HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Philadelphia Flyers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   Laughton and Morin lead Philadelphia Flyers Spring Top 20 (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1626109)

HF Article 03-17-2014 01:00 PM

Laughton and Morin lead Philadelphia Flyers Spring Top 20
 

The Philadelphia Flyers have several prospects who have demonstrated leadership, scoring ability, physicality, and good overall potential. The prospect talent is spread across the CHL, Europe, the AHL, and the NCAA.



Players like Scott Laughton, Samuel Morin, and Robert Hagg have continued to show their upside, while others like Michael Raffl and Michael Parks have turned in strong seasons to move up in the rankings. Several players have also experienced shortened seasons due to injury, including Eric Wellwood who dropped out of the top 20.

1. (1) Scott Laughton, C, 7.5B
Drafted 1st round, 20th overall, 2012

Laughton remains at the top spot because he's only improved this season and is very close to being NHL ready.… read more



More...

Stizzle 03-17-2014 01:39 PM

These lists are always pretty bad, but Michael Parks ahead of Michael Raffl is amazing. :dunno:

FlyersFan61290 03-17-2014 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stizzle (Post 81815569)
These lists are always pretty bad, but Michael Parks ahead of Michael Raffl is amazing. :dunno:

Yeah that's really bad. Also MAB shouldn't be on the list at all.

sa cyred 03-17-2014 01:56 PM

Overall I dont think it's that bad of a ranking. Glad Wilcox got some love for once. Yea Parks ahead of Raffl (why Raffl is even on the list is another story), but Parks, from most accounts had a great season. Assistant Captain for UND, 29 points in 37 games. Dont know if he is top 10, but where he is listed to 14 is a good spot for him. Also agree MAB shouldnt be on the list anymore.

Dirty but Good 03-17-2014 03:31 PM

Flyers are pretty set as far as third and fourth line forwards for the years ahead if Raffl is ranked #10.

tytech 03-17-2014 11:34 PM

lol
 
Gostisbehere's defense has been a question mark. Gostisbehere was named a finalist for the league's best defensive defenseman award.
:laugh:
Well written

LegionOfDoom91 03-17-2014 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tytech (Post 81842799)
Gostisbehere's defense has been a question mark. Gostisbehere was named a finalist for the league's best defensive defenseman award.
:laugh:
Well written

It has been a question mark, he's always been known as an offensive defensemen opposed to a two-way defender. However he did make big strides this year to round out his game at the college level.

I still think his defensive game is a valid concern for the pro level.

tytech 03-18-2014 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOfDoom91 (Post 81843363)
It has been a question mark, he's always been known as an offensive defensemen opposed to a two-way defender. However he did make big strides this year to round out his game at the college level.

I still think his defensive game is a valid concern for the pro level.

Yes, but to write in one sentence that he needs to improve on his D work and then the very next sentence write that he's a finalist for defensive defensemen of the year is bad writing.

BobbyClarkeFan16 03-18-2014 07:28 AM

There's one line that really stood out for me where I started shaking my head. This was in the description of Laughton where I knew that obviously this guy isn't watching any of the guys play:

"The center is not extremely skilled, but he can still score and is a hard-working player who puts the team ahead of him"

Not extremely skilled. From the second half of last season until now, Laughton has put together a complete package of exceptional defensive skill to go with burgeoning offensive play. The moment he became the top center in Oshawa, his game went to a completely new level. To call him "not extremely skilled" is an insult to what he brings to the table.

FLYguy3911 03-18-2014 07:52 AM

He's not offensively skilled, what the writer was implying, by NHL standards. It's all relative to how you look at it. He's very skilled by OHL standards as evidenced by his numbers this year. He's not a tools guy, but rather an intangibles guy.

Psuhockey 03-18-2014 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYguy3911 (Post 81848881)
He's not a tools guy, but rather an intangibles guy.

Neither was Mike Richards, who's own junior coach was shocked about how productive he was at the NHL level.

Curufinwe 03-18-2014 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psuhockey (Post 81849065)
Neither was Mike Richards, who's own junior coach was shocked about how productive he was at the NHL level.

Remember this quote from his first breakout season of 07-08?

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=11203

Quote:

"It's like he went to scoring school or something this summer," said winger Mike Knuble. "He's changed the perception of the kind of player he is. He came into the league as a checker and was going to be a leader and stuff. It's not even just his scoring. It's the opportunities he gets every night.”

FLYguy3911 03-18-2014 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psuhockey (Post 81849065)
Neither was Mike Richards, who's own junior coach was shocked about how productive he was at the NHL level.

And he outscored Laughton in the OHL.

Curufinwe 03-18-2014 08:55 AM

Laughton may have just developed later. His best OHL regular season is better than any of Richards' seasons in terms of PPG. 86 in 53 versus 89 in 58.

We won't know how good a scorer Laughton will be in the NHL for at least another three or four years.

