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

Flyers actual 2013 draft rankings

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-21-2013, 10:47 AM
  #201
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
Hits/game? Adam Hall is one of the top faceoff guys in the league, he's still a dime a dozen player. Just because you excel at a certain facet of the game doesn't make you inexpendable. Rinaldo is an energy guy, those guys are easily replaced.
The league is full of faceoff specialists just like Hall. The league doesn't feature many players who hit with the frequency and power of Rinaldo.

And I never said he wasn't expendable. In fact, I said the opposite. But a guy like Rinaldo isn't exactly something that you find on every team. You will find a guy with Hall's faceoff ability on pretty much every team in the league.

Quote:
As far as Goulbourne, I keep hearing people try and say Lappy 2.0 or Talbot 2.0. Where are people drawing that comparison? Because he's a tough, team guy? Lappy (and Talbot) are so much more than tough team guys. They are/were good Pkers with solid offensive skill. Go look at Lappy's junior numbers, Goulbourne isn't even close to being a comparable. Same thing with Talbot. Light years ahead offensively. Goulbourne isn't going to bring anything to the table offensively. Rinaldo was an apt comparison. A guy who isn't gonna do anything offensively but will be a good tough team guy who will drop the gloves now and then and create some energy.
Offensive junior numbers don't matter in these comparisons. Laperriere never translated his offensive game to the NHL. Talbot is a 10-15 goal scorer, so it's not like it is his offensive touch that earns him a roster spot.

The comparisons are because of character and competitiveness. If Goulbourne is a guy who will lay his body on the line to block a shot, can hold his own in the D zone, and finish all of his hits, then he will be closer to Laperriere and Talbot than he is to Rinaldo. His offensive (in)ability doesn't have anything to do with the comparison.

Remember, we are talking about Goulbourne's upside which is a character player who can PK and play a physical game. Sure, he may not hit it, and he may very well end up being Z2.0, but he has the potential to become Laperriere just like, say, Hagg has the potential to become a top pairing PMD.

EDIT: Also, the implication from your post is that the difference between Talbot/Laperriere and Rinaldo is offensive ability. Do you really believe that?


Last edited by hockeyfreak7: 08-21-2013 at 11:06 AM.
hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2013, 12:58 PM
  #202
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
The league is full of faceoff specialists just like Hall. The league doesn't feature many players who hit with the frequency and power of Rinaldo.

And I never said he wasn't expendable. In fact, I said the opposite. But a guy like Rinaldo isn't exactly something that you find on every team. You will find a guy with Hall's faceoff ability on pretty much every team in the league.



Offensive junior numbers don't matter in these comparisons. Laperriere never translated his offensive game to the NHL. Talbot is a 10-15 goal scorer, so it's not like it is his offensive touch that earns him a roster spot.

The comparisons are because of character and competitiveness. If Goulbourne is a guy who will lay his body on the line to block a shot, can hold his own in the D zone, and finish all of his hits, then he will be closer to Laperriere and Talbot than he is to Rinaldo. His offensive (in)ability doesn't have anything to do with the comparison.

Remember, we are talking about Goulbourne's upside which is a character player who can PK and play a physical game. Sure, he may not hit it, and he may very well end up being Z2.0, but he has the potential to become Laperriere just like, say, Hagg has the potential to become a top pairing PMD.

EDIT: Also, the implication from your post is that the difference between Talbot/Laperriere and Rinaldo is offensive ability. Do you really believe that?
You didn't read my post very well. I said:

Quote:
Lappy (and Talbot) are so much more than tough team guys. They are/were good Pkers with solid offensive skill.
Rinaldo doesn't play PK and he has no offensive skill. Rinaldo's junior offensive numbers are pretty similar to Goulbournes. Lappy and Talbot are guys who can net you 20-30 points a year while getting the tough defensive assignments and killing penalties. Rinaldo can't do any of that and it'll be a career year for the guy if he got 20 points. But he hits and occasionally fights, that's it. He brings nothing else to the table.

Snotbubbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2013, 01:03 PM
  #203
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
The league is full of faceoff specialists just like Hall. The league doesn't feature many players who hit with the frequency and power of Rinaldo.

And I never said he wasn't expendable. In fact, I said the opposite. But a guy like Rinaldo isn't exactly something that you find on every team. You will find a guy with Hall's faceoff ability on pretty much every team in the league.
No chance that's due to the league valuing faceoff production over hits?

