The Flyers have 3 legitimate top 4 NHL defenseman, and 6 bona fide NHL defensman. Players like Grossmann and Schenn to this point are the very definition of depth defenseman. The problem is that they lack a legitimate top pairing, and the injury to Coburn accentuates that issue.

Maybe your definition of depth is having 3 or 4 top pair defenseman.
- MJL

My definition of depth is having a good mix and better than mostly 3rd pairing defensemen. Coburn and Streit are second pairing defensemen. MacDonald is a 4/5. Grossmann is a third pairing. Schenn is a 6 as of right now and so is Del Zotto. Grossmann, Schenn, Coburn, and, to a lesser extent, MacDonald struggle moving the puck. Streit can do it and so can Del Zotto but MDZ can be such a liability in his own end. Clearly we won't agree on any of this though.

Having 6 bona fide NHL defenseman who are all good players, is having depth. A lot of teams don't have that. We have a different definition of what depth is. Flyers have plenty of defensive depth. They just lack the quality at the top. Quality and quantity are two different things.
- MJL

Not really ... because this isn't a game of accumulation. You need a quantity of quality at various spots for success.

For what team wouldn't it be a long term problem?
- MBFlyerfan

Im not denying that. I am saying that having our 7th in long term with the group we already have is bad... because we already lack depth. We are stretching 4 #3-6 d-men through 6 spots. That is a recipe for disaster.

They still have to play games, and at the end of the day they were pretty much in both games till the end, but it is something to worry about.

Oh, and in case you wanted to take a look...
There are a ton of teams that would be okay with their # 7 playing for an extended period of time... Primarily because they have solid top 6's

http://www.rotoworld.com/...ams/depth-charts/nhl.aspx

Not really ... because this isn't a game of accumulation. You need a quantity of quality at various spots for success.
- gollum

My definition of depth is having a good mix and better than mostly 3rd pairing defensemen. Coburn and Streit are second pairing defensemen. MacDonald is a 4/5. Grossmann is a third pairing. Schenn is a 6 as of right now and so is Del Zotto. Grossmann, Schenn, Coburn, and, to a lesser extent, MacDonald struggle moving the puck. Streit can do it and so can Del Zotto but MDZ can be such a liability in his own end. Clearly we won't agree on any of this though.
- NickTheKid87

I agree.

You're arguing two different things. Even with Coburn in the lineup, we know that they lack a legitimate top pairing.

You are simply wrong in saying the Flyers don't have defensive depth. They have plenty of defensive depth players. The problem with this defense is that they don't have #1 defenseman, and they lack a legitimate top pair.
- MJL

Having guys who are capable of taking an NHL shift, and having guys who are suited for certain assignments are totally different.

If the Flyers had a center group of Giroux, Bellamare, Hall and Raffl would you say they have depth at center? No. BUT BUT BUT.. those guys are all bonefide NHLers

Same goes for defense. It really is a fairly simple concept.

I agree.
- jak521

Thank you. I don't know why we torture ourselves though...

MDZ is an upgrade on Eric Gustaffson.
He had more offensive upside.
But he has some of the similar downside in the D zone as Gusty has.

I think he has some skills as a puck moving guy they clearly need.

But when he starts freewheeling on offense, a defensively capable forward better get back.

Leaving Luke (or really any dman)to cover on odd man rushes multiple times a night is a bad plan

Scary
- JoeRussomanno

Well played sir!

Having "depth defenseman" does not mean that you, as a team, have depth. If I have 10 guys that are no. 4s, do I have depth ... or do I have a **** defense? Depth is about having the parts to absorb losses and not lose a whole lot.

Therein lies the problem. If you can't field a true top pairing from the outset, you are left pushing everyone up into roles that they cannot adequately fill. That's a lack of depth ... and the problem that is the top pairing was a problem coming into the season (even with a healthy Timonen, who has lost two steps over the years). Throwing a bunch of NHL players against the wall and hoping it works out is not depth, it's a poorly constructed group.

