There's no hard evidence that either philosophy works better.

To me, it boils down to what the NHL game can do to an 18 or 19-year-old body. It's a rough sport and most teenagers aren't at the physical compete level of guys in their 20's and 30's.

So, to me, it's riskier to keep them in the NHL. And that's what it's all about for me and what I believe -- risk management.
- bradleyc4

Hard evidence isn't needed. Each player is an individual and a different situation. It's pretty clear that Scott Laughton doesn't belong in Junior Hockey. You get better by challenging yourself, and playing against a higher level of competition. It is a rough sport, that's why you manage a players minutes and spot scratch him here or there if you have to. Laughton playing 50 games in the NHL would be infinitely better for his development then the 4th year he's currently playing in Junior hockey in my opinion. Don't see a big risk.

)

It will be .. 7-0 Rangers.. we don't do well against other team's backup tenders.
- Hextall271

We are icing our AHL team... and I wish I was exaggerating.

)

It will be .. 7-0 Rangers.. we don't do well against other team's backup tenders.
- Hextall271

or starters

or starters
- nastyflyergirl

yeaaaaaaaaa

We are icing our AHL team... and I wish I was exaggerating.
- mrhattrick27

Kreider will look like the second coming of Pavel Bure- have no fears.

We are icing our AHL team... and I wish I was exaggerating.
- mrhattrick27

We couldn't score on the Greenville Growl right now so just have them throw their sticks on the ice, you'll be fine.

No worries, Flyers usually make back up goalies look like Vezina finalists
- missingmike

Have no fear, due to a translation error in the Flyers' organization, they spell "opposing backup goalie" this way: "Reigning Vezina winner."
- Flyskippy

)
It will be .. 7-0 Rangers.. we don't do well against other team's backup tenders.
- Hextall271

backup goalie joke hat trick for mr. hat trick

from dan rosen on nhl.com

Reese pushes Mason back, brings out his Calder form

While reluctant to talk about the adjustments he has helped Steve Mason make, Philadelphia Flyers goalie coach Jeff Reese did at least concede that one of the major changes is that Mason is playing deeper in his crease and it's making him a more effective goaltender.

Mason, with his 2.37 goals-against average and .923 save percentage, has been the lone bright spot in what has been a dismal start to the season for the Flyers.

"It just simplifies his game and makes him more efficient," Reese told NHL.com on why he's had Mason play deeper. "It makes him work less. It's an easier game. You're there and you can play a lot of games on a consistent level. If it's a smaller goalie you can't do that. Like Jonathan Quick, he's way out and he's very quick side to side. It works for him. [Mason] still has to read the game, but this makes him more efficient and under control."

Reese said Mason's size -- he's 6-foot-4, 217 pounds -- is a big reason why he felt playing deeper would make him play better.

"I want him to beat the pass and be there for the shot because that way if the guy one-times it or throws it back, he can just adjust," Reese said. "If you're out farther you've got a longer way to go. The theory also is he's going to make three or four saves in the course of a game that he might not otherwise make. The downside is you're going to get beat with the odd shot or the odd high tip or deflection, but I always want him in position. I think a guy that big should never be out of position."

well Newberry has been sent down.

Hard evidence isn't needed. Each player is an individual and a different situation. It's pretty clear that Scott Laughton doesn't belong in Junior Hockey. You get better by challenging yourself, and playing against a higher level of competition. It is a rough sport, that's why you manage a players minutes and spot scratch him here or there if you have to. Laughton playing 50 games in the NHL would be infinitely better for his development then the 4th year he's currently playing in Junior hockey in my opinion. Don't see a big risk.
- MJL

At the end of camp it was determined that Laughton wasn't yet NHL ready hence he was sent down. No great surprise.

I can't comment on the risk because I don't know the kid's mental or physical makeup. Perhaps it would've been detrimental to his growth if he didn't play substantial minutes or in key situations, or perhaps he wasn't physically ready.

After he was sent down, he currently is having a great start and that's exactly what I was hoping for, like the Flyers brass was hoping for. I don't really see how it will stunt his development. I won't second guess the decision to do so because I agreed it was the correct decision then.

