HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2013 NHL Draft Talk Part 4: Flyers own the 11th overall pick

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-23-2013, 11:02 AM
  #651
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,308
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneHands View Post
If Lindholm drops to 11, you figure it out and make it work. You dont pass on someone that good. Until Cousins proves he can even be a good AHL player, you cant bank on him in an NHL spot. Schenn could move to a wing and one of Couturier or Laughton could be traded.

Giroux
Lindholm
Laughton

Schenn on a wing and moved to center during injuries.

Couturier and Cousins traded in a package for a top pairing defenseman.
And that's fine. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, I just think it makes more sense to go with a defender (or even a winger) rather than draft a guy who would essentially require you to make relatively big changes within the organization.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 11:05 AM
  #652
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sa cyred View Post
Lindholm is considered a center and wing. He has done very well at both. I think the idea would be Lindholm ad a wing.
Lindholm has played wing in certain circumstances already. Regardless, you take the player that's the highest on your draft board and use assets to address needs IMO. If all things are equal, you draft the players that fills a need, but if Lindholm (or Monahan) is there and Nurse and Risto are gone, it would be hard to pass up on a more polished forward for a lot less certainty in Zadorov, Pulock, or Morrissey.

Reaching is pretty quick way to reduce the overall talent level of your organization.

Broad Street Elite is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 11:19 AM
  #653
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOfDoom91 View Post
I would have to think you take him there (assuming he's rated the same on the Flyers board). I'm sure the pro-defensemen crowd wouldn't like it though.
Yes, and then you say, 'we had Lindholm rated 2nd, so we were happy to get him at 11.'

Larry44 is online now  
Old
05-23-2013, 12:52 PM
  #654
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 13,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psuhockey View Post
That's how I think it could go with Shinkaruk, Horvat, and Domi being picks 8-10. Buffalo could take a defender but Vanek is gone after this year and there is no high potential offensive winger in their system to replace him. NJ is desperate for forward help as they will probably lose another one of their high scorers this year in David Clarkson. So that leaves Dallas. Domi is only a reach because of his size, something that Nill wouldn't be a afraid of. If Dallas chooses a defenseman, it wouldn't be Nurse since Detroit has always put a higher premium on puck moving ability, where Nurse is still a little raw.

After Jones, the defensemen could go anywhere. I think there will only be one other taken in the top 10 but there could be as many as 4. It's tough to gage because there has been pretty big possible negatives on the next 4 : Nurse's hockey sense, Pulocks skating, Ristolainen's production, Zardorov offensive capabilities. Nurse has everything but if someone views him as lacking hockey sense, they might pass for a forward or a different defensemen instead of drafting another Coburn.
Your reasoning is sound. I could see Buffalo selecting a Forward. I could also see NJ selecting a surprise player since sometimes they go off the board. Dallas really needs a Center and I don't think they Select a guy like Gauthier I think maybe Nieuwendyk would have but he is no longer there. I think if Horvat is there they may snatch him up. So in order for that to happen NJ would have to select off the board.

Really I think this draft is very predictable except for a handful of teams. Carolina, Oilers and NJ. Everyone else has more identifiable needs.

Jtown is online now  
Old
05-23-2013, 01:10 PM
  #655
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,783
vCash: 500
1) Draft Lindholm
2) Convert him to defense

You're welcome, Mr. Holmgren.

BernieParent is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 01:17 PM
  #656
Prongo
Beer
 
Prongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 14,862
vCash: 500
http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...l-entry-draft/

Quote:
If the Edmonton Oilers trade back in Round 1 at the NHL entry draft in Newark, N.J., on June 30, they will seriously look at London Knights highly competitive centre Bo Horvat.

He’s not tall at a shade over six feet, but he’s a heavy player.

“He’d be a great third-line NHL centre,” Hockey Canada chief scout Kevin Prendergast said of the Ontario Hockey League player.

Horvat figures to go between 10-20 overall at the draft
If Nishy falls to the 7th spot, I would hope the Flyers would try to make a deal here. I want the big russian on this team. He would look good on the third line and then higher going forward. He is drawing big comparisons from scouts already.

Prongo is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 01:18 PM
  #657
Curufinwe
Registered User
 
Curufinwe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 10,843
vCash: 50
NJ need to make this pick count. They don't get a first rounder next year.

Curufinwe is online now  
Old
05-23-2013, 01:20 PM
  #658
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prongo View Post
http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...l-entry-draft/



If Nishy falls to the 7th spot, I would hope the Flyers would try to make a deal here. I want the big russian on this team. He would look good on the third line and then higher going forward. He is drawing big comparisons from scouts already.
It's worth considering, at least to get an idea of what MacTavish and Lowe would be expecting.

