Gostisbehere, Stolarz Shine for Team USA

[DinahMoeHumm]

[flyercanuck]

Now this is awesome!

[DinahMoeHumm]

@flyercanuck: Thanks, I just couldn't resist. Feeling more childish than usual for a Monday

[flyercanuck]

@DinahMoeHumm

Childish? That there is sheer genius!

[flyercanuck]

Giroux and maybe Wlliams were nice picks. Richards and Gagne were no brainers. Downie is a joke. I only sort of agree on Williams because he's done well but Kronwall went right after him.

Richards and Gagne were no brainers??? Philly could have taken Stewart, Perry, Belle, Or why didn't Boston, or Edmonton or Washington or the Isles or Rangers grab him? Gagne went 22nd. Why didn't 19 other teams take him before Philly did?

When Ovechkin and Malkin are 1 and 2...that's a no brainer. All the pressure was on Washington that draft. The Pens just had to sit there and let whoever the Caps didn't take fall into their lap.

[DinahMoeHumm]

@flyercanuck: Maybe "silly" would have been a better word for me to use. But thanks, I'm glad you enjoy it

[Polaris922]

Yes Richards was a no brainer....

"Richards began his major junior career with the Kitchener Rangers of the Ontario Hockey League (OHL) in 2001–02. He was a member of a dominant 2003 Kitchener team that captured the Memorial Cup and led the team in scoring during the regular season with 87 points.^[2] Following the Canadian Hockey League (CHL) championship victory, Richards was chosen as team captain.^[1] That summer, the Philadelphia Flyers selected him 24th overall in the 2003 NHL Entry Draft with the second of the team's first round picks that season."

So obviously nobody saw him right? A real off the charts find for the Flyers? I think not. I'm sure he was on everybody's radar. He was ranked 30th in North American skaters. He was selected at 24th.. not a huge leap there either. Hell Carter was ranked 27 and you took him at 11... Now if you want to argue that what made it a tough decision was because there were so many great players in the draft class, well that I can see. But then you could say they screwed up, as they should have taken Perry, or Byfuglien, or Bergeron, or Shea Weber instead. But then you would be arguing that he WASN'T a great pick because you should have gotten somebody else, and that would make the topic's entire point to here moot. I mean come on boys, how many Flyers fans say how he's won at every level and now he was a hidden treasure? You can't have it both ways.

On top of that, the 2003 is considered by some to be the greatest draft class ever with so much talent.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1231748-nhl-draft-2012-why-the-2003-nhl-entry-draft-was-the-best-ever

as for Simon Gagne...

"Gagné was 16 when he broke into the QMJHL as a member of the Beauport Harfangs during the 1996–97 season. Playing mostly on the third and fourth lines, Gagné finished with 31 points (9 goals and 22 assists) in 51 games. The following two seasons, he would play with the Quebec Remparts, totalling 189 points (80 goals and 109 assists) in 114 games, including a 120-point season in 1998–99. That year, he finished sixth in league scoring, was named to the QMJHL Second All-Star Team and was awarded the Paul Dumont Trophy as the "personality of the year". Gagné also recorded 20 goals and 13 assists for 33 points in 25 career playoff matches with the Remparts. After the 1998–99 season, Gagné graduated to the pro ranks, and the Remparts retired Gagné's #12 jersey during a ceremony early on in the 1999–2000 season. Gagné joined Hockey Hall of Famer Guy Lafleur as the only two players that have had their jerseys retired by the Quebec Remparts (Alexander Radulov's number has also since been retired by the Remparts)."

So also not exactly under the radar... he was ranked 17th in all north american skaters at the draft. And again if the argument is there was better talent behind him, which I don't see anybody there I would say was better to choose at that point, then the argument becomes once again moot. So now I can't even say these guys were sure winners without it being argued!