RJ8812* 03-18-2014 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psuhockey (Post 81849065)
Neither was Mike Richards, who's own junior coach was shocked about how productive he was at the NHL level.

and now Richards will struggle to put up 40 points and score 10 goals

RJ8812* 03-18-2014 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curufinwe (Post 81850095)
Laughton may have just developed later. His best OHL regular season is better than any of Richards' seasons in terms of PPG. 86 in 53 versus 89 in 58.

We won't know how good a scorer Laughton will be in the NHL for at least another three or four years.

not really. he's just doing what every 19/20 year old NHL draft pick should do in his last year of junior hockey: dominate

FLYguy3911 03-18-2014 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curufinwe (Post 81850095)
Laughton may have just developed later. His best OHL regular season is better than any of Richards' seasons in terms of PPG. 86 in 53 versus 89 in 58.

We won't know how good a scorer Laughton will be in the NHL for at least another three or four years.

Mike Richards' OHL PPG numbers blow Laughton out of the water. I know people will say Laughton outproduced Richards as a 19 year old, but that is an outlier for Richards (only 43 games). Age relative to league is one of the best indicators for future success and Richards' 16 and 17 year old seasons trump Laughton's by a good margin.

Curufinwe 03-18-2014 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RJ8812 (Post 81850617)
not really. he's just doing what every 19/20 year old NHL draft pick should do in his last year of junior hockey: dominate

Richards didn't.

BobbyClarkeFan16 03-18-2014 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYguy3911 (Post 81851109)
Mike Richards' OHL PPG numbers blow Laughton out of the water. I know people will say Laughton outproduced Richards as a 19 year old, but that is an outlier for Richards (only 43 games). Age relative to league is one of the best indicators for future success and Richards' 16 and 17 year old seasons trump Laughton's by a good margin.

Chris DePiero and Gary Agnew, the previous coaches before D.J. Smith's arrival, nearly ruined Laughton. Laughton would play on average 8 to 11 minutes a night under their watch and would only see spot time on special teams.

Once Smith took over, Laughton actually got to play more and in his draft year, he went on a tear in the second half of the season. The 2012 - 2013 and 2013 - 2014 seasons were a continuation of his development.

I don't know if Laughton will ever put up the numbers that Richards put up in his best years. With that being said, I think Laughton is going to be a lot better than a 30 to 40 point third line checker. He'll be one of those guys that you can put anywhere in the lineup and he'll respond. He might end up being a better pro hockey player than he was a junior player.

StoneColdAnimal 03-18-2014 10:56 AM

Laughton has one pretty big advantage over Richards. He is a much better skater both respect to speed and how sturdy he is on his skates.

I think Laughton's offensive potential will surprise some people because of how underrated his skating seems to be by people posting on these types of threads.

FlyersFan61290 03-18-2014 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RJ8812 (Post 81850575)
and now Richards will struggle to put up 40 points and score 10 goals

He's at 39 points now, I don't think he'll struggle to hit 40. He's third on the team in points while on a team in the bottom 5 in league scoring. He was on pace for 20g and 55pts last season. People like to make Richards' decline seem worse then it actually is for some reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curufinwe (Post 81852077)
Richards didn't.

No, he did a year earlier though.

McNasty 03-18-2014 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 (Post 81848539)
There's one line that really stood out for me where I started shaking my head. This was in the description of Laughton where I knew that obviously this guy isn't watching any of the guys play:

"The center is not extremely skilled, but he can still score and is a hard-working player who puts the team ahead of him"

Not extremely skilled. From the second half of last season until now, Laughton has put together a complete package of exceptional defensive skill to go with burgeoning offensive play. The moment he became the top center in Oshawa, his game went to a completely new level. To call him "not extremely skilled" is an insult to what he brings to the table.

It probably should have read "Doesn't possess elite skills".

ILoveStephanieBrown 03-18-2014 01:00 PM

If Wayne Simmonds and Scott Hartnell can be 20/20 guys in the NHL then Laughton sure as hell can. Their junior numbers were nothing eye popping either and you can tell just by watching all three that Laughton is the most skilled by far. Now, whether he gets the minutes here to do that, that's a different argument for a different day.

LegionOfDoom91 03-18-2014 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCOREacek (Post 81859383)
If Wayne Simmonds and Scott Hartnell can be 20/20 guys in the NHL then Laughton sure as hell can. Their junior numbers were nothing eye popping either and you can tell just by watching all three that Laughton is the most skilled by far. Now, whether he gets the minutes here to do that, that's a different argument for a different day.

Hartnell barely played in juniors since he made the jump to the NHL at 18. He was also a top 10 pick.

Simmonds is comparable though since he didn't have a big season until his last year of eligibility like Laughton.

1865 03-18-2014 01:19 PM

The rankings are one thing, another is that it's just not well written:

"Of all of Philadelphia's defensive prospects, Morin has consistently improved and could help Philadelphia's blue line, especially if he works on his offense a little bit more."

That's all over the shop.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:56 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.