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

Scott Laughton

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-03-2013, 12:32 AM
  #51
MP92
Registered User
 
MP92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,821
vCash: 500
I can see Laughton becoming a player a lot like Ryan Callahan. He reminds me more of him than Richards tbh. Mostly because I see his offensive production being more similar to Cally's. A guy who can pot ya 25 goals, 25 assists, play PP, PK. All around gritty forward with some underrated skill.

MP92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 12:35 AM
  #52
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCOREacek View Post
I can see Laughton becoming a player a lot like Ryan Callahan. He reminds me more of him than Richards tbh. Mostly because I see his offensive production being more similar to Cally's. A guy who can pot ya 25 goals, 25 assists, play PP, PK. All around gritty forward with some underrated skill.
This is why I want him to get a chance on the wing. If he could turn into a Callahan or a Doan, I'd be a lot happier than him being a Richards or a Backes. The latter would force us into an ugly (but fortunate) situation.

If Laughton could make the transition to the wing with success, man, our forward core would be total dynamite.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2013, 10:52 AM
  #53
Hockeypete49
How you like me now!
 
Hockeypete49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Jersey
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 4,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I really do think Laughton is going to be better than people realize...
Which is only going to cause a problem...

A good problem...

But a problem nonetheless...
I agree with you 100% Chris. I really like the make-up of this young man. I hope that the Flyers do not move him in any deal. The Flyers are really putting some young talent together along with seasoned pros. Homer is not done yet making moves ,so it will be interesting to see what the team looks like in the upcoming season.

Hockeypete49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 04:02 PM
  #54
laforest
R.I.P Buster
 
laforest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 191
vCash: 500
Im liking what i am hearing


Last edited by laforest: 07-09-2013 at 06:18 PM.
laforest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 04:51 PM
  #55
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,724
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
I'm very happy with how Laughton is progressing, but I think people need to temper expectations for him. People saying that he's going to be better than Schenn need to give their head a shake. In the year after his draft year, Schenn put up 99 points in 59 games and had 8 points in 6 games in the WJC. Laughton had 56 points in 49 games, and didn't make the WJC squad. He hasn't shown anything close to the offensive ability or potential that Schenn has shown.

BillyShoe1721 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 05:03 PM
  #56
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
I'm very happy with how Laughton is progressing, but I think people need to temper expectations for him. People saying that he's going to be better than Schenn need to give their head a shake. In the year after his draft year, Schenn put up 99 points in 59 games and had 8 points in 6 games in the WJC. Laughton had 56 points in 49 games, and didn't make the WJC squad. He hasn't shown anything close to the offensive ability or potential that Schenn has shown.
See, I just don't believe Schenn's offensive game is going to come around like people expected it to after he dominated major juniors. I think he'll be an effective top six winger with a physical presence, but I see him being consistently between 55-60 points, and always leaving you wishing he was just a little bit more.

Laughton I see with similar offensive output, but with much more impact on the game in other areas. He'll be a two way player who plays with tenacity on the boards and wills his way to win battles. He doesn't have the 'skill' that Brayden has, and that's why he didn't dominate juniors the same way, but I think he will make up for that with his compete level. A guy like Ryan Callahan never dominated juniors, but he carved out an offensive role because of that same compete level.

I guess I'm just not as high on Schenn as most are, but I really think Laughton will be a more important asset in the future.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 05:09 PM
  #57
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,004
vCash: 500
Oddly enough, I could see Schenn and Laughton being very similar wingers capable of 50+ points on the outside depending on their role in the offense.

Pretty cool to have guys like that though.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 06:47 PM
  #58
SchennSational1022*
The Future
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Long Island New York
Country: United States
Posts: 3,281
vCash: 500
Who ever expected Schenn to be more than a 60-65 point player? Not many. I think he could have a few PPG season in him maybe, hes just going to be a special player. So is Laughton though. It sucks that multiple of our young forwards are being forced to play out of position.