Having said that... Malkin is a definite no brainer after Ovenchicken went... I'm not saying he wasn't. Washington may be second guessing their selection now though. I suppose there are different levels of no brainers but still I don't see Richards or Gagne as being some kind of off the wall selections at where they went at all. Now Laughton... Laughton is a different story. I guess we'll see... but I'm thinking 3rd line center at best. IF he develops well.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Polaris922

[Polaris922]

Yes Richards was a no brainer....

"Richards began his major junior career with the Kitchener Rangers of the Ontario Hockey League (OHL) in 2001–02. He was a member of a dominant 2003 Kitchener team that captured the Memorial Cup and led the team in scoring during the regular season with 87 points.^[2] Following the Canadian Hockey League (CHL) championship victory, Richards was chosen as team captain.^[1] That summer, the Philadelphia Flyers selected him 24th overall in the 2003 NHL Entry Draft with the second of the team's first round picks that season."

So obviously nobody saw him right? A real off the charts find for the Flyers? I think not. I'm sure he was on everybody's radar. He was ranked 30th in North American skaters. He was selected at 24th.. not a huge leap there either. Hell Carter was ranked 27 and you took him at 11... Now if you want to argue that what made it a tough decision was because there were so many great players in the draft class, well that I can see. But then you could say they screwed up, as they should have taken Perry, or Byfuglien, or Bergeron, or Shea Weber instead. But then you would be arguing that he WASN'T a great pick because you should have gotten somebody else, and that would make the topic's entire point to here moot. I mean come on boys, how many Flyers fans say how he's won at every level and now he was a hidden treasure? You can't have it both ways.

On top of that, the 2003 is considered by some to be the greatest draft class ever with so much talent.

[url=http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1231748-nhl-draft-2012-why-the-2003-nhl-entry-draft-was-the-best-everhttp://bleacherreport.com/articles/1231748-nhl-draft-2012-why-the-2003-nhl-entry-draft-was-the-best-ever[/url]

as for Simon Gagne...

"Gagné was 16 when he broke into the QMJHL as a member of the Beauport Harfangs during the 1996–97 season. Playing mostly on the third and fourth lines, Gagné finished with 31 points (9 goals and 22 assists) in 51 games. The following two seasons, he would play with the Quebec Remparts, totalling 189 points (80 goals and 109 assists) in 114 games, including a 120-point season in 1998–99. That year, he finished sixth in league scoring, was named to the QMJHL Second All-Star Team and was awarded the Paul Dumont Trophy as the "personality of the year". Gagné also recorded 20 goals and 13 assists for 33 points in 25 career playoff matches with the Remparts. After the 1998–99 season, Gagné graduated to the pro ranks, and the Remparts retired Gagné's #12 jersey during a ceremony early on in the 1999–2000 season. Gagné joined Hockey Hall of Famer Guy Lafleur as the only two players that have had their jerseys retired by the Quebec Remparts (Alexander Radulov's number has also since been retired by the Remparts)."

So also not exactly under the radar... he was ranked 17th in all north american skaters at the draft. And again if the argument is there was better talent behind him, which I don't see anybody there I would say was better to choose at that point, then the argument becomes once again moot. So now I can't even say these guys were sure winners without it being argued!

[Polaris922]

Except if you put Kronwall in a Flyers sweater, he's suspended indefinitely by now. Therefore, for the Flyers, Williams was a much better pick

Oh yeah because the Flyers are SO slighted by officiating. LOL Just like every other team in the league feels they are.

[mojo1917]

@Polaris922

so wearing a wings sweater hasn't helped him in that regard ?

i would bet that if krowall was wearing a pens, ducks, sharks , or flyers sweater he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, studies have shown there are more penalties called on teams in black sweaters,... and the flyers because 30 years ago they fought a lot.

and with regard to the Richards and Gagne picks, picking in the 20's is not the same or as easy as picking in the top 5. while it's still a crap shoot with any "prospect' the chances of finding a player that will impact your team are greater when you're picking in the top 5 . To try to defend against that statement this is a difficult argument to make at best. I know that's what i was getting at with my statement and i'm pretty sure that's what jammer was saying as well.

yes those guys (gags and ritchie) were picked about where they were ranked and they weren't true "diamonds in the rough" but finding guys to build around at #24 is more difficult than 1, 2 or 3... heck sometimes even at 2 the pickings aren't so good depending on the year.

