The reality is that at a team should do both. They should have a blend of safer picks, and picks where they're taking a chance on a player who is highly skilled, but may have a deficiency in size or skating. Many discount that sometimes the safe player can also turn out to be more. It's crazy that picks made on a player such as Goulbourne is instantly declared a bad pick.
- MJL

Goulbourne was a bad pick because of where he was taken, not because he was selected

I think the Flyers do mix well...most recently with Dove McFalls as a good example

Not sure where the idea came from that Laughton never projected to be more than a 3rd line center. I assure you the Flyers didn't draft him in the first round thinking he was a 3rd line center
- MJL

I think Scott Laughton personifies some of Homer's failings in the draft. Check out his pre-draft report from HockeyWriters.

http://thehockeywriters.c...-you-can-bet-a-laught-on/

"While Laughton is not the most talented player of the draft, he is certainly one of the most combative and hard-working players available."

"While he certainly will never be a point-per-game player in the NHL, Laughton has good-enough offensive skills to produce on a relatively regular basis while neutralizing the opponent’s best line"

Laughton struggled out of the gate but rode a strong second half into a 1st round selection. That seems to have worked in picking Sanheim, but maybe not as much for Laughton. One second projected him as a good 2nd line center or great 3rd line center.

I will admit though that 2012 overall seems to be a pretty weak draft. All things considered, he'll end up being a decent pick. But that is more an indictment of how weak the class was than his upside.

He was picked as a guy who has all of the tools that Hagg has but is undersized. They were hoping for a Tyler Jonson on defense with him. Was a long shot, but they didn't pick him with a ceiling of ECHL/4th line grinder.
- jmatchett383

you don't go into any draft thinking the guy you took will play in the lower levels only I wouldn't think. though I think you ask yourself will he be a pro player.

Goulbourne was a bad pick because of where he was taken, not because he was selected

I think the Flyers do mix well...most recently with Dove McFalls as a good example
- YuenglingJagr

Why was he a bad pick because of where he was taken?

I think Scott Laughton personifies some of Homer's failings in the draft. Check out his pre-draft report from HockeyWriters.

http://thehockeywriters.c...-you-can-bet-a-laught-on/

"While Laughton is not the most talented player of the draft, he is certainly one of the most combative and hard-working players available."

"While he certainly will never be a point-per-game player in the NHL, Laughton has good-enough offensive skills to produce on a relatively regular basis while neutralizing the opponent’s best line"

Laughton struggled out of the gate but rode a strong second half into a 1st round selection. That seems to have worked in picking Sanheim, but maybe not as much for Laughton. One second projected him as a good 2nd line center or great 3rd line center.

I will admit though that 2012 overall seems to be a pretty weak draft. All things considered, he'll end up being a decent pick. But that is more an indictment of how weak the class was than his upside.
- TheGreat28

I am a bit confused as to your overall connotation of your post. Seems like you were against the pick, but then say there isnt much better. He is still a kid (except for his hairline).

I think Scott Laughton personifies some of Homer's failings in the draft. Check out his pre-draft report from HockeyWriters.

http://thehockeywriters.c...-you-can-bet-a-laught-on/

"While Laughton is not the most talented player of the draft, he is certainly one of the most combative and hard-working players available."

"While he certainly will never be a point-per-game player in the NHL, Laughton has good-enough offensive skills to produce on a relatively regular basis while neutralizing the opponent’s best line"

Laughton struggled out of the gate but rode a strong second half into a 1st round selection. That seems to have worked in picking Sanheim, but maybe not as much for Laughton. One second projected him as a good 2nd line center or great 3rd line center.

I will admit though that 2012 overall seems to be a pretty weak draft. All things considered, he'll end up being a decent pick. But that is more an indictment of how weak the class was than his upside.
- TheGreat28

You can take all of that and throw it in the toilet. It's worthless. A player can personify a GM's failures, when he hasn't even played one complete season in the NHL? Might be just a tad premature.
I remember there was a poll taken among NHL scouts, for a sort of a redraft of where players would go a year after they were drafted. Laughton was rated to move into the top 10 of the draft. It's early, very early in fact.

