Michael Leighton out one month with bulging disc; Ian Laperriere out indefinitely with post-concussion issues

Because Geoff said so! Duh!

What good does Guerin do on a line with Powe and Shelley? Guerin averaged 0.42 seconds of PK time per game last year, so he doesn’t solve that problem.

Further, what exactly is a Guerin – Powe – Shelley line expected to do when they’re on the ice? Guerin scored 21 goals last year. Shelley has scored 16 goals in his 538 career games. That line isn’t scoring, it isn’t a line you can dispatch in the defensive zone, and it isn’t a line full of guys who can find ice time in special teams scenarios. In other words, it’s a wasted line that you constantly have to sneak out against the other team’s 4th line, hope they don’t get scored on, and tell them the objective for the next 40 seconds is… run in three different directions? Billy G – score some goals! Darroll P – Play some defense! Jody S – Smash some faces!

No reason why he can’t learn to adapt his game to be a good to really good PKer if he has the will to do so and he is accepting of that role.

But why tell a guy to stop being who he is, stop being what got him into the NHL, stop doing what has kept him in the NHL, and do something the team already has in Nodl?

It doesn’t make sense, especially when you can save $200k by using the guy who’s already really good at the role you need, instead of teaching a more expensive guy something he doesn’t yet know how to do.

There’s a difference between Carcillo being one-dimensional and a Carcillo – Powe – Shelley line being one-dimensional.

Carcillo was effective on the fourth line because he was told: Betts and Lappy are going to shut down the opposition. You will help them by being smart, and crashing bodies. When you put him with Powe and Shelley, who’s the defensive stalwart? Powe. So you no longer have Carcillo as the compliment, but now Powe is. What do you want out of that line? In other words, who do you put those three on the ice against? What zone do they start in? What is considered a win when the shift is over? How much ice time will they get per game?

The answers to those questions are either unclear (what’s a win? what do you want?) or not an effective use of three forward sports (how much ice time? who do they play against?).

Richie is the best PK’er in the NHL, and when you dont play him, then you hurt the team more.

That’s just not true. The team had the exact same PK success rate. Richards ice time dropped by 1:20 per game this year, which was 43 minutes less over the season. He scored exactly 1 fewer goal than the year before. So: you save your best players by giving them less ice time in the regular season, but less than 2 games worth; Richards’ scores the same amount of goals; the team’s PK is just as successful; your goal scorers spend more time in scoring situations; and it only costs you 10 goals?

I don’t see anything wrong with that at all. Oh, and Richards went from 7 SH goals to 2, but from 8 PP goals to 13. So, Richards’ special teams play resulted in the exact same number of goals.

Read what Geoff wrote below, he said it better than I could.

Basically, if Richards were bionic, and didn’t play a style of game that takes a major toll on his body, then I would agree with you. Your argument is based on the fact that if he plays those minutes on the PK he could still play his increased minutes at ES and on the PP that he played last year. To take your argument further, why not just play Richards the entire game? B/c physically he can’t. And being able to take away a minute per game of tough ice time to put him at ES or PP situations, you are more likely to get goals. Short handed goals aren’t something any team in the league counts on, and that should not be a plan to winning. I’m not saying don’t play Richards on the PK, but rather save his legs for a significant portion of it so he can’t help you in other areas.

Holmgren, who said he "kind of had a clue" as to how Laperriere was feeling, said Laperriere was not "completely honest" with the Flyers medical staff as to his condition before returning to the ice in the playoffs. Holmgren said “before he played last year, the spot didn’t go away but the bleeding had stopped.”

So the TEAM knew that Laperriere still had a spot on his brain. Holmgren “kind of” knew Laperriere was lying to them. None of Laperriere, Holmgren, or the team thought that this guy, who has a spot on his brain, who they suspect is lying to them, and they kind of know is dealing with PCS should be held out of the lineup.

Does blame deserve to be spread all around? Yeah, but those quotes tell me that a) Laperriere is who we all thought he was – a guy who wants to play no matter what; b) He’ll play at less than 100%; c) He’ll play with little regard for his own future; d) The Flyers are perfectly fine letting a guy who has a spot on his brain play hockey; and e) Holmgren is perfectly fine ignoring his suspicions and assumptions that a guy is seriously injured.

If a player passes those there is nothing else the doctors can do.

Not that I’m a medical expert, but I seriously question a test that considers a spot on the brain “passing”, but even still, if the doctors can’t do anything, the team certainly can. It’s not entirely on the player, especially since…

The MRI results were cleared. They weren’t going to let him play until that was the case.

the MRI results weren’t clean.

True. It’s a lose/lose situation. I just hope he can get past it and keep playing.