[Polaris922]

@Polaris922

so wearing a wings sweater hasn't helped him in that regard ?

i would bet that if krowall was wearing a pens, ducks, sharks , or flyers sweater he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, studies have shown there are more penalties called on teams in black sweaters,... and the flyers because 30 years ago they fought a lot.

and with regard to the Richards and Gagne picks, picking in the 20's is not the same or as easy as picking in the top 5. while it's still a crap shoot with any "prospect' the chances of finding a player that will impact your team are greater when you're picking in the top 5 . To try to defend against that statement this is a difficult argument to make at best. I know that's what i was getting at with my statement and i'm pretty sure that's what jammer was saying as well.

yes those guys (gags and ritchie) were picked about where they were ranked and they weren't true "diamonds in the rough" but finding guys to build around at #24 is more difficult than 1, 2 or 3... heck sometimes even at 2 the pickings aren't so good depending on the year.

I'm not sure I buy into officials favoring or slighting entire teams. Certain individuals yes but that's about where my agreement ends.

As for the drafting, I suppose I see things more black and white than some. Obviously I agree not everyone drafted high succeeds. But I also took what was posted as saying Richards and Gagne were great finds by the Flyers as though they were off the charts or some great find by Flyers scouts. They both were pretty well touted prospects. Not Malkin I agree but still "good odds" bets.

[mojo1917]

@DinahMoeHumm

that is good stuff , very funny

[jammer2]

@mojo1917 Good Lord, a blind man could have seen Richie was an excellent pick. Don't even know why it's being discussed. Ditto for Gags. Ditto for Giroux. Downie was a bit of a dissapoinment, but his skating was always a question mark, they took a flyer....well, that and the temper thingy...lol.

I don't think there is a overall league wide improper calling of Bruins and Flyer games, but it's always there in the back of every refs mind....the "big bad Bruins" and the "Broad Street Bullies"....that plays a role I belive....maybe on the subconcious level, and a bit of it is those teams always icing aggressive players. You can't tell me the head ref has never said "let's keep our head on a swivel boys, we *are* in Philly....just goes with the rep I believe.

[Polaris922]

@mojo1917 Good Lord, a blind man could have seen Richie was an excellent pick. Don't even know why it's being discussed. Ditto for Gags. Ditto for Giroux. Downie was a bit of a dissapoinment, but his skating was always a question mark, they took a flyer....well, that and the temper thingy...lol.

I don't think there is a overall league wide improper calling of Bruins and Flyer games, but it's always there in the back of every refs mind....the "big bad Bruins" and the "Broad Street Bullies"....that plays a role I belive....maybe on the subconcious level, and a bit of it is those teams always icing aggressive players. You can't tell me the head ref has never said "let's keep our head on a swivel boys, we *are* in Philly....just goes with the rep I believe.

I think you and I are saying two different things but meaning very similar things. Of course they have been great players. What I've been trying to communicate is they weren't so difficult to predict as such. As Mojo said not all picks in the first round produce, as is apparent, but these guys were well on the charts before they were picked and have lived up to expectations. My point is simply they weren't super impressive finds because they were already successful leading up to their drafts. Now a kid like Laughton... should he turn into an all star, I'll say was a great find because he wasn't top 30 anywhere and the Flyers snatched him up earlier than they needed to. I just don't think he will.

[jammer2]

@Polaris922 I think RIchards was well known before the draft, but it was still a nice find IMHO. He was picked before he was slated to go, same with Carter.