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2013, 02:10 PM
  #204
dookie88
Registered User
 
dookie88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
You didn't read my post very well. I said:



Rinaldo doesn't play PK and he has no offensive skill. Rinaldo's junior offensive numbers are pretty similar to Goulbournes. Lappy and Talbot are guys who can net you 20-30 points a year while getting the tough defensive assignments and killing penalties. Rinaldo can't do any of that and it'll be a career year for the guy if he got 20 points. But he hits and occasionally fights, that's it. He brings nothing else to the table.
There was talk before last season that Rinaldo will play PK but I guess he was pushed down on the depth chart.
Rinaldo is decent defensively. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he could develop into a decent PK-option.
There are a ton of 4th liners who are just kind of there but do absolutely nothing. Having a player like Rinaldo in your line-up is actually benefitial because he can destroy people. Lots of teams would love to have a guy like him. He also draws more minors than he takes.
Also Talbot is and Lappy was more of a third line option for most of their career instead of purely being a fourth line guy, which Rinaldo is. If you look around the league, how many guys are there who give you 20-30 goals and play PK and are labelled 4th line players. Exactly, none. Those guys play third line and are payed accordingly.

dookie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2013, 02:29 PM
  #205
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
You didn't read my post very well. I said:
Right, it sounds like the only distinction you're making between Laperriere/Talbot and Rinaldo is that the former could chip in a few goals and PK.

In reality, the difference was that Laperriere and Talbot were valuable players because of their willingness to sacrifice and their incredible compete levels. Those are traits that Goulbourne possesses at the junior level.

I'm not saying that Goulbourne will be a Talbot or a Laperriere; I'm saying that his upside is a Talbot or a Laperriere. You are the one arguing that he could never in a million years be anything but a Zac Rinaldo player who is thrown on the ice once every ten minutes to generate some energy.


Quote:
Rinaldo doesn't play PK and he has no offensive skill. Rinaldo's junior offensive numbers are pretty similar to Goulbournes. Lappy and Talbot are guys who can net you 20-30 points a year while getting the tough defensive assignments and killing penalties. Rinaldo can't do any of that and it'll be a career year for the guy if he got 20 points. But he hits and occasionally fights, that's it. He brings nothing else to the table.
Again, neither Talbot or Laperriere were valued because they could chip in occasional offense, so citing offensive production at the junior level really means nothing in relation to Goulbourne.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2013, 02:30 PM
  #206
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,760
vCash: 156
Without matching the offensive ability of Lappy and Talbot, I don't see how you can say his upside equals them.

Edit: It's probably worth noting that Talbot was taken 234th overall and Lappy was 158th overall...a far cry from 71st overall.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2013, 02:42 PM
  #207
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Without matching the offensive ability of Lappy and Talbot, I don't see how you can say his upside equals them.
Well, because Laperriere and Talbot didn't/don't have much offensive ability...

Laperriere had one aberration of a year in 05-06, but otherwise, he was an 18-23 point player. Pretty much anyone can put up around 15 points if they're given enough ice time. If Goulbourne can become a solid defensive player who is willing to put his body on the line, I'm sure he'll get enough ice time to chip in 15 points.

It's not the offensive production that brought/brings value to the Laperrieres and the Talbots of the NHL. Again, it was the character and willingness to sacrifice that made them perfect fourth line players. And by most accounts, Goulbourne has similar character.

Don't misconstrue what I am saying as projecting Goulbourne to be Laperriere-- I'm only saying that his upside can be similar to what he brought much the same way as we throw around the word "upside" and "potential" for players like Hagg and Gostisbehere even though, in all likelihood, they will fall short of that ceiling.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2013, 02:44 PM
  #208
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Edit: It's probably worth noting that Talbot was taken 234th overall and Lappy was 158th overall...a far cry from 71st overall.
And this is why I don't like the Goulbourne pick. But I'm just saying Goulbourne still has the potential to be a relatively useful player in the NHL whether he was taken 71st, 171st, or 21st...

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2013, 02:52 PM
  #209
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,760
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
Well, because Laperriere and Talbot didn't/don't have much offensive ability...

Laperriere had one aberration of a year in 05-06, but otherwise, he was an 18-23 point player. Pretty much anyone can put up around 15 points if they're given enough ice time. If Goulbourne can become a solid defensive player who is willing to put his body on the line, I'm sure he'll get enough ice time to chip in 15 points.

It's not the offensive production that brought/brings value to the Laperrieres and the Talbots of the NHL. Again, it was the character and willingness to sacrifice that made them perfect fourth line players. And by most accounts, Goulbourne has similar character.