SchennSational1022* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 08:16 PM
  #59
Tripod
Registered User
 
Tripod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoDu View Post
he's beyond jr now, no need to be a big fish in a little pond, time to move up
If prospects like Mark Sheifele and Ryan Strome can got back to Jr's for 2 years after being drafted, Laughton can too. We peg him as a 2nd/3rd line C that can do everything to win. Just imagine if he goes back to jr and develops MORE offensively and dominates. We could have another 1st liner...unlikely...but who knows. If he joins Philly right now, he is thrusted into a defensive role...slowing down his offensive opportunities..like Couts. We added Hall for another season to be a #4 C. We don't NEED Laughton this year. Keep his ELC for another year, it will help us more in the end. He has not been the #1 C on his team in Jr's yet. Be dominate in Jr, make the WJC, play well into the playoffs, join the Phantoms for the playoffs, win the Calder Cup. Replace Read next year.


Nothing wrong with allowing our kids to ripen in the CHL and even AHL...like detroit does. Then when they come in, they are ready to handle more than 4th line minutes and "hit the wall" Use Gagne and Hall types as the 1-2 year stopgap for this young core to grow. Wouldn't it be nice to see them develop in the AHL together and EXCEL down there. We will benefit from it in the future.

Patience. Can Laughton make the team? Yes. Can he be replaced by Gagne for 1 year? Yes.


Last edited by Tripod: 07-09-2013 at 08:35 PM.
Tripod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 08:28 PM
  #60
poneill27
Registered User
 
poneill27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Casterly Rock
Country: United States
Posts: 696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripod View Post
If prospects like Mark Sheifele and Ryan Strome can got back to Jr's for 2 years after being drafted, Laughton can too. We peg him as a 2nd/3rd line C that can do everything to win. Just imagine if he goes back to jr and develops MORE offensively and dominates. We could have another 1st liner...who knows. If he joins Philly right now, he is thrusted into a defensive role...slowing down his offensive opportunities..like Couts. We added Hall for another season to be a #4 C. We don't NEED Laughton this year. Keep his ELC for another year, it will help us more in the end. He has not been the #1 C on his team in Jr's yet. Be dominate in Jr, make the WJC, play well into the playoffs, join the Phantoms for the playoffs, win the Calder Cup. Replace Read next year.
Every day I pray, to the Old Gods and The New, that Laughton goes back to jr for 1 more year for all the reasons in this post.

poneill27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 08:41 PM
  #61
Clown Baby
Registered User
 
Clown Baby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,552
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripod View Post
If prospects like Mark Sheifele and Ryan Strome can got back to Jr's for 2 years after being drafted, Laughton can too. We peg him as a 2nd/3rd line C that can do everything to win. Just imagine if he goes back to jr and develops MORE offensively and dominates. We could have another 1st liner...unlikely...but who knows. If he joins Philly right now, he is thrusted into a defensive role...slowing down his offensive opportunities..like Couts. We added Hall for another season to be a #4 C. We don't NEED Laughton this year. Keep his ELC for another year, it will help us more in the end. He has not been the #1 C on his team in Jr's yet. Be dominate in Jr, make the WJC, play well into the playoffs, join the Phantoms for the playoffs, win the Calder Cup. Replace Read next year.


Nothing wrong with allowing our kids to ripen in the CHL and even AHL...like detroit does. Then when they come in, they are ready to handle more than 4th line minutes and "hit the wall" Use Gagne and Hall types as the 1-2 year stopgap for this young core to grow. Wouldn't it be nice to see them develop in the AHL together and EXCEL down there. We will benefit from it in the future.

Patience. Can Laughton make the team? Yes. Can he be replaced by Gagne for 1 year? Yes.
YES. PLEASE.

Leave him in the juniors for the start of the season. Let him enjoy all the little things, and then when the flyers make the playoffs promote the kid. But let him spend his time in the minors as king of the Generals.

Clown Baby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 08:48 PM
  #62
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by poneill27 View Post
Every day I pray, to the Old Gods and The New, that Laughton goes back to jr for 1 more year for all the reasons in this post.
Love the reference, but I have to disagree.

I don't think another year in juniors is going to stunt his offensive growth. He's not a skill player, so he doesn't need to develop the confidence in his talent level like a Schenn or a Strome or a Scheifele. Those guys needed the extra time in order to gain the confidence in their ability.

