AJgoal

Bert, Wish I knew. I have a very basic man/zone understanding of hockey defenses, and without knowing exaclty who is supposed to be doing what, I'm not sure if one big body would be enough. I think with their speed and relatively small size, a zone d might work better for this team - but who knows. I do think we'll see some adjustments, but it will take time. I do think that the leadership on this team will have a big say in getting the play turned around as well.

Bert, I wonder how easy that is to do at the NHL level. Implementing a new defensive system just doesn't seem to me to be the easiest thing to do when you're playing every other night, especially when the team has been playing this style all season. If he does change the defensive style, I'm not sure it'll be something we'd see right away, either. Players will revert to the old style out of habit until the new style finally becomes habit, and until every player is doing it all the time, we may not notice.

@ SoCal: One of the things to take into account as well is how often our d-men's shots go wide, high, or are blocked. If you're arguing for more point shots, I'm with you, but I think our d-men do take a lot of shots. It just seems that, aside from Timonen, very seldom do those point shots get on net.

@radoran. As I said, I haven't watched Ep. 3 either, but HF101 posted a quote in the thread of Laviolette after the second period in NY, pretty much what you said:

I didn't see the episode yet, but the Flyers shot totals were 33 - 30 - 30 - 31 over the last four games (Col - Dal - NYR - TB). In contrast, the Rangers were 21 - 25 - 24 - 31 over their last four (NJD, PHI, NYI, NYI). Broken down by period, the Flyers took an average of 13 shots in the first period, 7.5 in the second (skewed down slightly due to the 3 taken in the TB game, which I'm not sure was part of the episode), and 10.5 in the third. Rangers averaged 7.75 / 8 / 9.5. The only other periods where the Flyers had less than 10 shots on goal were the first against the Rangers, which was then a tie game, and the second versus Dallas, after which the Flyers held a two goal lead. This team shoots a lot (31.7 shots per game, 7th in the league). I'm not sure what more Laviolette could accomplish by telling them to shoot the puck more. There's no need to remind the team to do what they've been doing consitently if you want them to do something else that you're not doing as well. Conversely, the Rangers are 26th in the league in SOG with 27.3/game, so Tortorella trying to drill it into his guys to shoot more makes sense.

Leach, I think a lot of it is due to the increased safety protocols. I'm sure that the speed and violence of player impacts are contributing, but increased awareness and sensitivity to the potential effects are probably at least equally "to blame" for the increasing number of players out with concussions. Where before guys would "get their bell rung" and keep playing, they're now sitting 3, 4 games just as precautions.

Canoli, Zac's roommate was Harry Z. I'm enjoying the show so far. I didn't watch last year because I didn't get HBO, so I have nothing to compare it to. One thing I don't like is the fact that it makes the Rangers look like human beings. Makes it harder to hate them. Well, except for Avery, cause it made him look like even more of a douche.

I agree. I never *hated* him the way I hated Barnaby, Kaspar, Stevens, etc., but I never liked him, either. I was unsure about signing him, never really thought of Jagr as a leader, but it seems to be working out so far. And if he's willing to go another 1 year contract, I don't think it would necessarily be a bad idea to bring him back.

Correct. The Flyers will have *some* of his salary available as a credit, depending on when he was placed on LTIR. Remember, just because a player goes on LTIR, doesn't mean the team gets his cap number in available salary. It's prorated, and based on how far under the cap they are when the player goes on LTIR. They get a credit equal to the player's cap salary minus any available space under the cap at the time of assignment. Right now, I believe Pronger is already on LTIR, so they won't get any additional credits with the new announcement.

I'm trying to figure out what's up with Schenn's cap hit. Based on what was reported early in the season, it shouldn't be 3+ million anymore, since he didn't play in all 82 games this year.

I believe you are correct. There is no cap in the playoffs, therefore Pronger would (theoretically) be able to play. I don't think he would need to come off LTIR before the playoffs to be elligible. Aziz should be able to confirm that, or let you know if I'm talking out of my rear again...

Not really, depending on what you're willing to move to bring him in. I'd give serious consideration to moving JVR if the Flyers can get Weber signed long term. Moving him along with demoting Marshall, Walker, Harry Z., and Bourdon pretty much clears what you would need. Without a new CBA in place, speculating on future years isn't really worthwhile right now.

Gotcha, makes sense.

Why would the NHLPA have an issue with a player remaining on LTIR? He's still getting paid, and he's not being put at risk for further injury. I would think that's exactly the kind of thing they'd be in favor of.

I would hope so. I still have lingering effects from a few mild ones suffered 6+ years ago. Crosby didn't take any big hit and is back out of the lineup. With how much we don't know about them, if a player decided to hang them up after suffering from severe PCS, I'd hope the league would support the player and allow him to retire cleanly.

Unless they (hopefully) address it in the new CBA. I'd like to see an injury exemption for the over 35 rule, especially in the case of a concussion. Maybe something like if a player is placed on LTIR for greater than 50% of one season, and is placed on LTIR to start the next season with no timetable to return, they can retire due to injury and the cap hit comes off. I said it before, but the charade that's been played with Lappy and Rathje before him, and I'm sure others around the league, is ludicrous.

