You ask, why shouldn't he get a shot? I ask, why should he get a shot?

I'm baffled by the logic that says Scott Laughton should get a shot "because he's a good defensive prospect" -- yet you acknowledge that he had spot duty on the fourth line.

In other words, none of us have any idea whatsoever what Scott Laughton is going to do with any responsibility at the NHL level, at 19 years old. But because we've been told he's a good defensive prospect, well, just wind him up and watch him go!
- AllInForFlyers

Okay, let's try this again.

Scott Laughton is considered (by scouts and pundits) to be a very good defensive prospect. At the same time, he has been a very good offensive player at the junior level, and probably would have been in the top-10 in the OHl had it not been for 2 suspensions. Also, in the playoffs, he put up more than a PPG. He played 5 NHL regular season games and did not look out of place in bottom-6 minutes.

Jason Akeson is a very good offensive prospect. However, his defensive game was poor enough that he was demoted to the ECHL to work on it, which he has. However, to this point, he does not have NHL-level defense.

The point is, you can plug Laughton in on a bottom-6 line, make sure he plays responsible defense, and let him build on his offensive game. With Akeson, you're basically hoping and praying that his offensive contributions are enough to offset his defensive shortcomings.

Do either project as surefire NHL superstars? No. Does Laughton have a skillset more suited to make it in the NHL, where most "experts" agree that playing away from the puck is as important as playing with the puck? Yes. Does Akeson? No. I really don't get what you're not getting here.

There are just as many -- if not more -- flameouts from first-round picks who never come close to their projections.

Scott Glennie. Louis Leblanc just got cut by the Canadiens yesterday -- while they still have 40-some players left in camp. So on and so forth.

Again, it isn't just Jason Akeson who might not make it. Personally, I think it's just as easy to pick holes in Scott Laughton's game as anybody else's -- but for some reason, we are more willing to accept Laughton's flaws.

I don't get that.
- AllInForFlyers

Well what do you feel Laughton's flaws are, that is going to prevent him from becoming an NHL player?

Well what do you feel Laughton's flaws are, that is going to prevent him from becoming an NHL player?
- MJL

HE PLAYED 5 GAMES AS AN 18-YEARD-OLD ON THE FOURTH LINE AND DIDN'T SCORE. BUST!

Okay, let's try this again.

Scott Laughton is considered (by scouts and pundits) to be a very good defensive prospect. At the same time, he has been a very good offensive player at the junior level, and probably would have been in the top-10 in the OHl had it not been for 2 suspensions. Also, in the playoffs, he put up more than a PPG. He played 5 NHL regular season games and did not look out of place in bottom-6 minutes.

Jason Akeson is a very good offensive prospect. However, his defensive game was poor enough that he was demoted to the ECHL to work on it, which he has. However, to this point, he does not have NHL-level defense.

The point is, you can plug Laughton in on a bottom-6 line, make sure he plays responsible defense, and let him build on his offensive game. With Akeson, you're basically hoping and praying that his offensive contributions are enough to offset his defensive shortcomings.

Do either project as surefire NHL superstars? No. Does Laughton have a skillset more suited to make it in the NHL, where most "experts" agree that playing away from the puck is as important as playing with the puck? Yes. Does Akeson? No. I really don't get what you're not getting here.
- jmatchett383

That was a very accurate description of the way I feel as well.

You ask, why shouldn't he get a shot? I ask, why should he get a shot?

I'm baffled by the logic that says Scott Laughton should get a shot "because he's a good defensive prospect" -- yet you acknowledge that he had spot duty on the fourth line.

In other words, none of us have any idea whatsoever what Scott Laughton is going to do with any responsibility at the NHL level, at 19 years old. But because we've been told he's a good defensive prospect, well, just wind him up and watch him go!
- AllInForFlyers

Laughton should get a shot because he's a much better player then Akeson is. And he has a skill set that is far better suited to the openings that the Flyers may have in their lineup then Akeson has.

Laughton should get a shot because he's a much better player then Akeson is. And he has a skill set that is far better suited to the openings that the Flyers may have in their lineup then Akeson has.
- MJL

THAN

I think that's a bit much. He will play with Couts on the third line. 50 points and 25 goals along with PK time would be a very solid year. Especially if he's matching up against other team's top lines.
- PhillySportsGuy

If he stays healthy 25-30 goals is quite reachable for him.

If he plays significant PP time he will get the assists too.

I'd say 65 points is not a crazy prediction.

80 seems high I agree.

Unless Akeson is the next Zac Rinaldo and/or have a killer nickname, he doesn't stand a chance in this organization.
- bradleyc4

A1?

Which leads back to what I was saying. If the 3 of Giroux, Voracek and Akeson have a good chemistry and Akeson can show that he can score, why shouldn't get get a chance to play on the top line. Its obvious that Akeson will not be well suited for a bottom 6 role. There are other players more suited to that. But if somehow this line clicks.... I would like to see at least 1 game where Akeson Giroux and Vorack play together to see how well they work together.

I think I heard that Giroux was pushing for Akeson to make the team at some point. Its possible Akeson could get a look as a consession that Giroux didn't get Jagr back. Possible, not probable.
- youarewrong

He shouldn't get a chance to play on the top line for the Flyers this Season, because for one, he's not a first line NHL player. And more importantly, he's not even close to being the best option for a first line Wing spot on the team.

