- Thread starter
- #1
wbon22
Well-Known Member
- 1,563
- 176
- 63
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2011
- Location
- Cherry Hill, NJ
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
Did anyone notice (and if this has been commented on, I am sorry I missed the thread) the article with Berube where he says that the Organization hampered Couturier's offensive development?
Because he excelled so much as a rookie, playing a shutdown role, and was able to generate some points while shutting down the opposition he was simply written in as the 3rd line checking Center and PK specialist. This was after 1 season. The way Berube said it, is really sounds like this came from not just Laviolette, but also from above, meaning Homer. During his rookie season, when teamed with Read and Voracek, Couturier showed that he was a capable NHL offensive player, not a 1st liner, but capable. It had appeared in the following season plus that these offensive skills had simply been an illusion.
Now, Berube is trying to use Couturier in a role this is not so strictly shutdown. He has at times given him wingers (other than just Read) who have more offense in their game. At the same time, he has put Laughton on the 2nd line with Simmonds and Schenn.
It appears to me that they are trying to take almost an opposite approach with Laughton. He is being given the clearly more offensive upside line mates. I wonder what the result would be if they flipped the two from time to time. Put Laughton's quicker first step on the 3rd line and Couturier's bigger body and longer reach on the 2nd. One of the reads on Laughton was that he was a smaller faster Couturier, or a much faster and more polished Mike Richards.
I just find it interesting that a head coach, who was on the staff that made the decision, comes out and says they stunted a players development.
Because he excelled so much as a rookie, playing a shutdown role, and was able to generate some points while shutting down the opposition he was simply written in as the 3rd line checking Center and PK specialist. This was after 1 season. The way Berube said it, is really sounds like this came from not just Laviolette, but also from above, meaning Homer. During his rookie season, when teamed with Read and Voracek, Couturier showed that he was a capable NHL offensive player, not a 1st liner, but capable. It had appeared in the following season plus that these offensive skills had simply been an illusion.
Now, Berube is trying to use Couturier in a role this is not so strictly shutdown. He has at times given him wingers (other than just Read) who have more offense in their game. At the same time, he has put Laughton on the 2nd line with Simmonds and Schenn.
It appears to me that they are trying to take almost an opposite approach with Laughton. He is being given the clearly more offensive upside line mates. I wonder what the result would be if they flipped the two from time to time. Put Laughton's quicker first step on the 3rd line and Couturier's bigger body and longer reach on the 2nd. One of the reads on Laughton was that he was a smaller faster Couturier, or a much faster and more polished Mike Richards.
I just find it interesting that a head coach, who was on the staff that made the decision, comes out and says they stunted a players development.