This is why bona fide top pairing guys are so vitally important. It has as much to do with their ability to create structure and positive minutes for the rest of the defensive corps as it does with their own skill set. What the Flyers have is a defense group that is going to be spread thin, and challenged with minutes that are likely to greatly diminish their personal success.

Just as a dominant closer in baseball can provide structure for an entire bull pen, the lack of a top dog here is going to result in problems all year long for the rest of the D.
- gollum

The Flyers now have their two top defenseman out of the lineup in Timonen and Coburn, due to injury. Yet they are still able to put 6 experienced NHL defenseman in the lineup. That is the very definition of depth.

We all know even before the Coburn injury that they lack a legitmate top pairing. The issue isn't a lack of depth. It's a lack of a top pairing.

Having guys who are capable of taking an NHL shift, and having guys who are suited for certain assignments are totally different.

If the Flyers had a center group of Giroux, Bellamare, Hall and Raffl would you say they have depth at center? No. BUT BUT BUT.. those guys are all bonefide NHLers

Same goes for defense. It really is a fairly simple concept.
- jak521

You're making my point. Having depth of NHL players is quite different then the quality of those players.

Arguing if those players are the correct fit for their roles is a different argument. And that was the case even before the Coburn injury.

Any NHL team that incurs an injury to a top defenseman, is going to have to elevate other players in the lineup and in their roles to compensate.

Not really ... because this isn't a game of accumulation. You need a quantity of quality at various spots for success.
- gollum

Disagree. If the Flyers had a legitimate top pair on defense. Streit, MacDonald as the 2nd pair. And Schenn and Grossmann as the 3rd pair would be a quality defense. The issue isn't depth. It's quality at the top.

My definition of depth is having a good mix and better than mostly 3rd pairing defensemen. Coburn and Streit are second pairing defensemen. MacDonald is a 4/5. Grossmann is a third pairing. Schenn is a 6 as of right now and so is Del Zotto. Grossmann, Schenn, Coburn, and, to a lesser extent, MacDonald struggle moving the puck. Streit can do it and so can Del Zotto but MDZ can be such a liability in his own end. Clearly we won't agree on any of this though.
- NickTheKid87

McDonald is not a 4/5 by any metric. He is a #3 defenseman. And he's closer to a #2 then he is to a #5.

MacDonald was very strong moving the puck last night.

The Flyers now have their two top defenseman out of the lineup in Timonen and Coburn, due to injury. Yet they are still able to put 6 experienced NHL defenseman in the lineup. That is the very definition of depth.

We all know even before the Coburn injury that they lack a legitmate top pairing. The issue isn't a lack of depth. It's a lack of a top pairing.
- MJL

Isnt lacking a top pairing by itself a definition of a lack of depth?

The Flyers now have their two top defenseman out of the lineup in Timonen and Coburn, due to injury. Yet they are still able to put 6 experienced NHL defenseman in the lineup. That is the very definition of depth.

We all know even before the Coburn injury that they lack a legitmate top pairing. The issue isn't a lack of depth. It's a lack of a top pairing.
- MJL

But the lack of a top pairing complicates depth. Those minutes get played no matter what ... do you have bodies that can effectively play those minutes? No.

That's a depth problem, not the "definition" of depth.

You can't write off that reality and just say, "Oh, well, they have all these other guys that can play in the NHL!" Experience does not equate to effectiveness ... and if you don't have effective parts to play necessary minutes, then you are decidedly lacking in something.

Based on your argument, a NHL team with 7 defensemen that are completely serviceable as no. 6s would be a team with depth at the logical extreme. That's an absurd argument.

Disagree. If the Flyers had a legitimate top pair on defense. Streit, MacDonald as the 2nd pair. And Schenn and Grossmann as the 3rd pair would be a quality defense. The issue isn't depth. It's quality at the top.
- MJL

... but they don't have that, and they never did have that.