You can take all of that and throw it in the toilet. It's worthless. A player can personify a GM's failures, when he hasn't even played one complete season in the NHL? Might be just a tad premature.
I remember there was a poll taken among NHL scouts, for a sort of a redraft of where players would go a year after they were drafted. Laughton was rated to move into the top 10 of the draft. It's early, very early in fact.
- MJL

where would he go now in your opinion?

I am a bit confused as to your overall connotation of your post. Seems like you were against the pick, but then say there isnt much better. He is still a kid (except for his hairline).
- YuenglingJagr

Haha...that's what I get for posting while on a conference call. My point is this. Holmgren tended to go for hard-working over skill. Maybe in this case he deserves the benefit of the doubt because the draft really was weak. But Laughton was a Holmgren-kind of player regardless of the lack of options when they picked.

My problem with kids who have moderate success in Juniors through hard-work vs. skill is that it's often not sustainable at the NHL level.

Why was he a bad pick because of where he was taken?
- MJL

I am not going to play the game where I pick out guys who turned out better than him 3 years after it happened...but there were SEVERAL guys still on the board with a lot more upside and skill than Goulbourne. You think the Flyers HAD to have him so much that it was worth picking him before the 5th round?

I am not going to play the game where I pick out guys who turned out better than him 3 years after it happened...but there were SEVERAL guys still on the board with a lot more upside and skill than Goulbourne. You think the Flyers HAD to have him so much that it was worth picking him before the 5th round?
- YuenglingJagr

Upside according to who? You can play that game in every draft, in every round. Where did the Flyers have him rated? GM's and scouts with decades of experience get it wrong. I'm not a fan who thinks he can a read a few scouting reports and knows where players should be ranked or what their upside is.

Upside according to who? You can play that game in every draft, in every round. Where did the Flyers have him rated? GM's and scouts with decades of experience get it wrong. I'm not a fan who thinks he can a read a few scouting reports and knows where players should be ranked or what their upside is.
- MJL

mike milbury

Upside according to who? You can play that game in every draft, in every round. Where did the Flyers have him rated? GM's and scouts with decades of experience get it wrong. I'm not a fan who thinks he can a read a few scouting reports and knows where players should be ranked or what their upside is.
- MJL

Chris Pryor, Flyers director of scouting: "I know people wondered why we took Tyrell in the third round last year. There was some agreement there as far as we knew we had to take him a little bit earlier than we wanted to, but didn’t have a fourth-round pick and we knew we probably weren’t going to get him later. So we had to step up a little bit.

Upside according to who? You can play that game in every draft, in every round. Where did the Flyers have him rated? GM's and scouts with decades of experience get it wrong. I'm not a fan who thinks he can a read a few scouting reports and knows where players should be ranked or what their upside is.
- MJL

I am not suggesting that I know where guys should be ranked or what their upside is...but based off of the information that I had it was clear. I think it is safe to assume that the Flyers would have even more information.

I specifically said I am not going to play that game because I know how easy it is to do. However, there were clear signs of certain guys having more skill and being more prolific players at the NHL level, and the Flyers go off board for a guy averaging less than a half point per game? It wasnt a good pick then, and you are trying to back it up even with the benefit of hindsight?

Chris Pryor, Flyers director of scouting: "I know people wondered why we took Tyrell in the third round last year. There was some agreement there as far as we knew we had to take him a little bit earlier than we wanted to, but didn’t have a fourth-round pick and we knew we probably weren’t going to get him later. So we had to step up a little bit.
- YuenglingJagr

That indicates to me that they liked the player a lot, for whatever reason. We'll find out if they're right or not.

That indicates to me that they liked the player a lot, for whatever reason. We'll find out if they're right or not.
- MJL

It is obvious they liked him, they drafted him. That was just their explanation for "reaching" Still a poor choice for an organization who needed skill

I am not suggesting that I know where guys should be ranked or what their upside is...but based off of the information that I had it was clear. I think it is safe to assume that the Flyers would have even more information.