Bottom line...he didn't play at the level he needed to play at in camp to be considered a keeper.

At the end of camp it was determined that Laughton wasn't yet NHL ready hence he was sent down. No great surprise.

I can't comment on the risk because I don't know the kid's mental or physical makeup. Perhaps it would've been detrimental to his growth if he didn't play substantial minutes or in key situations, or perhaps he wasn't physically ready.

After he was sent down, he currently is having a great start and that's exactly what I was hoping for, like the Flyers brass was hoping for. I don't really see how it will stunt his development. I won't second guess the decision to do so because I agreed it was the correct decision then.

Bottom line...he didn't play at the level he needed to play at in camp to be considered a keeper.
- 77rams

I'd sooner err on the side of caution and let a kid develop longer in juniors and minors that rush them. of course that said, I did want to see him play in a few games before being sent back.

It really depends. I don't think that Scott Laughton currently playing top dog for his Junior team is better then if they had kept him in the NHL. A young player that is capable of playing in the NHL, should be in the NHL. You get better by playing against tough competition. And against players that are better then you are. Not by beating up on younger and less mature players as a whole.
- MJL

The problem is, you're assuming that Laughton is "a young player capable of playing in the NHL" just because he's killing it in the OHL.

Fact is, you don't know that yet and there is just as much of a risk of hurting his development in the current Flyers environment as there is in letting him run amok in the OHL.

The problem is, you're assuming that Laughton is "a young player capable of playing in the NHL" just because he's killing it in the OHL.

Fact is, you don't know that yet and there is just as much of a risk of hurting his development in the current Flyers environment as there is in letting him run amok in the OHL.
- johndewar

As I recall, Laughton was sent down because he did not win a spot on the NHL club. Anyways, I really don't know suffering with this squad would've been better for him right now. At least this way, we get the benefit of not burning a year off his contract.

At the end of camp it was determined that Laughton wasn't yet NHL ready hence he was sent down. No great surprise.

I can't comment on the risk because I don't know the kid's mental or physical makeup. Perhaps it would've been detrimental to his growth if he didn't play substantial minutes or in key situations, or perhaps he wasn't physically ready.

After he was sent down, he currently is having a great start and that's exactly what I was hoping for, like the Flyers brass was hoping for. I don't really see how it will stunt his development. I won't second guess the decision to do so because I agreed it was the correct decision then.

Bottom line...he didn't play at the level he needed to play at in camp to be considered a keeper.
- 77rams

I think it was more about salary cap issues then anything. I have no doubt that Laughton is capable of playing in the NHL. What is happening is what I was afraid of. Laughton is playing against player that he is older then, more mature then, and just plain better then. I don't see what's so exciting about Laughton dominating a League that he is too good for.

Hard evidence isn't needed. Each player is an individual and a different situation. It's pretty clear that Scott Laughton doesn't belong in Junior Hockey. You get better by challenging yourself, and playing against a higher level of competition. It is a rough sport, that's why you manage a players minutes and spot scratch him here or there if you have to. Laughton playing 50 games in the NHL would be infinitely better for his development then the 4th year he's currently playing in Junior hockey in my opinion. Don't see a big risk.
- MJL

The kid didn't look out of place playing in the preseason. I think we would have been better off with Laughton in the lineup then Newbery or Rosehill.

As I recall, Laughton was sent down because he did not win a spot on the NHL club. Anyways, I really don't know suffering with this squad would've been better for him right now. At least this way, we get the benefit of not burning a year off his contract.
- BulliesPhan87

The kid belongs in the AHL like Bill (and many of us) were saying.

But since the AHL wasn't (and isn't) an option, I don't see why a bit more time in the OHL would hurt him.

I think being here, with the Flyers playing poorly and disjointed, could hurt him more, actually.

The problem is, you're assuming that Laughton is "a young player capable of playing in the NHL" just because he's killing it in the OHL.

Fact is, you don't know that yet and there is just as much of a risk of hurting his development in the current Flyers environment as there is in letting him run amok in the OHL.
- johndewar

You're right, I don't know it for a fact. I think he is capable of playing in the NHL. I'm sure there would've been some struggles along the way, but that's good for him. It's a lot better then dominating a League that he is too advanced for.