Niedermeyer wasn't injured. He had contemplated retirement and skipped training camp. Pronger was named Captain in the beginning of the season to replace an apparently retired player. Completely different situation. I also don't see the need to give someone the "C." You already have Timmonen, Briere, Talbot, and Giroux wearing A's. Is changing one of those to a "C" really going to matter all that much? There's leadership in place, designating one of those guys the Captain for the remainder of this year isn't going to make him any more of a leader on and off the ice. It's not like the team has been losing without Pronger and needs something to get them motivated.

It sticks with the Flyers until his contract expires in five years, as he was over 35 when his extension kicked in. The Flyers will likely LTIR him each season if he is done to get relief to get around this, but it's not as "clean" as just getting his cap hit removed from the books. The Flyers would want to be right at the cap when they place him on LTIR to get maximum credit, and it may hamper what they can do in the offseason. The over 35 rule was intended to prevent teams from signing guys to ridiculously long contracts in order to circumvent the cap, knowing full well that the player wouldn't be playing that long. But a guy retiring due to a severe injury is quite different from someone retiring because he doesn't feel he's competitive anymore. Case in point: Everyone knows Lappy "retired" last season, but they're keeping up the charade just because he has to pretend that he's coming back. There's no penalty being handed out, so what's the point? This is something I'd like to see addressed in the new CBA.

1. Flyers projected cap space next year is 4.5 million, with only Jagr, Carle, and Voracek on the healthy roster needing contracts (Harry Z, Marshall, and Bourdon are RFAs, as well, and I assume that Laperriere and Bets will not be re-signed). If you assume Pronger is done, that's another 4.9 million. This also assumes that the cap stays the same, which with a new CBA needed, is impossible to judge which way it will go. but it isn't as impossible as it seems on the face. 2. Giroux, Couturier, Talbot, Read. Talbot's the oldest at 27. While I'm not in favor of ditching Schenn, It's not like the Flyers have a dearth of young players able to play top 9 minutes at center, either.

Not sure that will be enough. On the surface, they're still 266 thousand over. That's with Lilja and Gus still on LTIR, Marshall, Walker, and Z sent down. Bourdon goes down when either Lilja or Gus comes back, but that basically evens out. Schenn may have to go back down, again, if you want to fit Weber in. Of course, if you want to bring Weber in, you may be trading Schenn anyway.

According to capgeek, Pronger is on LTIR already, giving the Flyers a bit over 2 million in cap credit right now. However, that also includes Gus and Lilja, who will be coming off soon. They'd need to shed over 2 million in pro-rated salary to fit Weber in under the cap this year. Suter, on the other hand, may fit.

Guess I'm in the minority, but I don't think the team can assign someone else the "C" at this stage. Pronger hasn't retired, and you don't take the captaincy away from a guy due to injury, it sends the wrong message. What if Pronger comes out of this perfectly fine at the start of next year (I realize it's a long shot, but not outside the realm of possibility)? Do you give it back to him, thereby stripping your newly anointed captain of the "C"? On the other hand, if Pronger were to voluntarily give it up, stand in front of the team and say, "Thank you for letting me be captain, but you need a leader on the ice," then you can assign a new captain, and then I think it goes to Kimmo. I think he's really been quietly leading the team all season, has a great presence on the ice, and is a natural choice.

The problem with grading concussions is that the brain is such a complex thing that we don't really understand at all - all the research and knowledge we have barely scratch the surface. And everyone who has had one reacts differently to it. As a counterpoint to Aziz's story: My vehicle was caught in an explosion and I banged my head on an instrument panel (from about 3-4 inches away, with a helmet on). I ended up with what might have been called a "mild" concussion back then (way back in 2004) - few headaches, nothing major (it seemed). A couple years later, I took a stick across the bridge of my nose which resulted in a minor break and likely another "mild" concussion. To this day I still have memory issues to the point where I lose what I was talking about mid-sentence at times. Neither of these incidents caused me to lose consciousness, neither was particularly violent (the stick shot just happened to catch me just right). But here I am, 6 years later, still suffering from some signs of PCS. All I'm trying to illustrate here is that it's just so hard to know anything about what's going on in the brain, which may be why they're getting away from claassifying concussions based on symptoms. Since every trauma is different, there's no way to be sure how the brain will react in any particular case. At least with increased understanding, we're seeing increased caution after the fact. Hopefully we'll see better head protection and less plastic armor on players.

While I hate to see Giroux hurt, how nice is it to be "arguing" whether Read or Couturier is the better fit on the top line on the merits of the two players, not based on their failings? I think either would be fine up on the top line. I'm also fine with keeping Briere where he is. In a situation like this, I'd rather juggle the first and 3rd or 4th line, than the first and 2nd, if you can get away with it talent wise.

I'd do it like the NFL - that year's salary plus a pro-rated portion of any signing bonus.