You know what this team needs?

[fanaticV3.0]

Unproven youth and lots of it!

 

Are you people (pushing those particular roster moves) high? Do you think this team would get anything other than completely outclassed if they had players that young and untested in key roles (particularly in the first two players' cases)? Do you want to ruin these kids? With G, Voracek, Simmonds, and maybe Couturier and Schenn (no, not that one), this team could have something in a few years. These guys could be the vets this team needs and then we get a whole new crop of youngsters in Ghost, Morin, and Laughton. It's about balance. You need both. Throwing a bunch of kids out there helps no one, least of all them. Especially when you talk about the defensemen. Look at Joni Pitkanen and Luca Sbisa, both of whom the Flyers rushed if you need some examples.

[Commander Clueless]

What Philly REALLY needs is more ice girls!

 

 

While you do have a point, as a fan it is nice to watch young players play. Sink or swim, there is hope for the future.

 

 

I want to add that I don't fully buy the concept of being "rushed" like it's super detrimental to a player. In the first few years, sure, absolutely, it can hurt a player because they are thrown into a situation that they may not be ready to handle. However, I'm not entirely sure that the concept of permanent damage is necessarily true. It's really hard to prove one way or the other, but hockey experts seem to throw it around like fact nonetheless. What's to say that this isn't Luca Sbisa's potential, and he wouldn't be in the exact same position had Philly kept him on the Phantoms for a large chunk of time?

 

Joni Pitkanen might actually be a good example for my point, because even though the Flyers may have rushed him, the guy still turned into a damn fine defenseman (minus the injuries), no?

 

People ramp up Detroit's "patience" a lot, and I do give them credit for it, but a lot of it has to do with timing. Detroit doesn't "rush" players because, frankly, they very rarely have needed to over the past couple decades or so. The Wings have a phenomenal scouting department, and most of these guys that they develop are projects to begin with. They didn't draft them for NHL readiness, they drafted them with the sole thought of potential well down the road. Keeping them down and developing them into their twenties is only logical in this case. 

 

 

 

Anydangwho, blabbing over with, I do think you are right about a couple of these Philly youngsters. They may not be ready, and throwing a season on their shoulders may not be the best approach for them right now. Particularly since we're only a couple games in.

[fanaticV3.0]

What Philly REALLY needs is more ice girls!

 

 

While you do have a point, as a fan it is nice to watch young players play. Sink or swim, there is hope for the future.

 

 

I want to add that I don't fully buy the concept of being "rushed" like it's super detrimental to a player. In the first few years, sure, absolutely, it can hurt a player because they are thrown into a situation that they may not be ready to handle. However, I'm not entirely sure that the concept of permanent damage is necessarily true. It's really hard to prove one way or the other, but hockey experts seem to throw it around like fact nonetheless. What's to say that this isn't Luca Sbisa's potential, and he wouldn't be in the exact same position had Philly kept him on the Phantoms for a large chunk of time?

 

Joni Pitkanen might actually be a good example for my point, because even though the Flyers may have rushed him, the guy still turned into a damn fine defenseman (minus the injuries), no?

 

People ramp up Detroit's "patience" a lot, and I do give them credit for it, but a lot of it has to do with timing. Detroit doesn't "rush" players because, frankly, they very rarely have needed to over the past couple decades or so. The Wings have a phenomenal scouting department, and most of these guys that they develop are projects to begin with. They didn't draft them for NHL readiness, they drafted them with the sole thought of potential well down the road. Keeping them down and developing them into their twenties is only logical in this case. 

 

 

 

Anydangwho, blabbing over with, I do think you are right about a couple of these Philly youngsters. They may not be ready, and throwing a season on their shoulders may not be the best approach for them right now. Particularly since we're only a couple games in.

 

I can't speak to what "might have been" only what was or currently is.

 

Pitkanen was ok. He put up some nice offensive numbers, but he was the definition of a one-way player. Hell, his offensive talent was obvious from the get go, but so were his defensive flaws. He had raw talent in the opponent's end of the ice, but they didn't fine tune him at all. They just threw him in there. Part of it is on him for sure. They tried to work with him. But you know what they say, defense is the hardest position to learn, and they just threw him in there right from the get go. It was trial by fire. I blame both him and management for his lack of all-around game.

 

I believe in playing the best players available, young or old. I prefer a mixture of both. I honestly think that's the best way to go about building a team.I would never support throwing a bunch of young guys out there just because they are all "our future" or some other line like that. If they are the best we've got, so be it, but I never play somebody (let alone a bunch of them) just because they are young.