Don't misconstrue what I am saying as projecting Goulbourne to be Laperriere-- I'm only saying that his upside can be similar to what he brought much the same way as we throw around the word "upside" and "potential" for players like Hagg and Gostisbehere even though, in all likelihood, they will fall short of that ceiling.
I don't think character alone is enough, especially for a 3rd round pick. Cote had loads of character but he still sucked. You've gotta be able to play at some level, and guys like Rinaldo and Goul are pretty handicapped from the start because they lack offensive ability.

Edit: I'm sure there were more talented players with lots of character on the board. Why not take one of them? I just don't get it.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2013, 03:15 PM
  #210
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I don't think character alone is enough, especially for a 3rd round pick. Cote had loads of character but he still sucked. You've gotta be able to play at some level, and guys like Rinaldo and Goul are pretty handicapped from the start because they lack offensive ability.
And I totally agree with this. All I'm saying is that his ceiling isn't Zac Rinaldo. His ceiling is a Laperriere type.


But he could also turn into a Craig Adams or Matt Hendricks type as well. Players like Laperriere, Adams, Hendricks, etc. are all useful guys. I know people will say, "We can get fourth liners for league minimum in UFA", but these are not your typical fourth line players that hit UFA all the time (ie, Tanner Glass, Darroll Powe, etc.). The heart and soul players tend to stick around in one place longer than your average, dime a dozen, fourth line guy. And when the "heart and soul" type makes it to UFA, they are often paid more than league minimum-- Hendricks signed for 1.85, and Talbot was similar.

That's not to say Goulbourne won't be dime a dozen. I'm willing to admit that it's likely that he becomes a dime a dozen player, in fact. But I also recognize he could become a useful player who will stick around on the Flyers just like C. Adams in Pittsburgh, and that's all I'm trying to really say.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2013, 03:19 PM
  #211
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Edit: I'm sure there were more talented players with lots of character on the board. Why not take one of them? I just don't get it.
Well, neither of us can really speak to Goulbourne's character, so I don't know if we can really say that. I mean, it seems like Goulbourne might be the type of guy who will sacrifice life and limb if it means he's giving his team a chance. That's something that's not exactly plentiful in the league, and I can understand the pick if this is the reason the scouts took a liking to Goulbourne.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 09:50 PM
  #212
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,899
vCash: 500
I know the ideal behind the draft is to draft the best skill player available, but I think Goulbourne is going to be one of those fantastic role players you need in the lineup. He's got great wheels, he plays a physical game and his defensive game is very under rated (he played a very big role on the PK in Kelowna). I'm sure there are going to be players who are going to put up better numbers than Goulbourne, but I think Goulbourne is going to be one of those Daniel Paille/Darrol Powe/Travis Moen type forwards that really excel in their role and do a lot of the dirty work. To be perfectly honest, those guys are under rated because they do a job that is not pretty nor is it highly publicized. You put aside everything that you think you're good at and perform in a role that is for the good of the team. That's a tough role to play and it takes a strong character to play that role. Goulbourne could be a very good role player. I really don't think that's a waste of a draft pick.

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 10:09 PM
  #213
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
I know the ideal behind the draft is to draft the best skill player available, but I think Goulbourne is going to be one of those fantastic role players you need in the lineup. He's got great wheels, he plays a physical game and his defensive game is very under rated (he played a very big role on the PK in Kelowna). I'm sure there are going to be players who are going to put up better numbers than Goulbourne, but I think Goulbourne is going to be one of those Daniel Paille/Darrol Powe/Travis Moen type forwards that really excel in their role and do a lot of the dirty work. To be perfectly honest, those guys are under rated because they do a job that is not pretty nor is it highly publicized. You put aside everything that you think you're good at and perform in a role that is for the good of the team. That's a tough role to play and it takes a strong character to play that role. Goulbourne could be a very good role player. I really don't think that's a waste of a draft pick.
You're dead to me.










BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 10:45 PM
  #214
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
I know the ideal behind the draft is to draft the best skill player available, but I think Goulbourne is going to be one of those fantastic role players you need in the lineup. He's got great wheels, he plays a physical game and his defensive game is very under rated (he played a very big role on the PK in Kelowna). I'm sure there are going to be players who are going to put up better numbers than Goulbourne, but I think Goulbourne is going to be one of those Daniel Paille/Darrol Powe/Travis Moen type forwards that really excel in their role and do a lot of the dirty work. To be perfectly honest, those guys are under rated because they do a job that is not pretty nor is it highly publicized. You put aside everything that you think you're good at and perform in a role that is for the good of the team. That's a tough role to play and it takes a strong character to play that role. Goulbourne could be a very good role player. I really don't think that's a waste of a draft pick.
I predict Goul never sees the NHL. We'll see who turns out to be right in 5 years.