I specifically said I am not going to play that game because I know how easy it is to do. However, there were clear signs of certain guys having more skill and being more prolific players at the NHL level, and the Flyers go off board for a guy averaging less than a half point per game? It wasnt a good pick then, and you are trying to back it up even with the benefit of hindsight?
- YuenglingJagr

Well we disagree then. Really by saying it wasn't a good pick then, you're playing that game. You're basing it on what you read from certain sources. My thoughts are that what outside sources think about a player, and what the Flyers think about a player, can be two different things. What ultimately determines how good of a pick it was, is how it turns out. There's no hindsight involved, because the picture is not complete. Again, what are the sources of these clear signs? That's the entire point. Points are not everything.

It is obvious they liked him, they drafted him. That was just their explanation for "reaching" Still a poor choice for an organization who needed skill
- YuenglingJagr

There's no way it can be labeled a poor choice at this point. That's the fallacy.

Well we disagree then. Really by saying it wasn't a good pick then, you're playing that game. You're basing it on what you read from certain sources. My thoughts are that what outside sources think about a player, and what the Flyers think about a player, can be two different things. What ultimately determines how good of a pick it was, is how it turns out. There's no hindsight involved, because the picture is not complete. Again, what are the sources of these clear signs? That's the entire point. Points are not everything.
- MJL

What else are you supposed to base it on if I might ask?

It is completely clear the flyers thought different about the player than others. THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT A BAD PICK. Sure let's wait and see....when does that end? 1st year into the league? 300 games? entire career?

The Flyers reached for a guy that fights people and plays with grit over guys who are more talented and have more upside...there is no other way to define a bad pick

You made a point earlier that Laughton would have been top 10 if they did a redraft...does that make him a good pick?

Whatever you do, dont sit here and just say we have to wait and see because there is literally nothing more pointless than that. Why even comment on something if you are going to take that approach?

What else are you supposed to base it on if I might ask?

It is completely clear the flyers thought different about the player than others. THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT A BAD PICK. Sure let's wait and see....when does that end? 1st year into the league? 300 games? entire career?


- YuenglingJagr

That makes zero sense. What I'm saying is whatever anyone says, whatever website you want to read, or whatever draft pundits opinion you want to read, doesn't mean jack squat. All that matter's is what happens. If Goulbourne turns out to be a regular NHL player, than there is no way it can be considered a bad pick. It's that imple.

The Flyers reached for a guy that fights people and plays with grit over guys who are more talented and have more upside...there is no other way to define a bad pick


- YuenglingJagr

Again, I disagree. Maybe the Flyers feel he can be more than just a fighter and a player with grit. If the talented player with more upside, never makes it to the NHL, and Goulbourne does, regardless of what kind of player he turns out to be at the NHL, he was a better pick than the more talented player with upside. Yet to be determined.

You made a point earlier that Laughton would have been top 10 if they did a redraft...does that make him a good pick?



- YuenglingJagr

That is incorrect. What I said was that there was a poll taken of NHL scouts on where Laughton would rank on a re-draft. What will decide if it was a good pick or not, is how he turns out as a player.

Whatever you do, dont sit here and just say we have to wait and see because there is literally nothing more pointless than that. Why even comment on something if you are going to take that approach?
- YuenglingJagr

First of all, I'll post as I choose. Secondly, it's actually the opposite of that. Stating that a pick is a bad pick before it plays out, is what is pointless. Unless of course you think that projections actually matter more than how the player actually turns out.

Rick Tocchett was a 6th round pick. Jamie Benn was a 5th round pick.

"... he is certainly one of the most combative and hard-working players available."
- TheGreat28

While I agree with you that prioritizing skill/upside throughout the draft is paramount, any player taken needs a healthy dose of the above in order to have any chance of making it.

High skill players w/ a chip on their shoulders/something to prove/have transcended adversity.

Flyers have always done a good job identifying that kind of player in the late-1st: Giroux, Gagne, Williams, etc. For whatever reason, they don't really do the same earlier in the 1st and in subsequent rounds (save for Forsberg and Ghost).

Back to Laughton: his skill was really underrated pre-draft.