[radoran]

What's to say that this isn't Luca Sbisa's potential, and he wouldn't be in the exact same position had Philly kept him on the Phantoms for a large chunk of time?

 

Excepting that he only played two games with the Phantoms and that was after his 39 games with the Flyers and being sent back to Junior. At age 19.

 

He was traded at the next draft.

 

"Playing youth" might be "fun to watch" for some fans but most fans probably think it's more fun to watch a winning hockey team on the ice.

 

I question conventional wisdom all the time, but I don't think Hextall is wrong when he says there are virtually no players hurt by spending time in the A while there are a long list of players hurt by being rushed into positons they aren't equipped to handle.

 

Whether Sbisa is in that category is a certainly a matter of debate but it doesn't invalidate the concept.

 

They may not be ready, and throwing a season on their shoulders may not be the best approach for them right now.

 

It certainly hasn't been a working strategy for Edmonton, for example...

[Commander Clueless]

@radoran @fanaticV3.0

Precisely as fanatic said above, we cannot say what would have been. 

 

I don't know if Ronny boy's quote is wrong, necessarily, but I think it's really hard to prove it right, as well. He mentions a list of players hurt by being rushed, but I'd be interested to know what that list is and how we came to the conclusion that they simply didn't have the potential that they were thought to have had. 

 

Now don't get me wrong, rushing can be awful because it sours a team on a player and a player on a team, and may push back them realizing their full potential for a while, but actually "hurting" the end game I'm not so sure about.

 

On the other hand, I think Hextall is also a little off about staying in the A. Some players are ready to play in the NHL and should not be kept back in the AHL, because it could theoretically slow their development a bit by not upping the level of competition - a similar situation to how rushing could affect it.

 

I don't think there's an exact science here, as players develop differently and at different paces. Some need confidence, others need more of a challenge. Keeping a player in the AHL in the name of "patience" and using the age ol' "trial by fire" tactic can probably both have negative effects on the player and the team.

 

Either way, though, I agree with fanatic in that the best players should be allowed to play, and a mix of experience is valuable. Edmonton is an example of lack of experience and patience, but I'm not convinced any of their young stars are ruined or anything. I think the major thing, as Dallas Eakins sort of pointed out, is the revolving door of coaches has done the most damage in stunting their development because they keep getting taught differently.

[hf101]

Unproven youth and lots of it!

 

Are you people (pushing those particular roster moves) high? Do you think this team would get anything other than completely outclassed if they had players that young and untested in key roles (particularly in the first two players' cases)? Do you want to ruin these kids? With G, Voracek, Simmonds, and maybe Couturier and Schenn (no, not that one), this team could have something in a few years. These guys could be the vets this team needs and then we get a whole new crop of youngsters in Ghost, Morin, and Laughton. It's about balance. You need both. Throwing a bunch of kids out there helps no one, least of all them. Especially when you talk about the defensemen. Look at Joni Pitkanen and Luca Sbisa, both of whom the Flyers rushed if you need some examples.

 

One question.  What current Flyers have come from the Phantoms that were well seasoned and made a difference on the Flyers?

[mojo1917]

One question.  What current Flyers have come from the Phantoms that were well seasoned and made a difference on the Flyers?

I can only think of one, Claude Giroux, he was not rushed. 

[radoran]

I don't think there's an exact science here, as players develop differently and at different paces. Some need confidence, others need more of a challenge. Keeping a player in the AHL in the name of "patience" and using the age ol' "trial by fire" tactic can probably both have negative effects on the player and the team.

 

I completely agree with this.

 

If Morin or Ghost or Laughton or Tinker Bell had shown in camp that they were undisputably ready to handle the NHL, they should be here.

 

They didn't.

 

That's why you have camp. That's why you have professionals evaluating players.

 

One question. What current Flyers have come from the Phantoms that were well seasoned and made a difference on the Flyers?

 

To answer the question with a question, what players have the Flyers previously not rushed into the NHL?

 

If there aren't any in the first place, then the answer is "none."

[radoran]

I can only think of one, Claude Giroux, he was not rushed. 

 

He played 38 games in the A... FIve of them were the season after his Junior season ended. The next season after Juniors ended, he played two with the Flyers. Then 33 on the Phantoms and 42 with the Flyers the next season. The Flyers ever since.

 

I'd argue Giroux was "ready" when he made the jump.

 

THis year's crop, not so much.

[DaGreatGazoo]

This team needs Gagne...it's as simple as that.  

