You're not considering the jump to the NHL as a factor. Highly skilled guys tend to shine in rookie pre season games. What we'd be talking about is irrelevant. How many of those skilled guys who shined in rookie games, never make the NHL? If whether or not we could pick him later is irrelevant, then why state that they could've picked him in the 5th round? Chris Pryor doesn't agree with that, by the way.
- MJL

Is that why Chris Pryor still drafts all those Goulbourne types with Hextall around?

I stated he probably could've been picked later and I also made an entire point before saying that. As I stated...that part is irrelevant so you can ignore it if you want.

What I am considering is that when the Flyers are on the clock, they have a decision to make. Deciding on Goulbourne was a mistake in my opinion, and it continues to be a mistake because draft picks arent made with 3-5 years of hindsight to evaluate. If the Flyers focused more on skill, we could have more skilled forwards in our system right now. We can literally see the effect that has on the Flyers right now. It is a team begging for more skill. I do not care one single bit if we end up missing out on a guy like Goulbourne

"Gerbils hurt more on the way out."
- jmatchett383

pfft... amateur. They were guinea pigs

pfft... amateur. They were guinea pigs
- Streit2ThePoint

Once you can fit a fox in there, you let me know.

The crazy thing is that Goul still hasnt done squat.

I think there are about 6-8 guys still ahead of him on that bottom 6 spot fight.

You have guys like Bardreau, Fazleev, Leier, NAK and a vet like McDonald.

You have current competition like Weal, VDV and that new russian kid.

Goul's development has been incredible, not predictable.
- jak521

You say incredible, i say inevitable
You say ridiculous, I say meticulous
Incredible, inevitable, ridiculous, meticulous
Let's play that whole thing back

Okay.. so he has played one year of professional hockey. Why do you keep making the arguement that you would take a guy who plays in the bottom 6 of an NHL team than a guy who has high skill and never plays in the NHL.

That isnt the case here.

In fact its quite opposite the case. People are saying that they would rather (in the top 3 rounds specifically) take a shot a talent. Because, all things are equal in that there is no guarantee that either player will make it. However, if one WERE to make it, they would rather it be the one who offers more than just a physical display.

Goul was a huge stretch in the 3rd. There were other guys who had fallen and/or had some question but offered a projectable skill set.

Thats what people want to see happen.

I remember leading up to this pick, myself and a few others were hoping that we could land a guy like Bjorkstrand or Andrighetto. Instead we opted for the physical and grinding jammer type in Goul.

It is very, very likely that a player with Gouls skillset/scoring prowess would be around at the very least another round. Why not wait. That is what we want to see happen. Take a flier on a guy like Bjorkstrand, and see that there will be 25 Goul-like players available later on.
- jak521

I'm aware of what others are saying, you're not aware of what I'm saying. My argument is that if a player picked with a 3rd round pick, winds up being an NHL player, then it was a good pick. Pretty simple. My argument is also that a pick can't be declared a bad pick, before the outcome is decided. My argument is that a team should have a mix of strategy in it's drafting philosophy. They should absolutely draft players with a high skill, but have question marks that have dropped the player in the draft, and that they should also mix in some "safer" picks, if there is such a thing, that has a lower upside, but perhaps a higher perceived percentage chance of making it to the NHL.

You say incredible, i say inevitable
You say ridiculous, I say meticulous
Incredible, inevitable, ridiculous, meticulous
Let's play that whole thing back
- KINGKENZO

Irresponsible

You say incredible, i say inevitable
You say ridiculous, I say meticulous
Incredible, inevitable, ridiculous, meticulous
Let's play that whole thing back
- KINGKENZO

Im more of a powerade guy

Is that why Chris Pryor still drafts all those Goulbourne types with Hextall around?

I stated he probably could've been picked later and I also made an entire point before saying that. As I stated...that part is irrelevant so you can ignore it if you want.