The kid belongs in the AHL like Bill (and many of us) were saying.

But since the AHL wasn't (and isn't) an option, I don't see why a bit more time in the OHL would hurt him.

I think being here, with the Flyers playing poorly and disjointed, could hurt him more, actually.
- johndewar

I figure it's a wash. It's not worth getting all hot and bothered about. He should be in the AHL, but whatcha gonna do, right?

I think it was more about salary cap issues then anything. I have no doubt that Laughton is capable of playing in the NHL. What is happening is what I was afraid of. Laughton is playing against player that he is older then, more mature then, and just plain better then. I don't see what's so exciting about Laughton dominating a League that he is too good for.
- MJL

I can't say whether he is capable or isn't. Those who know him more personally that anyone on this board make that call. What I do know is that it was deemed at the end of his second camp that it was better for his progress to be sent down.

The Flyers are one team who would rather rush a player than practice patience. That said, the fact that they sent Laughton back to juniors speaks volumes to me.

The problem is, you're assuming that Laughton is "a young player capable of playing in the NHL" just because he's killing it in the OHL.

Fact is, you don't know that yet and there is just as much of a risk of hurting his development in the current Flyers environment as there is in letting him run amok in the OHL.
- johndewar

not to mention having the ability/maturity to handle the life of being an NHL player at such a young age. he's a kid. some are capable. some aren't.

I can't say whether he is capable or isn't. Those who know him more personally that anyone on this board make that call. What I do know is that it was deemed at the end of his second camp that it was better for his progress to be sent down.

The Flyers are one team who would rather rush a player than practice patience. That said, the fact that they sent Laughton back to juniors speaks volumes to me.
- 77rams

I think it was about the salary cap, and that they didn't feel they could get him the ice time they wanted him to have, more then that he wasn't ready for the NHL.

I think it was about the salary cap, and that they didn't feel they could get him the ice time they wanted him to have, more then that he wasn't ready for the NHL.
- MJL

That may be so.

Regardless, hopefully, sending him down will inevitably prove to be the right decision.

from dan rosen on nhl.com

Reese pushes Mason back, brings out his Calder form

While reluctant to talk about the adjustments he has helped Steve Mason make, Philadelphia Flyers goalie coach Jeff Reese did at least concede that one of the major changes is that Mason is playing deeper in his crease and it's making him a more effective goaltender.

Mason, with his 2.37 goals-against average and .923 save percentage, has been the lone bright spot in what has been a dismal start to the season for the Flyers.

"It just simplifies his game and makes him more efficient," Reese told NHL.com on why he's had Mason play deeper. "It makes him work less. It's an easier game. You're there and you can play a lot of games on a consistent level. If it's a smaller goalie you can't do that. Like Jonathan Quick, he's way out and he's very quick side to side. It works for him.
- hammarby31[Mason] still has to read the game, but this makes him more efficient and under control."

Reese said Mason's size -- he's 6-foot-4, 217 pounds -- is a big reason why he felt playing deeper would make him play better.

"I want him to beat the pass and be there for the shot because that way if the guy one-times it or throws it back, he can just adjust," Reese said. "If you're out farther you've got a longer way to go. The theory also is he's going to make three or four saves in the course of a game that he might not otherwise make. The downside is you're going to get beat with the odd shot or the odd high tip or deflection, but I always want him in position. I think a guy that big should never be out of position."

this is good stuff, ty

I think it was about the salary cap, and that they didn't feel they could get him the ice time they wanted him to have, more then that he wasn't ready for the NHL.
- MJL

Paul Holmgren: "At the end of the day, we thought it was in the best interest for not only Scott, but also the Flyers. He can play a much more expanded role and continue to develop."
http://articles.philly.co...ude-giroux-sean-couturier

Paul Holmgren: "At the end of the day, we thought it was in the best interest for not only Scott, but also the Flyers. He can play a much more expanded role and continue to develop."
http://articles.philly.co...ude-giroux-sean-couturier
- bradleyc4

as i said the other day, the response from him after being sent back is what you want to see. not regression, stagnation, sulking.