[ZeZel25]

Unproven youth and lots of it!

 

Are you people (pushing those particular roster moves) high? Do you think this team would get anything other than completely outclassed if they had players that young and untested in key roles (particularly in the first two players' cases)? Do you want to ruin these kids? With G, Voracek, Simmonds, and maybe Couturier and Schenn (no, not that one), this team could have something in a few years. These guys could be the vets this team needs and then we get a whole new crop of youngsters in Ghost, Morin, and Laughton. It's about balance. You need both. Throwing a bunch of kids out there helps no one, least of all them. Especially when you talk about the defensemen. Look at Joni Pitkanen and Luca Sbisa, both of whom the Flyers rushed if you need some examples.

When in doubt, add more brawlers too the lineup. If I have to watch BAD defense AGAIN all year, I want fighting

[hf101]

I can only think of one, Claude Giroux, he was not rushed. 

 

Giroux only played 33 games in the AHL the same season he played 42 with the Flyers.  He was what... 20?

I guess that is 33 more games than Laughton or Ghost, but.I don't remember if Giroux went up and down that year or was called up and stayed the remainder of the season.

[OccamsRazor]

The BIGGEST problem with the Flyers and their choice to play the young players is they never seem willing to let the young kid grow through their growing pains, let them learn from their mistakes it takes time sometimes/most times to grow from their experiences....they aren't going to play a game in the NHL lay their head on their pillow awake the next day and be better.

 

It takes time...a year or so sometimes.

 

And that to me is the problem the Flyers face they want results now they want to win now they want the Ghost for examples by mid season to be a norris candidate and reality it just doesn't happen that way it takes time.

 

They want to plant a seed today and awake tomorrow morning to see a tree standing in the yard.

 

When that changes so will the results i think.

 

Myself i'd trade off the garbage ie. GrossmanN, Luke and even MDZ and insert the likes of Ollie, Ghost and Alt yes young and inexperienced but i'd be willing to let them develop through their growing pains...and hell they can't do worse than the guys i traded off who are slow lack skill and aren't helping to win...they are losing with Vets so get the kids some experience. I don't believe in coddling the kids are them becoming warped. Mental toughness.

 

Yes their all young but even right now i think those 3 are just as good as the 3 i would trade off....but they have the chances to grow and get better....the 3 i traded off are just what you get now they ain't growing they're done.

[fanaticV3.0]

One question.  What current Flyers have come from the Phantoms that were well seasoned and made a difference on the Flyers?

 

What's the definition of "come from the Phantoms"? Drafted by this organization and worked their way up or simply played time with the Phantoms?

[JackStraw]

He played 38 games in the A... FIve of them were the season after his Junior season ended. The next season after Juniors ended, he played two with the Flyers. Then 33 on the Phantoms and 42 with the Flyers the next season. The Flyers ever since.

 

I'd argue Giroux was "ready" when he made the jump.

 

THis year's crop, not so much.

 

Giroux was not rushed out of juniors. He was 20 his last year playing for Gatineau. That was the year he played 2 games with the Flyers. At age 21 he split the season between the Phantoms and the Flyers. So I would say he was brought along slowly.

[fanaticV3.0]

@radoran @fanaticV3.0

Precisely as fanatic said above, we cannot say what would have been. 

 

I don't know if Ronny boy's quote is wrong, necessarily, but I think it's really hard to prove it right, as well. He mentions a list of players hurt by being rushed, but I'd be interested to know what that list is and how we came to the conclusion that they simply didn't have the potential that they were thought to have had. 

 

Now don't get me wrong, rushing can be awful because it sours a team on a player and a player on a team, and may push back them realizing their full potential for a while, but actually "hurting" the end game I'm not so sure about.

 

On the other hand, I think Hextall is also a little off about staying in the A. Some players are ready to play in the NHL and should not be kept back in the AHL, because it could theoretically slow their development a bit by not upping the level of competition - a similar situation to how rushing could affect it.

 

I don't think there's an exact science here, as players develop differently and at different paces. Some need confidence, others need more of a challenge. Keeping a player in the AHL in the name of "patience" and using the age ol' "trial by fire" tactic can probably both have negative effects on the player and the team.

 

Either way, though, I agree with fanatic in that the best players should be allowed to play, and a mix of experience is valuable. Edmonton is an example of lack of experience and patience, but I'm not convinced any of their young stars are ruined or anything. I think the major thing, as Dallas Eakins sort of pointed out, is the revolving door of coaches has done the most damage in stunting their development because they keep getting taught differently.

