shelter. Last year, Berube felt the need to shelter the DZ starts of the 40-10-17 line and the Hall line, when Rinaldo was on the ice. Towards the end of the year, or late in tight games, we'd often see Giroux and Couturier out as wingers with Hall, not just for faceoff ability, but because Berube lacked the faith in the other options.

If it doesn't work, or if one of the young, untested guys falters, then you can always go back to sliding Umberger up and bringing in Rinaldo and using a less capable fourth line.
- Jsaquella

Since I'm not gonna get my more dynamic #2 center, then I'm fine going with your lineup and trying to balance things out, create some mismatches with the 3rd/4th line and keeping G fresher.

But...

I think they're playing Rinaldo, which gives you the traditional 4th line and if that's the case, I want Laughton in the minors playing more minutes, and more quality minutes.

Since I'm not gonna get my more dynamic #2 center, then I'm fine going with your lineup and trying to balance things out, create some mismatches with the 3rd/4th line and keeping G fresher.

But...

I think they're playing Rinaldo, which gives you the traditional 4th line and if that's the case, I want Laughton in the minors playing more minutes, and more quality minutes.
- TheGreat28

Agreed. If Laughton's two options are 8 minutes a night with Rinaldo or 1st line in Allentown, enjoy the purple trim, Scott...You're a Phantom for now

I find it odd because I'd rather have two good lines in the bottom 6, rather than a third line and a fourth line that has to be sheltered and can't play more than 6-8 minutes regularly.

I'm saying, in essence, to have two third lines, both of which would play 12+ minutes a night, rather than have a 3rd line playing 14 minutes and a 4th line playing 8 minutes. It makes it easier to get guys in the top 6 more rest and lessen their burden and keep them more fresh for games when they are truly needed.

I'm tossing away the "3rd" and "4th" line monikers, because the way I would do it, there wouldn't be a 4th line like the ones the team has had in the past. Ideally, the "fourth" line would be that in name only.
- Jsaquella

I want hockey now!
- funmaster18

It's my hockey and I need it now!

mid-season form
- BulliesPhan87

needs more icetime

Bill Meltzer ‏@billmeltzer 4m

Game in Philly: Emery, VL,,Umby, B. Schenn, Voracek, Raffl, Streit, Coburn, MacD.

Mason going to London and, as mentioned, Emery in Philly.

Rest of vets going to London and Toronto. Those staying in Philly won't go to Toronto. Only Berube.

Not everyone going to London will dress for that game. Some will play only in game in Toronto.

Berube said Thur game vs NJ should feature close to reg lineup
- Jsaquella

dammit i wanted to see ghost and morin

heads up for those with the nhl network:

they're airing the split squad vs caps game tomorrow late (10:00), not listed on the flyers site as being televised but i see it on my guide