Laughton's skill set takes much less refining to translate to the NHL. Players like him develop through pro experience. His offensive game is going to come along by learning what the pro game is all about. Not gaining confidence in his skills.

Now, if you want to talk about a player whose offensive game could have used another year or two in juniors, I think we're looking at Couturier. He's a great player and still has loads of potential, but I fear his offensive game may have been stunted by not getting that extra year or two. He could obviously still reach his potential, but it's clear that he has very little confidence in his offensive game, and I think another year would have done wonders for him in that regard.

I don't fear the same issue with Laughton as he doesn't have the same offensive talent level or skill set that Couturier does.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 08:50 PM
  #63
bendersauce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
I think it is really important for players of any talent level play a season in the ahl. Not just to improve their skills but to adjust to playing pro hockey. They get a chance to deal with the travel and schedule of an 82 game season. They will also be playing with players that have been there done that at the pro level for a long time and hopefully learning a similar system as the big team.

Detroit has been a team that expects almost all their players to spend multiple years in the ahl. That is why the have turned so many late picks into regular nhlers.

But I understand that players like Laughton cant go to the ahl and get stuck in this limbo where they are too good for jr but might not be ready for the nhl. This is why I think they should move the draft age up to 20. That way when you draft a player you keep them in your organization not jr or europe. I know most american fans would say "just get rid of the chl agreement" but canadians would riot in the streets.

bendersauce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 08:58 PM
  #64
FLYguy3911
Registered User
 
FLYguy3911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripod View Post
If prospects like Mark Sheifele and Ryan Strome can got back to Jr's for 2 years after being drafted, Laughton can too. We peg him as a 2nd/3rd line C that can do everything to win. Just imagine if he goes back to jr and develops MORE offensively and dominates. We could have another 1st liner...unlikely...but who knows. If he joins Philly right now, he is thrusted into a defensive role...slowing down his offensive opportunities..like Couts. We added Hall for another season to be a #4 C. We don't NEED Laughton this year. Keep his ELC for another year, it will help us more in the end. He has not been the #1 C on his team in Jr's yet. Be dominate in Jr, make the WJC, play well into the playoffs, join the Phantoms for the playoffs, win the Calder Cup. Replace Read next year.


Nothing wrong with allowing our kids to ripen in the CHL and even AHL...like detroit does. Then when they come in, they are ready to handle more than 4th line minutes and "hit the wall" Use Gagne and Hall types as the 1-2 year stopgap for this young core to grow. Wouldn't it be nice to see them develop in the AHL together and EXCEL down there. We will benefit from it in the future.

Patience. Can Laughton make the team? Yes. Can he be replaced by Gagne for 1 year? Yes.
Preach man. Everyone wants to make this guy a 3rd line winger. The kid is a center. You can't just throw him into the fire at a position he has no experience at and expect everything to be great. This isn't NHL 13. Laughton's got some skill, but it's not like he's some offensive dynamo we absolutely have to have in the lineup. Let him actually dominate a full season, be a captain, play in the WJCs, play 20 minutes a night as the top dog. You'd be surprised what confidence can do for a player. I don't get the rush.

FLYguy3911 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 09:01 PM
  #65
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
Love the reference, but I have to disagree.

I don't think another year in juniors is going to stunt his offensive growth. He's not a skill player, so he doesn't need to develop the confidence in his talent level like a Schenn or a Strome or a Scheifele. Those guys needed the extra time in order to gain the confidence in their ability.

Laughton's skill set takes much less refining to translate to the NHL. Players like him develop through pro experience. His offensive game is going to come along by learning what the pro game is all about. Not gaining confidence in his skills.

Now, if you want to talk about a player whose offensive game could have used another year or two in juniors, I think we're looking at Couturier. He's a great player and still has loads of potential, but I fear his offensive game may have been stunted by not getting that extra year or two. He could obviously still reach his potential, but it's clear that he has very little confidence in his offensive game, and I think another year would have done wonders for him in that regard.