Again, having a bunch of **** and throwing it against the wall does not equate to having "depth" in a meaningful sense. It's just having warm bodies.

McDonald is not a 4/5 by any metric. He is a #3 defenseman. And he's closer to a #2 then he is to a #5.

MacDonald was very strong moving the puck last night.
- MJL

"Metric" is a poor term to use here ... because by all analytics metrics, MacDonald is awful.

But the lack of a top pairing complicates depth. Those minutes get played no matter what ... do you have bodies that can effectively play those minutes? No.

That's a depth problem, not the "definition" of depth.

You can't write off that reality and just say, "Oh, well, they have all these other guys that can play in the NHL!" Experience does not equate to effectiveness ... and if you don't have effective parts to play necessary minutes, then you are decidedly lacking in something.

Based on your argument, a NHL team with 7 defensemen that are completely serviceable as no. 6s would be a team with depth at the logical extreme. That's an absurd argument.
- gollum

He's turned this into an argument of semantics. He's defining depth one way and the rest of us are defining it differently. He will keep arguing this until the end of time so best not to indulge him. Arguing semantics should be avoided unless you're having a debate specifically about semantics.

But the lack of a top pairing complicates depth. Those minutes get played no matter what ... do you have bodies that can effectively play those minutes? No.

That's a depth problem, not the "definition" of depth.

You can't write off that reality and just say, "Oh, well, they have all these other guys that can play in the NHL!" Experience does not equate to effectiveness ... and if you don't have effective parts to play necessary minutes, then you are decidedly lacking in something.

Based on your argument, a NHL team with 7 defensemen that are completely serviceable as no. 6s would be a team with depth at the logical extreme. That's an absurd argument.
- gollum

-5 for Schenn is ugly... but when the SV% when you're on the ice is .285, you're probably experiencing some crazy luck, too. Having two partners (Streit/MDZ) who are constantly pinching, and being stuck on the ice w/ guys like VL and the G-line who you don't exactly want playing the last line of defense on a rotation, hurt too.

MDZ, same story w/ luck... SV% was .500 for him. I felt like he actually had a pretty good game despite the ugly -4 -- definitely was their best transition guy and created a ton of chances on net, including 5 SOG. The forwards just did a really bad job of covering for his pinches.

Streit/Grossmann had the worst showing... brutal. Coots line got eaten alive too. It's sad because those two groups carried the Flyers during the opener.

Silver lining is still that 4th-line... and Chief looks like he's starting to up their icetime.
- Tomahawk

PDO

He's turned this into an argument of semantics. He's defining depth one way and the rest of us are defining it differently. He will keep arguing this until the end of time so best not to indulge him. Arguing semantics should be avoided unless you're having a debate specifically about semantics.
- NickTheKid87

Beat me to it. He is doing his usual and finding the most simple flaw in the topic of choice.

Literally, by definition alone, the flyers have depth at defense. Every single team in the NHL, AHL, CHL, WHPJLMNOPHL has defensive depth. Hell the only team I can ever remember not having defensive depth in a literal sense would be the 04 Flyers who had to use Sami Kapanen as a d-man.


But, the rest of us are using the hockey related idea behind depth.


All in all. Flyers dont have hockey depth at defense. I win. Good day.

- -davies-

I know, I know...it's serious.

PDO
- bradleyc4

BS

My definition of depth is having a good mix and better than mostly 3rd pairing defensemen. Coburn and Streit are second pairing defensemen. MacDonald is a 4/5. Grossmann is a third pairing. Schenn is a 6 as of right now and so is Del Zotto. Grossmann, Schenn, Coburn, and, to a lesser extent, MacDonald struggle moving the puck. Streit can do it and so can Del Zotto but MDZ can be such a liability in his own end. Clearly we won't agree on any of this though.
- NickTheKid87

So which teams have actually depth? Take the three best defensemen out of any NHL team over a three year period and let me know what you end up with.

Or just take out their top two guys from last season.