Anytime you find a star in the later parts of round one, you have done a great job...top five is a LOT easier to draft at. I think the some scouts soured on Richie because they did not know if his skating would hold up at the NHL level. Flyers took their shot and the franchise was better for it.

It was a really nice pick, no where near as impressive as pulling off a Shea Weber at #49 overall that same year, but a nice pick nonetheless.

And....I think you're wrong about Scott Laughton....I like his upside and think he will make a nice impact on the roster in 2-3 years.

[Polaris922]

@jammer2

Have you looked at that draft class? I mean through the later rounds too? Quite an impressive cast of characters there...

[jammer2]

@Polaris922 I've memorized that draft class, studied it for years...so yeah, quite familiar with it...lol.

[Podein25]

Now a kid like Laughton... should he turn into an all star, I'll say was a great find because he wasn't top 30 anywhere

Not true.

ISS had him ranked 23rd in their final rankings. Central Scouting 28th, Bob McKenzie had him 28th, Craig Button 24th (FWIW)

He was taken slightly earlier than his average rank. But he's a character guy with some skill that he has only had limited opportunity to show so far. It willl be interesting to see what his numbers look like this year. I think they will show that he has more skill than people thought.

[flyercanuck]

@Polaris922

If either of those players was a "no brainer" why did so many other teams pass on them? Heck there are 19 teams who would likely take Gagne (with the hindsight) than the player they chose ahead of him. Any one of those could be a "no brainer" now, but it isn't at draft time. And as I said Philly could have taken many players instead of Richards. Once you're out of the top 5 or so there aren't many no brainers.

If Pittsburgh took anyone but Malkin they would have been the laughingstock of the NHL. Same with Crosby in that draft. They could have done better than Fleury with the 1st overall. They could have had Toews with that 2nd overall. They still got good players, but I'd hardly call either of those picks no brainers.

I'll put the Flyers record over the last 15 years of drafting after the 20th pick against anyone. If they hadn't traded half those picks away (which I've almost always disagreed with) they'd likely have done even better. Heres a list of Pens taken after the 20th pick since Gagne was drafted...Milan Kraft, Colby Armstrong, Angelo Esposito, Simon Despres, Beau Bennett, Joe Morrow, Olli Maatta. Heck Giroux alone trumps that. And I like Despres and Maatta.

[Polaris922]

Not true.

ISS had him ranked 23rd in their final rankings. Central Scouting 28th, Bob McKenzie had him 28th, Craig Button 24th (FWIW)

He was taken slightly earlier than his average rank. But he's a character guy with some skill that he has only had limited opportunity to show so far. It willl be interesting to see what his numbers look like this year. I think they will show that he has more skill than people thought.

Stand corrected then... For some reason I remembered it incorrectly as him being just under 40th overall. Ok then I won't be as impressed if he does well. lol

[Polaris922]

@Polaris922

If either of those players was a "no brainer" why did so many other teams pass on them? Heck there are 19 teams who would likely take Gagne (with the hindsight) than the player they chose ahead of him. Any one of those could be a "no brainer" now, but it isn't at draft time. And as I said Philly could have taken many players instead of Richards. Once you're out of the top 5 or so there aren't many no brainers.

If Pittsburgh took anyone but Malkin they would have been the laughingstock of the NHL. Same with Crosby in that draft. They could have done better than Fleury with the 1st overall. They could have had Toews with that 2nd overall. They still got good players, but I'd hardly call either of those picks no brainers.

I'll put the Flyers record over the last 15 years of drafting after the 20th pick against anyone. If they hadn't traded half those picks away (which I've almost always disagreed with) they'd likely have done even better. Heres a list of Pens taken after the 20th pick since Gagne was drafted...Milan Kraft, Colby Armstrong, Angelo Esposito, Simon Despres, Beau Bennett, Joe Morrow, Olli Maatta. Heck Giroux alone trumps that. And I like Despres and Maatta.

I agree Crosby and Malkin were as no brained as it gets. I also agree Giroux was a great draft find by Philly. Depres, Bennett, Morrow, and Maatta have yet to be seen.