I don't fear the same issue with Laughton as he doesn't have the same offensive talent level or skill set that Couturier does.
i don't feel the same way about couturier at all. Couturier's biggest problem is that he is 19, and he is catching up to the game's speed.

Let this guy get some muscle and he's going to be a great 2nd line center. He's never going to be a great speed skater or agile skater, but I think he will be a fantastic possession center. He has great hands and vision.

I don't think Laughton is much different actually, just a little smaller. I don't see any reason to rush him though. What do we gain at all...we have guys like Akeson and McGinn that we can play on lower lines...no need to rush Laughton.

achdumeingute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 09:11 PM
  #66
FLYguy3911
Registered User
 
FLYguy3911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
Love the reference, but I have to disagree.

I don't think another year in juniors is going to stunt his offensive growth. He's not a skill player, so he doesn't need to develop the confidence in his talent level like a Schenn or a Strome or a Scheifele. Those guys needed the extra time in order to gain the confidence in their ability.

Laughton's skill set takes much less refining to translate to the NHL. Players like him develop through pro experience. His offensive game is going to come along by learning what the pro game is all about. Not gaining confidence in his skills.

Now, if you want to talk about a player whose offensive game could have used another year or two in juniors, I think we're looking at Couturier. He's a great player and still has loads of potential, but I fear his offensive game may have been stunted by not getting that extra year or two. He could obviously still reach his potential, but it's clear that he has very little confidence in his offensive game, and I think another year would have done wonders for him in that regard.

I don't fear the same issue with Laughton as he doesn't have the same offensive talent level or skill set that Couturier does.
Couldn't disagree more. By saying Laughton isn't a skill player (which is bogus) you are basically conceding any offensive upside. He's the kind of guy that needs that seasoning, unless you are content with him being just a #3 center. He has #2 upside. Wouldn't you like to maximize your return on your investment? I would.

As for Couturier, he had nothing left to prove in the Q. He had a track record (unlike Laughton). He dominated his league for two consecutive seasons. There was very little to gain by him going back. He had a miserable year last year, but to suggest it was because he didn't play his 4th season in juniors is nuts. He was very good his rookie year considering the circumstances. He just took a step back last year.

FLYguy3911 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 09:23 PM
  #67
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achdumeingute View Post
i don't feel the same way about couturier at all. Couturier's biggest problem is that he is 19, and he is catching up to the game's speed.

Let this guy get some muscle and he's going to be a great 2nd line center. He's never going to be a great speed skater or agile skater, but I think he will be a fantastic possession center. He has great hands and vision.

I don't think Laughton is much different actually, just a little smaller. I don't see any reason to rush him though. What do we gain at all...we have guys like Akeson and McGinn that we can play on lower lines...no need to rush Laughton.
Right, but I also think Couturier has a lot more offensive potential that would have been better honed in juniors. It's clear that he's not the most comfortable player with the puck on his stick in the offensive zone, and I think he's the prime example of a player who could use more confidence in his talent. I think juniors is above all else, a confidence builder. Especially for players who rely on their offensive skill (as in hands, vision, shiftiness, etc.) for their production, building confidence by dominating your peers is the most effective way to develop those skills.

For Laughton, he's not a player who relies on those skills. His game is much simpler, and he doesn't really need to dominate his peers in order to develop that same confidence in his offensive talent. He's a guy who is going to simplify his game and produce through his will and work ethic rather than his skill and natural offensive ability. I hate comparing players to Richards, but it's the same type of 'simple' game. Those players develop best (in my opinion, of course) through experience, not domination of peers.


And just to clarify, Couturier is also a little bit of both. Offensively, he could have used another year in juniors, but he also did gain a lot from being thrown to the wolves. That experience is also going to be a big advantage for him in the coming years as he continues to develop as a two-way player. I just think that if he played another year of juniors and tore it up, he would have come in with a whole lot more offensive ability and poise than we've seen so far out of him. Doesn't mean that it won't develop, just that I think it was stunted by the situation he was placed in. Admittedly, that's a little disingenuous since he has not ever been given an opportunity to use his offensive ability effectively, but still, I wonder how things would have been had he spent that extra year in juniors.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 09:30 PM
  #68
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYguy3911 View Post
Couldn't disagree more. By saying Laughton isn't a skill player (which is bogus) you are basically conceding any offensive upside. He's the kind of guy that needs that seasoning, unless you are content with him being just a #3 center. He has #2 upside. Wouldn't you like to maximize your return on your investment? I would.
You have misunderstood what I've said.