 

In addition to Sbisa and Pitkanen, I'd add Zubrus and Williams (coach didn't help either) to the list. Both hit walls here and were shipped out and proved they could stay in the league long term. Mike Maneluk was taken from AHL and put on our top line. I don't know how his career would have panned out otherwise, but putting a completely unproven kid and putting him on your top line based on 1 AHL season with the organization is beyond stupid. I mean Christ, we're two games into the season and Akeson was already on the first line last night. There's no merit to stuff like that.

 

I have no problem with Laughton, Ghost, and Morin in the A. Ideally, and I know all of these guys probably won't even be on the team, but 2-3 years from now when those three are ready (if they are ready) the current kids can be our veterans. There's your mix in theory.

[hf101]

What's the definition of "come from the Phantoms"? Drafted by this organization and worked their way up or simply played time with the Phantoms?

 

Drafted or traded to the Flyers and worked their way up through the Phantoms.  Giroux may be a good example.  I don't recall and haven't looked at the transactions  up and down with Giroux

 

imo most players who have been assigned in the last few years to the phantoms rarely, if ever become a regular roster player on the Flyers.  The Phantoms have been a roster for an occasional injury call up and nothing more. They haven't been a regular source to employ the Flyers 23 man roster.

 

With that mindset (Holmgren') a ticket to the Phantoms meant you would have a place to play hockey.

 

Granted Hextall likely has a different approach he may actually want to use the Phantoms as a place to develop Flyers prospects.  But nothing really changed with the coaching, training etc with the Phantoms to make me really get excited over our prospects getting better there.

[fanaticV3.0]

Drafted or traded to the Flyers and worked their way up through the Phantoms.  Giroux may be a good example.  I don't recall and haven't looked at the transactions  up and down with Giroux

 

imo most players who have been assigned in the last few years to the phantoms rarely, if ever become a regular roster player on the Flyers.  The Phantoms have been a roster for an occasional injury call up and nothing more. They haven't been a regular source to employ the Flyers 23 man roster.

 

With that mindset (Holmgren') a ticket to the Phantoms meant you would have a place to play hockey.

 

Granted Hextall likely has a different approach he may actually want to use the Phantoms as a place to develop Flyers prospects.  But nothing really changed with the coaching, training etc with the Phantoms to make me really get excited over our prospects getting better there.

 

Giroux spent 40 games in the A over 3 seasons; most of that game in 08-09 (33 games). He had 34 points in 33 games. I think that just showed he was ready, and that juniors impacted his career more, but I won't really argue the point much either.

 

I don't think it's your opinion, I think it's pretty much a fact the AHL doesn't produce many future Flyers. Well, I guess it was nice knowing Ghost and Laughton, eh? Morin, we can still pine after.

[radoran]

I don't think it's your opinion, I think it's pretty much a fact the AHL doesn't hasn't produced many future Flyers. Well, I guess it was nice knowing Ghost and Laughton, eh? Morin, we can still pine after.

 

New GM. Potentially new "phillyosophy."

 

I think a different emphasis can lead to different results.

[fanaticV3.0]

New GM. Potentially new "phillyosophy."

 

I think a different emphasis can lead to different results.

 

Oh yeah,  I know it's a different philosophy and I'm totally ok with that. I like that Laughton, Ghost, and Morin aren't on the team and I like that, despite admitting he wanted to keep him around, Hextall still sent Morin to juniors. But just because they are willing to wait doesn't mean the outcome will be any different. If the player isn't good enough, he isn't good enough.

 

Do you know any decent NHLers who spent significant time in the A? Any team.

[murraycraven]

Maybe they should just start Emery and let him mug the goaltender again... and then allow Hexy to trade B Schenn to the Pens for Downie.   That was the reason the Flyers season turned around last year.

[radoran]

Do you know any decent NHLers who spent significant time in the A? Any team.

 

http://theahl.com/637-ahl-alumni-on-nhl-opening-rosters-p194024

 

As the National Hockey League embarks on its 2014-15 season today, the American Hockey League is proud to have 637 graduates on NHL opening-day rosters, making up nearly 83 percent of the NHL’s player pool to begin its campaign.

 

Among the NHL stars who developed their skills in the American Hockey League are goaltender Jonathan Quick of the 2014 Stanley Cup champion Los Angeles Kings; reigning Vezina Trophy winner Tuukka Rask of the Boston Bruins; 2013-14 Norris Trophy winner Duncan Keith of the Chicago Blackhawks; 2014 First Team NHL All-Stars Zdeno Chara of the Bruins, Corey Perry of the Anaheim Ducks and Jamie Benn of the Dallas Stars; as well as former AHL All-Stars including Zach Parise, P.K. Subban, Jason Spezza, Zdeno Chara, Cory Schneider, Jimmy Howard and Bobby Ryan.