BernieParent is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 01:20 PM
  #659
Prongo
Beer
 
Prongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 14,862
vCash: 500
You get burned taking a need. I am confident that most(should be all) will take players they think have the highest potential at their pick, despite of their needs. You can't risk making those types of mistakes with that high of a pick.

Prongo is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 01:21 PM
  #660
Prongo
Beer
 
Prongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 14,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
It's worth considering, at least to get an idea of what MacTavish and Lowe would be expecting.
I would think to move up from 11th to 7th we would have to give our second rounder. Maybe a little more but probably not.

Prongo is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 01:31 PM
  #661
TheCerebral1
Hockey Heaven
 
TheCerebral1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 756
vCash: 500
Take the best player available 10 out of 10 cases. Regardless if it's forward or defense.

TheCerebral1 is online now  
Old
05-23-2013, 01:32 PM
  #662
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prongo View Post
You get burned taking a need. I am confident that most(should be all) will take players they think have the highest potential at their pick, despite of their needs. You can't risk making those types of mistakes with that high of a pick.
But like others have said already, BPA will arguably be a need (ie, D) or close enough that it's a wash. If there's a surprise drop of Nichushkin or Lindholm, for example, Holmgren and the scouts should by all means re-evaluate; however, the projected BPAs right around 11 include several very good defense picks. It's not like the Flyers would go way off board to explicitly choose a defenseman.

At 7, under the Oiler trade-back scenario, Button has both Lindholm and Nichushkin available and Nurse already gone. As much as I've been an advocate of bolstering their defensive prospects, I'd be pleased with either one of them over Zadorov / Ristolainen / etc.

BernieParent is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 02:01 PM
  #663
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by macleish1974 View Post
No one has answered my question: If Lindholm drops to 11th, as GM would you take him or pass even though he might be rated as high as 4th on some boards? I have not seen him play. This assumes both Jones and Nurse are gone by then. Yes I have read the THN report and the ISS report on him.
I wouldn't and I'll explain. The Flyers are four deep at center. If Lindholm is available when they select, I'd certainly hope that the Flyers would shop the pick to move back in the draft and pick up a few more assets along the way. Lindholm simply isn't a need. Yes, I get the BPA approach, but this is the year to not go with BPA and to start looking at the needs of the franchise. If they move back five or six spots, get some additional draft picks/prospects/players and can still draft the player they want, then I'd say do it.

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 02:03 PM
  #664
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,308
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prongo View Post
You get burned taking a need. I am confident that most(should be all) will take players they think have the highest potential at their pick, despite of their needs. You can't risk making those types of mistakes with that high of a pick.
I don't understand the logic behind this. It just seems like "the thing to say" right now. In some respects you may be right. In most years, I would say go BPA as the best strategy, but I don't think it is the only strategy. This team. This draft. This pick. The team isn't drafting a defenseman to step in and play next year (thought obviously that would be ideal). The team is drafting a defenseman to have for the long haul. Defensemen, especially to a team with nothing in the cupboard in terms of defensemen, are far more valuable than a center or winger.

The Flyers have zero legitimate Defensive prospects. They have Gus who some people have penciled in as a sure-thing top four defender and they have Ghost who is too far away to really be considered a lock for anything. Outside of those two, there really isn't anything there that is more than a bottom pairing, fringe defender. How could drafting a defenseman over a center or winger burn them? They could get burned by taking the "BPA" if the BPA isn't as good as they think, couldn't they? I understanding not wanting to reach for a prospect. That makes sense. I wouldn't take a defenseman at #2 if Jones goes #1. But at #11, I simply can't see the Flyers taking a Center even if someone falls (unless they are named MacKinnon). It simply makes no sense, unless you are going to then make several relatively big moves to make room for this new prospect. A winger would be easier to swallow at #11 than a center, but I still think defender is the way to go. If Lindholm, or someone in that vein falls to the Flyers at #11, I'd trade back a couple spots to a team that really wants to grab him.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 02:08 PM
  #665
RoDu
Registered User
 
RoDu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,556
vCash: 500
draft best defender available rounds, one, two, and three

RoDu is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 02:09 PM
  #666
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
but this is the year to not go with BPA and to start looking at the needs of the franchise.
You always take the BPA and that IS looking at the needs of the franchise. The franchise needs good players. It needs good defensemen, forwards and goaltenders.

What if Giroux sustains another concussion or two this coming season? What if Schenn successfully converts to a wing? What if Couturier in spite of our best desires and beliefs never develops beyond a 3C? My point is that predicting your roster 2-4 years out is hard, if not impossible. Rate all your players. Trust your scouts. Take the guy at the top of your list.