I say Laughton isn't a skill player in the same way that I say Mike Richards is not a 'skill' player or Ryan Callahan or David Backes or whoever. These are simple players as opposed to skill players. They don't rely on natural offensive skills (ie, hands, vision, etc.) to produce. Instead, they simplify the game always making smart decisions with the puck and never trying to do too much.

I am not limiting Laughton's offensive upside by saying this. In fact, I've been stating that I think he has higher offensive upside than Brayden Schenn. It's just a different skill set, and I think Laughton's skill set is better honed through NHL experience. Other players benefit from being handled differently.

Quote:
As for Couturier, he had nothing left to prove in the Q. He had a track record (unlike Laughton). He dominated his league for two consecutive seasons. There was very little to gain by him going back. He had a miserable year last year, but to suggest it was because he didn't play his 4th season in juniors is nuts. He was very good his rookie year considering the circumstances. He just took a step back last year.
Again, Couturier has a much different skill set than Laughton. I'm not even saying he should have been sent back to the Q. I'm just saying that I think his offensive game would have been much more refined with an extra year of juniors.

I'm not at all trying to minimize Couturier's performance in the NHL. I'm just hypothesizing that another year may have been beneficial for his offensive development. Agree or disagree, doesn't really matter, but Couturier still has a very raw offensive game, and yet we still know he has untapped offensive potential. My point was merely that it may not be hidden had he had the extra year of dominating his peers another time in the Q.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 10:26 PM
  #69
FLYguy3911
Registered User
 
FLYguy3911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
You have misunderstood what I've said.

I say Laughton isn't a skill player in the same way that I say Mike Richards is not a 'skill' player or Ryan Callahan or David Backes or whoever. These are simple players as opposed to skill players. They don't rely on natural offensive skills (ie, hands, vision, etc.) to produce. Instead, they simplify the game always making smart decisions with the puck and never trying to do too much.

I am not limiting Laughton's offensive upside by saying this. In fact, I've been stating that I think he has higher offensive upside than Brayden Schenn. It's just a different skill set, and I think Laughton's skill set is better honed through NHL experience. Other players benefit from being handled differently.
I know what you meant by saying he isn't a skilled player, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have to develop his offensive game. None of those guys you mentioned played in the NHL before their 20th birthday. You could argue Ricahrds may have before the lockout, but even so he had a much more impressive resume than Laughton including two 80+ point seasons, WJC, and he was a captain prior to his age 19 season. Callahan played as an overager in the OHL and spent time in the AHL, and Backes played 3 seasons of college hockey in addition to playing in the AHL.

Look there's no doubt the kid can hold his own in the league right now. But considering how this team is currently assembled, it's just not in the best interest of the kid's development for him to spend the entire year in the NHL next season.

FLYguy3911 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 10:28 PM
  #70
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,724
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
Laughton I see with similar offensive output, but with much more impact on the game in other areas. He'll be a two way player who plays with tenacity on the boards and wills his way to win battles. He doesn't have the 'skill' that Brayden has, and that's why he didn't dominate juniors the same way, but I think he will make up for that with his compete level. A guy like Ryan Callahan never dominated juniors, but he carved out an offensive role because of that same compete level.

I guess I'm just not as high on Schenn as most are, but I really think Laughton will be a more important asset in the future.
I guess Ryan Callahan never truly dominated juniors, but he still put up way bigger numbers than Laughton has. He put up 52 goals(3rd in the OHL) and 84 points. He also had two big postseasons of 20+ points. I love Laughton, but I'd love to see you give me an example of any guy that puts up a consistent 50 points(what Callahan has basically become) without ever breaking 75 points in juniors(if he played there). If Laughton played a full season his PPG puts him right around there. I'll look at guys that compare to Laughton and Callahan; hard workers that are good defensively, and not that purely talented but still put up good points. They all put up much better numbers in juniors than Laughton has ever shown.

