Question1 : Is it that big a deal that Umberger is back in the line-up? The Flyers did not win any games this week when he was a healthy scratch.

Question 2: Weal is in. Where is the rejoicing?
- ChoclitLeClair

1. No, but I'd rather not see him in the lineup
2. yay

I'd like to see them put one of Gagner, Weal or Cousins between these two to see if they can get a good 3rd line going.
- FlyerFan16

See I thought Raffl - Laughton - Read would be fine.

But I wanted to see them used more.

I wouldn't mind seeing Laughton - Cousins - Read either. I think Laughton showed some chemistry with cousins earlier in the season when he played wing a couple games.

I'd like to see them put one of Gagner, Weal or Cousins between these two to see if they can get a good 3rd line going.
- FlyerFan16

Thanks a lot. I had forgotten that Sam Gagner was on our roster with all of the hate over Umberger being in, and you, YOU had to bring him up. You should be ashamed of yourself.

1. No, but I'd rather not see him in the lineup
2. yay
- BiggE

Ad there was much rejoicing

Yayyy

He's a 3rd liner. No glorified about it.

He is slightly overpaid, though.
- jmatchett383

id love to see the list of players who have scored 20 goals thrice in there career, also coach hakstol thinks we have a better chance of winning with him sitting and playing umberger, i don't agree with that but he makes the calls

id love to see the list of players who have scored 20 goals thrice in there career, also coach hakstol thinks we have a better chance of winning with him sitting and playing umberger, i don't agree with that but he makes the calls
- mydoglicks

The list would include Cokehead Stevens, Jonathan Cheechoo, Alexander Daigle, and Bob Probert. Then again, Stevens played with Lemieux and Jagr, Cheechoo and Daigle were playing on the top line, and Probert made people terrified to come near him.

I think Paul Laus' parents should have named him Santa C. Laus.

I think Paul Laus' parents should have named him Santa C. Laus.
- jmatchett383

I felt robbed that Mike Commodore never wore number 64.

I would have committed sports bigamy and purchased that shirshey if it existed.

I don't like Dave Hakstol. Last season Matt Read was horrid. Later it turned out he had an injury but for whatever reason, Berube felt it necessary to keep playing him. This season Read looks decent but it's pretty obvious he can't overcome the shortcomings of Laughton and Umberger, so Read gets punished.
- SuperSchennBros

i completely agree. i like his system, it seems to work well, but his personnel decisions each night are baffling to me. it seems like there is no rhyme or reason. its like watching berube again, changing the lines nightly. at least it doesnt seem like he does it too much in game barring an injury, but his choice are baffling for a hockey guy.

my suggestions which i dont think are too far from what our optimal lineup COULD be are:

93 28 17
24 14(21 during injury) 10
12 89 19
76 78 25

i think laughton has way more talent than to only be playing 8 minutes a game. he has offensive skill, weve seen it at the junior level and the AHL for bits and pieces. and before his concussion last year he was probably the best looking flyer out there in the beginning of the year, minus voracek of course.

and how come schultz is still in the lineup??

divided by Umberger back in the lineup = hockeybuzz meltdown
- funmaster18

Umberger in over Laughton.

Way to develop those kids coach.

Varsity at it again.

If you don't miss Couturier by now, watching Ryan O'Reilly run roughshod tonight should be enough to make you miss him.
- johndewar

ROR's actually been in a bit of a slump....at least in the goal scoring dept.

Reinhart has really been strong lately though.

I felt robbed that Mike Commodore never wore number 64.

I would have committed sports bigamy and purchased that shirshey if it existed.
- johndewar

It was regrettable Miro Satan was not traded to the Devils

Legit question, what do you think retirement requirements should be? Are there actual requirements or do the team leaders just agree on a decision? If G remains top 5 in scoring for a few more years would he warrant consideration? Whose on first?
- Tomfan365

Eliteness

More like schlub
- Giroux_Is_God

or strapjob

ROR's actually been in a bit of a slump....at least in the goal scoring dept.

Reinhart has really been strong lately though.
- nikel

Tonight should fix that up for him.

Eliteness
- Scoob

Or, where does he fall on a scale from 1 to Pavelski.

and how come schultz is still in the lineup??
- sjk540

Agree with it or disagree, but here is the answer to the "why" question.