Imagine if the Flyers had taken Siemens instead of Couturier as the need would have suggested they do.

Broad Street Elite is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 02:15 PM
  #667
Prongo
Beer
 
Prongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 14,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
You always take the BPA and that IS looking at the needs of the franchise. The franchise needs good players. It needs good defensemen, forwards and goaltenders.

What if Giroux sustains another concussion or two this coming season? What if Schenn successfully converts to a wing? What if Couturier in spite of our best desires and beliefs never develops beyond a 3C? My point is that predicting your roster 2-4 years out is hard, if not impossible. Rate all your players. Trust your scouts. Take the guy at the top of your list.

Imagine if the Flyers had taken Siemens instead of Couturier as the need would have suggested they do.
Exactly this.

Prongo is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 02:26 PM
  #668
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
You always take the BPA and that IS looking at the needs of the franchise. The franchise needs good players. It needs good defensemen, forwards and goaltenders.
Beg to differ. When you've continually neglected a position because you've wanted to take the "safe" player, you're going to get burned eventually. This franchise is top heavy in forwards and have very little to show for the defense (other than Gostisbehere). They need to take a risk for once because all what playing it safe means is that you're going to continually load up at one position while the rest of the needs are not addressed. And before anyone says that you can always move a player for a defenseman, it's usually a player, prospect and draft picks, so essentially, you're weakening your organization even further. No, for once, this club needs to start addressing weakness, not continually adding to a strength.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
What if Giroux sustains another concussion or two this coming season? What if Schenn successfully converts to a wing? What if Couturier in spite of our best desires and beliefs never develops beyond a 3C? My point is that predicting your roster 2-4 years out is hard, if not impossible. Rate all your players. Trust your scouts. Take the guy at the top of your list.
What if Luke Schenn blows out his knee? What if Timonen suffers a back injury? What if Coburn continues to suck? What if Grossmann never comes back from his concussion. What if, what if, what if. I can play that too. Fact is, they need to address the defense. They need to draft and groom a potential number one defenseman. That's far more important that adding yet another forward to the mix.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
Imagine if the Flyers had taken Siemens instead of Couturier as the need would have suggested they do.
Everyone seems to think that Siemens was the guy. I'm willing to bet that the guy they had in mind was Hamilton. As for Siemens, I don't understand the Siemens hate. The guy is a great defenseman. Yes, he's more along the lines of Luke Schenn, but he's still a great defensive prospect.

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 02:42 PM
  #669
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
Everyone seems to think that Siemens was the guy. I'm willing to bet that the guy they had in mind was Hamilton. As for Siemens, I don't understand the Siemens hate. The guy is a great defenseman. Yes, he's more along the lines of Luke Schenn, but he's still a great defensive prospect.
So you'd trade Couturier for Siemens to fill our teams need for a defenseman?

I have nothing against Siemens at all. He's a fine prospect. My point was that the Flyers took the talent over the need and have not come to regret it.

They did the same with Laughton over Maatta and that jury is still out, but Laughton has only improved since that selection both in terms of production and speculative re-draft position. If EVER there was a time to skip over the C for D, surely it was then when Maatta was sliding to you in spite of projections as a top 15 pick.

I am confident that the Flyers will continue to take the BPA in spite of the ill-conceived, reactionary desires of some segments of their fanbase. That said, I suspect that the BPA at the Flyers slot could very well be a defensemen, so this argument would end up being meaningless.

Broad Street Elite is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 02:46 PM
  #670
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,320
vCash: 500
If the game was played with just a goalie and a center.....Flyers would still not fare well despite the focus on centers since the Flyers goalie situation is always one big clusterphuk..

FreshPerspective is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 03:35 PM
  #671
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,308
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
You always take the BPA and that IS looking at the needs of the franchise. The franchise needs good players. It needs good defensemen, forwards and goaltenders.

What if Giroux sustains another concussion or two this coming season? What if Schenn successfully converts to a wing? What if Couturier in spite of our best desires and beliefs never develops beyond a 3C? My point is that predicting your roster 2-4 years out is hard, if not impossible. Rate all your players. Trust your scouts. Take the guy at the top of your list.
You could ask the complete opposite of those questions though to back up the point of drafting a defenseman. What if Giroux stays healthy? What if Schenn doesn't transition to wing well. What if Couturier becomes a Selke caliber player? I agree 100% that you shouldn't reach for a defenseman just to draft a defenseman. 100%. No argument here. But if there is a center with a high ceiling, and a defender with a ceiling that is less high but still high enough to be a top 11 pick, I think you go with the defender. Obviously, if Nate MacKinnon falls to you, you draft him. But if a guy that is not a lock to be a franchise player falls to you, I think you go with the defender, even if he is not a lock to be a top pair guy. Otherwise, you are forced to make other moves within the organization (trading players, changing positions).