Ladd: 75 points in his draft year, then a sub-par year, then NHL
Marchand: 80 and 73 points both with less than 60 games played
C. Stewart: 87 and 82 points
Brouwer: 102 points
Simmonds: 75 points
D. Brown: 76 and 73 points
Bolland: 85 and 130 points
Bickell: 83 points
Gallagher: 81, 91, and 77 points
Doan: 94 points
Burrows: 70 points
Ott: 88 and 87 points

I could keep going. My point is, show me a guy who is a consistent 40-50 point player that has a junior resume compared to what Laughton has done so far. I don't think many examples exist, if any.

BillyShoe1721 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 10:51 PM
  #71
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYguy3911 View Post
I know what you meant by saying he isn't a skilled player, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have to develop his offensive game. None of those guys you mentioned played in the NHL before their 20th birthday. You could argue Ricahrds may have before the lockout, but even so he had a much more impressive resume than Laughton including two 80+ point seasons, WJC, and he was a captain prior to his age 19 season. Callahan played as an overager in the OHL and spent time in the AHL, and Backes played 3 seasons of college hockey in addition to playing in the AHL.

Look there's no doubt the kid can hold his own in the league right now. But considering how this team is currently assembled, it's just not in the best interest of the kid's development for him to spend the entire year in the NHL next season.
I didn't reference any of those players to compare their development tracks to Laughton's. I only brought them up to illustrate what I meant by "not a 'skill' player".

But if you want a good example of what I'm referring to in terms of Laughton's development, I'd point to a guy like Ryan O'Reilly. He's a player who didn't light up juniors, but made the NHL right away and didn't look out of place at all. Why not? Because he plays a simple game and didn't rely on 'skill' attributes. Rather, he relied on instincts and hockey sense, and his offensive game really came around in the years since because he benefitted more from NHL experience more than he would have from extra junior years. I think Laughton is similar in that he'll get little out of another year of juniors. He doesn't need to refine his offensive skills or dominate his peers in order to feel comfortable with his abilities. He's a player whose best asset is his head, and I believe those guys benefit most from NHL experience more than anything else.

As to your second point, the construction of the team's forward core is not changing any time soon. We are overflowing with centers, and Giroux, Lecavalier, and Couturier are going nowhere. If what Holmgren said is reflective of his actual philosophy, he is confortable with and expecting to shift centers to the wing. Laughton will be a winger moving forward, and we happen to have a spot in the top nine open. If he can grab that spot alongside Couturier and Read, I think he'll get the ice time he needs to continue developing his game. That said, if he is relegated to fourth line duties, then I may agree that juniors is the best course of action.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 11:03 PM
  #72
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
I guess Ryan Callahan never truly dominated juniors, but he still put up way bigger numbers than Laughton has. He put up 52 goals(3rd in the OHL) and 84 points. He also had two big postseasons of 20+ points. I love Laughton, but I'd love to see you give me an example of any guy that puts up a consistent 50 points(what Callahan has basically become) without ever breaking 75 points in juniors(if he played there). If Laughton played a full season his PPG puts him right around there. I'll look at guys that compare to Laughton and Callahan; hard workers that are good defensively, and not that purely talented but still put up good points. They all put up much better numbers in juniors than Laughton has ever shown.

Ladd: 75 points in his draft year, then a sub-par year, then NHL
Marchand: 80 and 73 points both with less than 60 games played
C. Stewart: 87 and 82 points
Brouwer: 102 points
Simmonds: 75 points
D. Brown: 76 and 73 points
Bolland: 85 and 130 points
Bickell: 83 points
Gallagher: 81, 91, and 77 points
Doan: 94 points
Burrows: 70 points
Ott: 88 and 87 points

I could keep going. My point is, show me a guy who is a consistent 40-50 point player that has a junior resume compared to what Laughton has done so far. I don't think many examples exist, if any.
Ryan O'Reilly. And Andrew Ladd, like you listed. Not sure why he doesn't count to you.