Ron Hextall on Schultz: "You still have to defend. You can’t just have six puck movers, even though a lot of people these days seem to think that. You still have to defend. Those two-way guys are valuable, valuable players. When a guy is just a puck mover, you get into matchup problems. You have to hide those guys, and that’s especially tough to do on the road. People will say those big, slow defensive guys have no role anymore. Yeah, more and more, they’re out. But if you have a guy who can defend and maybe he isn’t great with the puck but he’s OK, he can be a good complement to a guy who can move the puck well. But you still need to defend. A lot of it is stick. I always liked Schultzy from the time I was scouting here. He was a pro, through and through. He competed every night. He’s a great defender; good stick, poised, blocks a lot of shots. His skating was an asset and he’s still pretty mobile even now. He keeps himself in shape, and he leads by example. He shows up and competes every night. He always knew what he is as a player and what he had to do to help the team. He just goes about his business. So I talked to our scouts about him and they still liked him pretty well. Above all, we wanted to add character and Schultzy is a character player. Also, it was a one-year deal, the price wasn’t very high so there wasn’t really much risk. He’s done a good job for us. I have a ton of respect for Nick. He’s a pro’s pro. I hope our young players are watching. Schultzy is a very structured player. When he was inEdmonton, they had a whole bunch of skilled young players that didn’t play the game the way our coaches coached. So I thought he’d be fine. We didn’t expect him to come in and do too much. We expected him to be a good defender and he’d be fine. That’s what we’ve gotten out of him."

Berube and Hakstol clearly agree, because they both entrenched him in their lineups.

I felt robbed that Mike Commodore never wore number 64.

I would have committed sports bigamy and purchased that shirshey if it existed.
- johndewar

lol

I have a question.

I think it's a given Eric Lindros' number will be retired one day in Philly. I believe we all debated whether or not Hextall will be years before becoming an Assistant General Manager in Philly but this is a pretty big gray area and we've seen many 27's since him. What about John LeClair and Claude Giroux? Do you think these numbers will someday be retired? Another gray area, Mark Recchi.

Thoughts.
- SuperSchennBros

They will retire E's number if he makes it into the Hockey Hall of Fame. Not otherwise. The only non HHOF number retired is Ashby and that was a special very emotional case.

The others are in the Flyers Hall except for Recchi (still argued--I'm personally not a fan). And obviously G's career has to play out before any discussions.

Agree with it or disagree, but here is the answer to the "why" question.


Ron Hextall on Schultz: "You still have to defend. You can’t just have six puck movers, even though a lot of people these days seem to think that. You still have to defend. Those two-way guys are valuable, valuable players. When a guy is just a puck mover, you get into matchup problems. You have to hide those guys, and that’s especially tough to do on the road. People will say those big, slow defensive guys have no role anymore. Yeah, more and more, they’re out. But if you have a guy who can defend and maybe he isn’t great with the puck but he’s OK, he can be a good complement to a guy who can move the puck well. But you still need to defend. A lot of it is stick. I always liked Schultzy from the time I was scouting here. He was a pro, through and through. He competed every night. He’s a great defender; good stick, poised, blocks a lot of shots. His skating was an asset and he’s still pretty mobile even now. He keeps himself in shape, and he leads by example. He shows up and competes every night. He always knew what he is as a player and what he had to do to help the team. He just goes about his business. So I talked to our scouts about him and they still liked him pretty well. Above all, we wanted to add character and Schultzy is a character player. Also, it was a one-year deal, the price wasn’t very high so there wasn’t really much risk. He’s done a good job for us. I have a ton of respect for Nick. He’s a pro’s pro. I hope our young players are watching. Schultzy is a very structured player. When he was inEdmonton, they had a whole bunch of skilled young players that didn’t play the game the way our coaches coached. So I thought he’d be fine. We didn’t expect him to come in and do too much. We expected him to be a good defender and he’d be fine. That’s what we’ve gotten out of him."

Berube and Hakstol clearly agree, because they both entrenched him in their lineups.
- bmeltzer

Mason agrees, too.

shows self to the door

The list would include Cokehead Stevens, Jonathan Cheechoo, Alexander Daigle, and Bob Probert. Then again, Stevens played with Lemieux and Jagr, Cheechoo and Daigle were playing on the top line, and Probert made people terrified to come near him.
- jmatchett383

Agree with it or disagree, but here is the answer to the "why" question.