I stand by my statement that Gagne and Richards weren't "shot in the dark" selections. Especially Richards. He'd have gone much higher in an average draft year. 2003 was an incredible year.

I also agree Fleury has been good but number one out of that class? I don't think so. He hasn't been what was anticipated, but he HAS been successful.

[flyercanuck]

I agree Crosby and Malkin were as no brained as it gets. I also agree Giroux was a great draft find by Philly. Depres, Bennett, Morrow, and Maatta have yet to be seen.

I stand by my statement that Gagne and Richards weren't "shot in the dark" selections. Especially Richards. He'd have gone much higher in an average draft year. 2003 was an incredible year.

I also agree Fleury has been good but number one out of that class? I don't think so. He hasn't been what was anticipated, but he HAS been successful.

I never called them "shot in the dark" picks. I said "nice picks". Thats what they were. And there is a difference.

"It's not hard taking a Malkin when he "falls" to you at #2. Those are no-brainer picks that an idiot could make. Taking Claude Giroux, Mike Richards, Simon Gagne, Justin Williams, Steve Downie with picks at the end of the first round are nice picks. Nobody hits on most of their picks, let alone all of them."

See?

Fleury was good in your cup run. You guys wouldn't have won without him. That makes him worth it. But ya, you definately could have done better.

[Polaris922]

I never called them "shot in the dark" picks. I said "nice picks". Thats what they were. And there is a difference.

"It's not hard taking a Malkin when he "falls" to you at #2. Those are no-brainer picks that an idiot could make. Taking Claude Giroux, Mike Richards, Simon Gagne, Justin Williams, Steve Downie with picks at the end of the first round are nice picks. Nobody hits on most of their picks, let alone all of them."

See?

Fleury was good in your cup run. You guys wouldn't have won without him. That makes him worth it. But ya, you definately could have done better.

Things get lost in translation both ways it seems. Good enough!

[Podein25]

@Polaris922

Hey bud, I was doing some scouting research and came upon Kyle Woodlief's column on the 2012 draf: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/columnist/woodlief/story/2012-06-22/nhl-first-round-capsules/55767526/1

His comments on Laughton are interesting to say the least especially in light of our conversation earlier in this thread.

Woodlief is no dummy. His Red Line Report sells for $300 every year and he is well-respected in hockey circles. His reports are unique, often funny, and always frank. He does often disagree with some of the consensus views in the scouting world on key players. Laughton is one of them, it appears. In his mock draft he had him going 12th overall.

After seeing these comments, I'm even more excited about Laugton. He sounds exactly like Mike Richards 2.0:

20. Philadelphia Flyers: C Scott Laughton.

He doesn't get the love he deserves. He can do a bit of everything. He scores clutch goals, is a tremendous penalty killer and despite only average size, delivers huge open-ice hits and stands up for teammates physically.

[Polaris922]

@Polaris922

Hey bud, I was doing some scouting research and came upon Kyle Woodlief's column on the 2012 draf: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/columnist/woodlief/story/2012-06-22/nhl-first-round-capsules/55767526/1

His comments on Laughton are interesting to say the least especially in light of our conversation earlier in this thread.

Woodlief is no dummy. His Red Line Report sells for $300 every year and he is well-respected in hockey circles. His reports are unique, often funny, and always frank. He does often disagree with some of the consensus views in the scouting world on key players. Laughton is one of them, it appears. In his mock draft he had him going 12th overall.

After seeing these comments, I'm even more excited about Laugton. He sounds exactly like Mike Richards 2.0:

20. Philadelphia Flyers: C Scott Laughton.

He doesn't get the love he deserves. He can do a bit of everything. He scores clutch goals, is a tremendous penalty killer and despite only average size, delivers huge open-ice hits and stands up for teammates physically.

I read a few other reports that weren't as flattering though too. Guess we'll see who was right in a few years!