What I am considering is that when the Flyers are on the clock, they have a decision to make. Deciding on Goulbourne was a mistake in my opinion, and it continues to be a mistake because draft picks arent made with 3-5 years of hindsight to evaluate. If the Flyers focused more on skill, we could have more skilled forwards in our system right now. We can literally see the effect that has on the Flyers right now. It is a team begging for more skill. I do not care one single bit if we end up missing out on a guy like Goulbourne
- YuenglingJagr

There is no legitimate reason to label the pick a mistake at this point. Having more skilled forwards that were drafted is meaningless, if they never make the NHL. If Goulbourne makes the NHL, then he was a better pick, then if they had chosen a more skilled player, that never makes it. It's a no brainer.

Hextall is in the infancy of his GM career, in the NHL. Is German Rubtsov a high skilled, high scoring, fast player, or more of a hard nosed two way player?

Im more of a powerade guy
- jak521

Powerthirst or go home

I'm aware of what others are saying, you're not aware of what I'm saying. My argument is that if a player picked with a 3rd round pick, winds up being an NHL player, then it was a good pick. Pretty simple. My argument is also that a pick can't be declared a bad pick, before the outcome is decided. My argument is that a team should have a mix of strategy in it's drafting philosophy. They should absolutely draft players with a high skill, but have question marks that have dropped the player in the draft, and that they should also mix in some "safer" picks, if there is such a thing, that has a lower upside, but perhaps a higher perceived percentage chance of making it to the NHL.
- MJL

All understood, and I wont argue that.

However, WHEN DRAFTING, there is no way to say who will and wont have an NHL career, especially after the 2nd round.

What we (I believe that to be the vast majority here) are saying is that when we start to look at mid round picks (especially 3rd and 4th round) we would rather see them pass on a guy like Goul and reach for a guy like Bjorkstrand. Do you see our logic here?

I'm aware of what others are saying, you're not aware of what I'm saying. My argument is that if a player picked with a 3rd round pick, winds up being an NHL player, then it was a good pick. Pretty simple. My argument is also that a pick can't be declared a bad pick, before the outcome is decided. My argument is that a team should have a mix of strategy in it's drafting philosophy. They should absolutely draft players with a high skill, but have question marks that have dropped the player in the draft, and that they should also mix in some "safer" picks, if there is such a thing, that has a lower upside, but perhaps a higher perceived percentage chance of making it to the NHL.
- MJL

And your argument is also that because Goulbourne is not viewed as a skilled guy, he was viewed as a safe pick. Is that the case? That is certainly how it is perceived.

Goulbourne was no safer than many of the skilled guys. He was a face puncher that has turned out to be a face puncher that plays a smart game. His development has nothing to do with whether or not he was a safe pick.

You say incredible, i say inevitable
You say ridiculous, I say meticulous
Incredible, inevitable, ridiculous, meticulous
Let's play that whole thing back
- KINGKENZO

you say inedible, i say incredible
you say deplorable, i say adorable
inedible, incredible, deplorable, adorable

There is no legitimate reason to label the pick a mistake at this point. Having more skilled forwards that were drafted is meaningless, if they never make the NHL. If Goulbourne makes the NHL, then he was a better pick, then if they had chosen a more skilled player, that never makes it. It's a no brainer.
- MJL

I am pulling hard for Goul, because he is a Flyers prospect. I want to see him have an NHL impact.

However, the point is that had they picked a guy like Bjorkstrand, and passed on Goul, would we be in a better spot today as an org?

And your argument is also that because Goulbourne is not viewed as a skilled guy, he was viewed as a safe pick. Is that the case? That is certainly how it is perceived.

Goulbourne was no safer than many of the skilled guys. He was a face puncher that has turned out to be a face puncher that plays a smart game. His development has nothing to do with whether or not he was a safe pick.
- YuenglingJagr

Ill go even further.

Goul was a MUCH riskier pick than Andrighetto and Bjorkstrand.

Ill go even further.

Goul was a MUCH riskier pick than Andrighetto and Bjorkstrand.
- jak521

Outside of junior superstars ranging from, I don't think any player is a "safe" pick.