Broad Street Elite is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 11:52 PM
  #215
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
I predict Goul never sees the NHL. We'll see who turns out to be right in 5 years.
Many people on here swore up and down that Rinaldo would never make the NHL. The same thing is happening now with Goulbourne.

Rinaldo never got very high on the polls of the "Top 20 Flyer Prospects People have never seen play but vote on anyway."

Much better, from Tyrell's point of view, as it was for Zac, to have people like Holmgren, Pryor, Greig and Laviolette respect you.

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2013, 12:20 AM
  #216
LegionOfDoom91
Registered User
 
LegionOfDoom91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,493
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44 View Post
Many people on here swore up and down that Rinaldo would never make the NHL. The same thing is happening now with Goulbourne.

Rinaldo never got very high on the polls of the "Top 20 Flyer Prospects People have never seen play but vote on anyway."

Much better, from Tyrell's point of view, as it was for Zac, to have people like Holmgren, Pryor, Greig and Laviolette respect you.
That's not too encouraging to me. I don't know how long Greig's been scouting the WHL but off the top of my head I can't remember the last time we drafted a player from that league that made an impact for us at the NHL level.

LegionOfDoom91 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2013, 12:20 AM
  #217
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44 View Post
Many people on here swore up and down that Rinaldo would never make the NHL. The same thing is happening now with Goulbourne.

Rinaldo never got very high on the polls of the "Top 20 Flyer Prospects People have never seen play but vote on anyway."

Much better, from Tyrell's point of view, as it was for Zac, to have people like Holmgren, Pryor, Greig and Laviolette respect you.
There are plenty of diehard fans that have defended previous bust selections too. What does that prove? Not a damn thing. Like I said, we'll evaluate in 5 years, but I personally don't believe that an under-sized overager with no offensive ability was an appropriate use of a 3rd rounder. Watching what little tape is available on the web, its clear that Goulbourne makes up for limited physical ability with moxy, toughness and a cleverness of a veteran (as an overager). He was a healthy scratch early in the season as an over-ager as well with his coaching citing serious consistency issues. He got better as the season progressed, but let's not pretend he dominated offensively or defensively his competition last season. I just don't expect his game to translate.

Furthermore, I don't know where all this sudden love for Rinaldo comes from. He's a 13th forward who provides energy on a team that missed the playoffs. Has he exceeded expectations and improved over the last couple of seasons? Of course, but he's still a 5-7 minutes MAX player at the NHL level. He has already developed a reputation amongst officials that hinders his ability to use his physicality (his premiere asset alongside his above average skating ability). That's a fine value for a 6th rounder, but wouldn't be considered a "rousing success" if Rinaldo had been selected 72nd overall.

I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. I would be happy to be wrong again in this case. That said, the track record of the Flyers drafting is solid, but certainly not beyond reproach and they have absolutely made their favor share of drafting mistakes over the last decade. I'm on record saying this is one of them. We'll see who's right in the future.


Last edited by Broad Street Elite: 08-23-2013 at 12:31 AM.
Broad Street Elite is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2013, 08:50 AM
  #218
jd2210
Registered Non User
 
jd2210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOfDoom91 View Post
That's not too encouraging to me. I don't know how long Greig's been scouting the WHL but off the top of my head I can't remember the last time we drafted a player from that league that made an impact for us at the NHL level.
True, but we haven't been drafting very high in the W lately. He takes way too much heat around here for the Klotz pick, but other than that the DeSerres and Morisson picks were Little. Sbisa is a stud. I can't blame them swinging for the fences with Ranford. The jury is still out on Leier and Noebels but for the draft spots seem to have been good picks. I don't think Grieg is all that bad, he just shouldn't have made bold statements about Klotz.

jd2210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2013, 11:12 AM
  #219
LegionOfDoom91
Registered User
 
LegionOfDoom91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,493
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd2210 View Post
True, but we haven't been drafting very high in the W lately. He takes way too much heat around here for the Klotz pick, but other than that the DeSerres and Morisson picks were Little. Sbisa is a stud. I can't blame them swinging for the fences with Ranford. The jury is still out on Leier and Noebels but for the draft spots seem to have been good picks. I don't think Grieg is all that bad, he just shouldn't have made bold statements about Klotz.
I don't know if I would call Sbisa a stud but point remains the guy hasn't delivered compared to his counterparts in the other two leagues in the CHL in Patterson & Nolet.

LegionOfDoom91 is online now   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 02:03 AM.

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.