Ron Hextall on Schultz: "You still have to defend. You can’t just have six puck movers, even though a lot of people these days seem to think that. You still have to defend. Those two-way guys are valuable, valuable players. When a guy is just a puck mover, you get into matchup problems. You have to hide those guys, and that’s especially tough to do on the road. People will say those big, slow defensive guys have no role anymore. Yeah, more and more, they’re out. But if you have a guy who can defend and maybe he isn’t great with the puck but he’s OK, he can be a good complement to a guy who can move the puck well. But you still need to defend. A lot of it is stick. I always liked Schultzy from the time I was scouting here. He was a pro, through and through. He competed every night. He’s a great defender; good stick, poised, blocks a lot of shots. His skating was an asset and he’s still pretty mobile even now. He keeps himself in shape, and he leads by example. He shows up and competes every night. He always knew what he is as a player and what he had to do to help the team. He just goes about his business. So I talked to our scouts about him and they still liked him pretty well. Above all, we wanted to add character and Schultzy is a character player. Also, it was a one-year deal, the price wasn’t very high so there wasn’t really much risk. He’s done a good job for us. I have a ton of respect for Nick. He’s a pro’s pro. I hope our young players are watching. Schultzy is a very structured player. When he was inEdmonton, they had a whole bunch of skilled young players that didn’t play the game the way our coaches coached. So I thought he’d be fine. We didn’t expect him to come in and do too much. We expected him to be a good defender and he’d be fine. That’s what we’ve gotten out of him."

Berube and Hakstol clearly agree, because they both entrenched him in their lineups.
- bmeltzer

I have a very neutral stance on Schultz. I hated him two pre-seasons ago. Thought he was toast.. but he played very well last season. This year he has had some struggles, but he still plays a pretty sound game, and can skate better than I thought. He has a terrible shot (even he was surprised by that cannon a couple of games ago) but can move the puck a little bit. Terrible at trying to handle the puck. A guy doesnt make it to 1000 games for nothing though.

Mason agrees, too.

shows self to the door
- Scoob

I like Schultz.

More importantly though, does he provide.. Structure?

Agree with it or disagree, but here is the answer to the "why" question.


Ron Hextall on Schultz: "You still have to defend. You can’t just have six puck movers, even though a lot of people these days seem to think that. You still have to defend. Those two-way guys are valuable, valuable players. When a guy is just a puck mover, you get into matchup problems. You have to hide those guys, and that’s especially tough to do on the road. People will say those big, slow defensive guys have no role anymore. Yeah, more and more, they’re out. But if you have a guy who can defend and maybe he isn’t great with the puck but he’s OK, he can be a good complement to a guy who can move the puck well. But you still need to defend. A lot of it is stick. I always liked Schultzy from the time I was scouting here. He was a pro, through and through. He competed every night. He’s a great defender; good stick, poised, blocks a lot of shots. His skating was an asset and he’s still pretty mobile even now. He keeps himself in shape, and he leads by example. He shows up and competes every night. He always knew what he is as a player and what he had to do to help the team. He just goes about his business. So I talked to our scouts about him and they still liked him pretty well. Above all, we wanted to add character and Schultzy is a character player. Also, it was a one-year deal, the price wasn’t very high so there wasn’t really much risk. He’s done a good job for us. I have a ton of respect for Nick. He’s a pro’s pro. I hope our young players are watching. Schultzy is a very structured player. When he was inEdmonton, they had a whole bunch of skilled young players that didn’t play the game the way our coaches coached. So I thought he’d be fine. We didn’t expect him to come in and do too much. We expected him to be a good defender and he’d be fine. That’s what we’ve gotten out of him."

Berube and Hakstol clearly agree, because they both entrenched him in their lineups.
- bmeltzer

This was clearly written in the midst of last season ("it was a one-year deal, the price wasn’t very high so there wasn’t really much risk") which, admittedly, he looked good until the latter portion of. That said, I have issues with the following:

"maybe he isn’t great with the puck but he’s OK" - if by "OK" you mean haphazardly throws pucks up the far wall blindly, or dumps the puck behind the net 95/100 times from the point, then yes, he's "OK."

"He’s a great defender" - I want to know Hexy's defintion of "great." I'm guessing it's "average to above average" because that's what Schultz is defensively.

"he’s still pretty mobile even now." - I'm assuming this was using broken Umberger as a comparison.