Is the goal to draft guys you think will make the nhl or draft guys to have more skill in the system? Having quantity doesn't equate to success.

You need balance I suppose. Much easier to find a 4th line type at any point than a skilled guy. Don't think any disagrees with that. Fine line to walk.

I myself would not have drafted him in the 3rd. We also don't know who the flyers liked. saying player X was available is easy. Doesn't mean the flyers liked player x. As with every draft players drafted after him will turn into good nhl players and you play the what if game.

All understood, and I wont argue that.

However, WHEN DRAFTING, there is no way to say who will and wont have an NHL career, especially after the 2nd round.

What we (I believe that to be the vast majority here) are saying is that when we start to look at mid round picks (especially 3rd and 4th round) we would rather see them pass on a guy like Goul and reach for a guy like Bjorkstrand. Do you see our logic here?
- jak521

Your reply here puzzles me, because either your not reading what I've said, or are just ignoring it. I've said multiple times, including in the very post you quoted here, that the Flyers should draft and take chances on players that are highly skilled in later rounds.

Your reply here puzzles me, because either your not reading what I've said, or are just ignoring it. I've said multiple times, including in the very post you quoted here, that the Flyers should draft and take chances on players that are highly skilled in later rounds.
- MJL

so draft players that are not highly skilled in the earlier rounds?

And your argument is also that because Goulbourne is not viewed as a skilled guy, he was viewed as a safe pick. Is that the case? That is certainly how it is perceived.

Goulbourne was no safer than many of the skilled guys. He was a face puncher that has turned out to be a face puncher that plays a smart game. His development has nothing to do with whether or not he was a safe pick.
- YuenglingJagr

I think it's safe to say that the Flyers liked him and felt he could be an NHL player, which is why they drafted him when they did. That he's a face puncher is your characterization of him as a player, not the Flyers.

And we have officially reach that point

There is no legitimate reason to label the pick a mistake at this point. Having more skilled forwards that were drafted is meaningless, if they never make the NHL. If Goulbourne makes the NHL, then he was a better pick, then if they had chosen a more skilled player, that never makes it. It's a no brainer.

Hextall is in the infancy of his GM career, in the NHL. Is German Rubtsov a high skilled, high scoring, fast player, or more of a hard nosed two way player?
- MJL

Uhhh both?

You cannot wait to see how it turns out to judge a pick because that isn't a part of the decision when the pick was made. If goulbourne makes it to the NHL, good for him. If the Flyers picked someone more skilled with the puck and he makes it to the NHL, then that is better.

And we have officially reach that point


- jmatchett383

Hockeybuzz is basically the solar system.

Uhhh both?

You cannot wait to see how it turns out to judge a pick because that isn't a part of the decision when the pick was made. If goulbourne makes it to the NHL, good for him. If the Flyers picked someone more skilled with the puck and he makes it to the NHL, then that is better.
- YuenglingJagr

I agree that you can't judge a pick or a trade years later. You have to judge it when the pick/trade is made. For example:

Had Steve Eminger become a HOFer, then the Flyers obviously "won" the trade for him. However, the value they gave up to acquire him was above the likely cost. Therefore, trading a 1st rounder for Steve Eminger was a bad trade not because of what he or the 1st rounder became, but because the Flyers gave more value at the time of the trade.

Hockeybuzz is basically the solar system.
- YuenglingJagr

It has 8 major bodies, a few million smaller ones, and rotates a central axis?

I suppose that's close. Sadly, Garth and Tanner are 2 of those 8 major bodies.

I agree that you can't judge a pick or a trade years later. You have to judge it when the pick/trade is made. For example:

Had Steve Eminger become a HOFer, then the Flyers obviously "won" the trade for him. However, the value they gave up to acquire him was above the likely cost. Therefore, trading a 1st rounder for Steve Eminger was a bad trade not because of what he or the 1st rounder became, but because the Flyers gave more value at the time of the trade.
- jmatchett383

That is your perceived cost as a fan...not actual NHL cost. Completely different