And of all the guys you listed, I don't think any are as much a direct comparison to Laughton as O'Reilly. Save for Ladd and Doan, I don't see many similarities in Laughton's skill set and any of the players you listed.

Basically, Laughton's the type of player whose game will translate well to the NHL. Like I've been saying to the others here, he keeps the game simple, makes smart decisions, has high hockey sense, and doesn't try to do too much. The more skilled players may outscore him in juniors, but those guys aren't going to be able to dominate the NHL game on pure talent. That's where Laughton has them beat. Similar to Ryan O'Reilly and his transition to the NHL despite never dominating the junior level.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 11:09 PM
  #73
TheKingPin
Registered User
 
TheKingPin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripod View Post
If prospects like Mark Sheifele and Ryan Strome can got back to Jr's for 2 years after being drafted, Laughton can too. We peg him as a 2nd/3rd line C that can do everything to win. Just imagine if he goes back to jr and develops MORE offensively and dominates. We could have another 1st liner...unlikely...but who knows. If he joins Philly right now, he is thrusted into a defensive role...slowing down his offensive opportunities..like Couts. We added Hall for another season to be a #4 C. We don't NEED Laughton this year. Keep his ELC for another year, it will help us more in the end. He has not been the #1 C on his team in Jr's yet. Be dominate in Jr, make the WJC, play well into the playoffs, join the Phantoms for the playoffs, win the Calder Cup. Replace Read next year.


Nothing wrong with allowing our kids to ripen in the CHL and even AHL...like detroit does. Then when they come in, they are ready to handle more than 4th line minutes and "hit the wall" Use Gagne and Hall types as the 1-2 year stopgap for this young core to grow. Wouldn't it be nice to see them develop in the AHL together and EXCEL down there. We will benefit from it in the future.

Patience. Can Laughton make the team? Yes. Can he be replaced by Gagne for 1 year? Yes.
I agree as well. Especially since adding vinny. It will benefit him and us in that he will be a better player and he will have one extra year to play for cheap when the rest of the team is making a lot. Our offense doesn't make very much at all this year that all changes going fwd. keep in the minors till g, vinny, couts get hurt as I'm sure one will def at some point

TheKingPin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 06:54 AM
  #74
Mjoedgaard
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
I guess Ryan Callahan never truly dominated juniors, but he still put up way bigger numbers than Laughton has. He put up 52 goals(3rd in the OHL) and 84 points. He also had two big postseasons of 20+ points. I love Laughton, but I'd love to see you give me an example of any guy that puts up a consistent 50 points(what Callahan has basically become) without ever breaking 75 points in juniors(if he played there). If Laughton played a full season his PPG puts him right around there. I'll look at guys that compare to Laughton and Callahan; hard workers that are good defensively, and not that purely talented but still put up good points. They all put up much better numbers in juniors than Laughton has ever shown.

Ladd: 75 points in his draft year, then a sub-par year, then NHL
Marchand: 80 and 73 points both with less than 60 games played
C. Stewart: 87 and 82 points
Brouwer: 102 points
Simmonds: 75 points
D. Brown: 76 and 73 points
Bolland: 85 and 130 points
Bickell: 83 points
Gallagher: 81, 91, and 77 points
Doan: 94 points
Burrows: 70 points
Ott: 88 and 87 points

I could keep going. My point is, show me a guy who is a consistent 40-50 point player that has a junior resume compared to what Laughton has done so far. I don't think many examples exist, if any.
People sometimes forget just how good even 4th line players was in the juniors.

Max Talbot after his draft year: 104 and 98 points
Matt Cooke had 95 his draft year
Stevie Downie 73, 50, 59 (last two seasons in very limited games)

Just three examples of guys scoring better than Laughton in the juniors. The most realistic point total for Laughton in the NHL is around 25-30 points per year.

Mjoedgaard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 08:42 AM
  #75
Codith
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 725
vCash: 500
Laughton will make the team this year, and will be the 3rd line winger.

Codith is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 10:50 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.