Quote:
Imagine if the Flyers had taken Siemens instead of Couturier as the need would have suggested they do.
I think the pick would have been Hamilton, not Siemens. I wanted the Flyers to do that from the beginning, though I am not complaining about the pick of Couturier. As I have said previous posts, in many (if not most) scenarios you go BPA. But when you have 6 young players who are either currently in the NHL or should be soon at one position, and zero at another position, it doesn't make sense to draft a seventh player that high when there are other positions that could be improved. The Cuoturier year the Flyers didn't have 6 centers poised to be solid NHLers. They do this year. Also, Couturier was arguably a better prospect that year than Lindholm is this year. Not knocking Lindholm, but I think at the mid-season rankings Couturier was pretty much a lock to be in the top 5, and possibly even a top 3 pick.

EDIT: http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...-rankings.html

Quote:
2. Sean Couturier, C – Drummondville Voltigeurs (QMJHL)
The fact Couturier made the cut for Canada’s world junior team is a great checkmark on his resume and balances off the fact his projected weight gain over the summer was slowed by mono. Couturier had an up-and-down tourney in Buffalo, but his ability to dominate with the puck thanks to his big frame is undeniable.
Scout says: “He can create a scoring chance from anywhere in the offensive zone and he makes his linemates look better.”

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 03:53 PM
  #672
StoneHands
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,352
vCash: 2425
The only time I can see drafting for need if when your need forwards. If you need a forward in the top half of the first round you can usually find someone to plug into your lineup either the year you draft them or at most 1 year later. If you already have a goalie and a solid defense in place but your trotting out an undersized second line center that's only good for 40 point, you can find a center in the first round that can help you right away.

When your team need is defense or goaltending, by the time the guy is able to play any significant, quality role(top 4 minutes or starting goalie) you're most likely looking at at the very least 2-3 years. In the salary cap era, teams change so much from year to year that by the time that player you drafted for need is playing at the level you expected of him, that may not even be your need anymore.

People seem to think that if we draft a defenseman in the first round that he's a lock to be being playing tough veteran minutes by his second season.

StoneHands is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 04:24 PM
  #673
StoneHands
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,352
vCash: 2425
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
But when you have 6 young players who are either currently in the NHL or should be soon at one position, and zero at another position, it doesn't make sense to draft a seventh player that high when there are other positions that could be improved. The Cuoturier year the Flyers didn't have 6 centers poised to be solid NHLers. They do this year.
Just curous, who are the 6 centers you're referring to?

Giroux
Schenn
Couturier
Laughton
Cousins

Who's number 6?

I see 3 NHL centers and 2 prospects there. Laughton looks like he should be a solid 3rd lienr center but really, a 5 game sample which he didnt register a point doesnt make him a lock by any means.

Cousins tore up the OHL this year as an overager in his 4th season. That happens every year in the OHL or Q and half of those guys never even play in the NHL. I'm not saying he won't be an NHL player but nobody would pass on drating a center because they have Nick Cousins coming up. Not to mention, the guy might be trouble and it seems guys that find trouble, find their way out of the league pretty quickly.

StoneHands is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 04:28 PM
  #674
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
You could ask the complete opposite of those questions though to back up the point of drafting a defenseman. What if Giroux stays healthy? What if Schenn doesn't transition to wing well. What if Couturier becomes a Selke caliber player? I agree 100% that you shouldn't reach for a defenseman just to draft a defenseman. 100%. No argument here. But if there is a center with a high ceiling, and a defender with a ceiling that is less high but still high enough to be a top 11 pick, I think you go with the defender. Obviously, if Nate MacKinnon falls to you, you draft him. But if a guy that is not a lock to be a franchise player falls to you, I think you go with the defender, even if he is not a lock to be a top pair guy. Otherwise, you are forced to make other moves within the organization (trading players, changing positions).
What's so wrong with making a trade? If you draft a center and in 5 years, Giroux is healthy, Schenn is still a center and Couturier is a Selke candidate and the guy you drafted is ready to play, you trade Giroux or Schenn or Couturier for a great return.

Snotbubbles is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 04:53 PM
  #675
funghoul
retardo montalbon
 
funghoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: upper drugs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prongo View Post
You get burned taking a need. I am confident that most(should be all) will take players they think have the highest potential at their pick, despite of their needs. You can't risk making those types of mistakes with that high of a pick.
especially when you have needs everywhere anyway.

funghoul is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.