 

Keith spent two seasons in the A. Spezza a season and a half.  Parise and Subban a full season.

 

The A is really stretching the numbers with some of those guys, but it's a good start.

 

Rask had basically two seasons in Providence (largely because Thomas was around).

 

Ryan played 70 games in Portland and Iowa. Chara 71. Benn basically played one playoff in the A. Perry 22 games. Quick had 33 for the Manchester Monarchs over two seasons.

 

Best quick and dirty response I can get at the moment.

[briere48]

Unproven youth and lots of it!

 

Are you people (pushing those particular roster moves) high? Do you think this team would get anything other than completely outclassed if they had players that young and untested in key roles (particularly in the first two players' cases)? Do you want to ruin these kids? With G, Voracek, Simmonds, and maybe Couturier and Schenn (no, not that one), this team could have something in a few years. These guys could be the vets this team needs and then we get a whole new crop of youngsters in Ghost, Morin, and Laughton. It's about balance. You need both. Throwing a bunch of kids out there helps no one, least of all them. Especially when you talk about the defensemen. Look at Joni Pitkanen and Luca Sbisa, both of whom the Flyers rushed if you need some examples.

 

i mean look at the colarado avs, their team is young but they were a good team last year, it doesnt matter what age they are as long as they have the speed to skate in the nhl and having the right players/chemistry, the oilers dont have the right players offense or defense, that's why there always bad because it's a chemistry issue. you can have all old players and still lose if you dont have the right chemistry.

[ruxpin]

@radoran @fanaticV3.0

Precisely as fanatic said above, we cannot say what would have been.

I don't know if Ronny boy's quote is wrong, necessarily, but I think it's really hard to prove it right, as well. He mentions a list of players hurt by being rushed, but I'd be interested to know what that list is and how we came to the conclusion that they simply didn't have the potential that they were thought to have had.

Now don't get me wrong, rushing can be awful because it sours a team on a player and a player on a team, and may push back them realizing their full potential for a while, but actually "hurting" the end game I'm not so sure about.

On the other hand, I think Hextall is also a little off about staying in the A. Some players are ready to play in the NHL and should not be kept back in the AHL, because it could theoretically slow their development a bit by not upping the level of competition - a similar situation to how rushing could affect it.

I don't think there's an exact science here, as players develop differently and at different paces. Some need confidence, others need more of a challenge. Keeping a player in the AHL in the name of "patience" and using the age ol' "trial by fire" tactic can probably both have negative effects on the player and the team.

Either way, though, I agree with fanatic in that the best players should be allowed to play, and a mix of experience is valuable. Edmonton is an example of lack of experience and patience, but I'm not convinced any of their young stars are ruined or anything. I think the major thing, as Dallas Eakins sort of pointed out, is the revolving door of coaches has done the most damage in stunting their development because they keep getting taught differently.

You already acknowledged waiting might be right with the current group so I may be preaching to the choir... All the players we're talking about with the Flyers are having their level of competition raised by being in the AHL. Except for Morin who isn't old enough. The rest have basically just moved up to it so it's still a growth exercise for them.

I wasn't including Laughton in my "all" because I was focusing on defense. I could argue for your point in his case.

I do think Hextall's statement is sound though even if for the sake of argument we say only the first part is accurate. "no player was hurt by staying in AHL" for an extra year.

If that part is accurate and there is some existential what if debate on the second part, then - - for me - - sound judgement errs on the side of caution.

Ghost is simply not physically developed enough to withstand a full NHL season. If they want to bring him up for a game or a handful of games I wouldn't call children & youth, but to bring him up full time would, IMO, would be a bad mistake.

[ruxpin]

i mean look at the colarado avs, their team is young but they were a good team last year, it doesnt matter what age they are as long as they have the speed to skate in the nhl and having the right players/chemistry, the oilers dont have the right players offense or defense, that's why there always bad because it's a chemistry issue. you can have all old players and still lose if you dont have the right chemistry.

Interesting that you quote him but then write a post that has very little (if anything) to do with what he said.

Also interesting you cite Edmonton, whose biggest problem is they rushed way too many young kids way too soon. Chemistry is certainly part of it but even the chemistry can in part be explained by the organization's foolhardy impatience.