A1?
- Feanor

I'd prefer AK42

That's exactly what I'm saying -- it's not just Akeson. But Nick Cousins, Marcel Noebels, Tye McGinn, etc., all those guys "have something to work on."

But Scott Laughton, scoreless in five games at the NHL level at 19 years old? He's got stuff he could be working on, too!
- AllInForFlyers

Where has anyone said that Laughton is a full developed player that doesn't have any parts of his game that need to be worked on?

If he stays healthy 25-30 goals is quite reachable for him.

If he plays significant PP time he will get the assists too.

I'd say 65 points is not a crazy prediction.

80 seems high I agree.
- Marc D

I think that's the maximum you can expect from Read. He could probably reach that if he played with Voracek or Giroux.

I don't like to expect too much from players. That's why I feel 25 goals and 50 points would be ideal. The Flyers rely on him for defense as well so it's not like his contributions end if he isn't scoring.

Just to change the subject a bit.

Who do you want to see killing penalties this year?
Should Giroux be given PK responsibilty?

Talbot, Hall, Read, Couts would be the top 4 for me.

No, this is you putting out stuff that is easily argued, and you don't like it when a guy you have a problem with destroys your premise...on a daily basis....

- MBFlyerfan

No not really. I was just opening up something for discussion. I said having a rookie on a top line is not un-heard of and gave an example of one. But he automatically assumes I'm compairing the 2 players and turns it into a soapbox to stand on. Then everyone else swarms to try and pull him off, and he is in his glory.

Just to change the subject a bit.

Who do you want to see killing penalties this year?
Should Giroux be given PK responsibilty?

Talbot, Hall, Read, Couts would be the top 4 for me.
- Marc D

Situationally, sure...but not on a regular basis

Just to change the subject a bit.

Who do you want to see killing penalties this year?
Should Giroux be given PK responsibilty?

Talbot, Hall, Read, Couts would be the top 4 for me.
- Marc D

I was a fan of Giroux + Talbot from 2 years ago. I'd prefer Read not be used on the PK as much as the other 4.

Just to change the subject a bit.

Who do you want to see killing penalties this year?
Should Giroux be given PK responsibilty?

Talbot, Hall, Read, Couts would be the top 4 for me.
- Marc D

Zac Rinaldo, Jason Akeson, Michael rofl LLC, and Andreas Nodl

I'd prefer AK42
- jmatchett383

No love for JA- Rastafari

Okay, let's try this again.

Scott Laughton is considered (by scouts and pundits) to be a very good defensive prospect. At the same time, he has been a very good offensive player at the junior level, and probably would have been in the top-10 in the OHl had it not been for 2 suspensions. Also, in the playoffs, he put up more than a PPG. He played 5 NHL regular season games and did not look out of place in bottom-6 minutes.

Jason Akeson is a very good offensive prospect. However, his defensive game was poor enough that he was demoted to the ECHL to work on it, which he has. However, to this point, he does not have NHL-level defense.

The point is, you can plug Laughton in on a bottom-6 line, make sure he plays responsible defense, and let him build on his offensive game. With Akeson, you're basically hoping and praying that his offensive contributions are enough to offset his defensive shortcomings.

Do either project as surefire NHL superstars? No. Does Laughton have a skillset more suited to make it in the NHL, where most "experts" agree that playing away from the puck is as important as playing with the puck? Yes. Does Akeson? No. I really don't get what you're not getting here.
- jmatchett383

You're focusing on Jason Akeson, in thinking that I'm saying that he should get a roster spot. That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that a player like Jason Akeson, once they get labeled as an undrafted player, has an exceedingly difficult time in shedding that label, while guys like Scott Laughton always get the benefit of the doubt, mainly because they are first-round picks but also because of the perception that because they are good players defensively, that means they are more "NHL ready."

I'm absolutely not saying that Jason Akeson should make the team and Scott Laughton shouldn't. I'm saying that being willing to accept Scott Laughton scoring two goals in 80 games, at 19 years old, because he might know how to stay with his man defensively, doesn't mean he should be in the NHL.

None of us have seen Scott Laughton shut down a soul at the NHL level. We haven't even seen it at the AHL level. That's my point. But that flaw -- inexperience against real-live men -- is something we're willing to accept, because...why? Why are we so willing to accept that 19-year-old Scott Laughton might be ready?

Look up Scott Kelman sometime. He was a Phoenix Coyotes draft pick. His bio is similar, scarily so, to Scott Laughton's -- center, good defense, good skater, plays with heart, questionable offense -- with numbers in junior that are also eerily similar.

Kelman never made it. Never really came close. And again, that doesn't mean Laughton won't make it -- but I don't understand how not standing out means that you've earned an NHL job.

Zac Rinaldo, Jason Akeson, Michael rofl LLC, and Andreas Nodl
- BulliesPhan87

Morin and Amoroso on D?

He shouldn't get a chance to play on the top line for the Flyers this Season, because for one, he's not a first line NHL player. And more importantly, he's not even close to being the best option for a first line Wing spot on the team.
- MJL

Akeson has some good skills, but in my opinion he's too small and too slow to be successful as a top 6 forward at the NHL level, nor does he have the qualities to be successful as a bottom 6 guy. It's very easy to look good for one game or in preseason, but it's something very different to sustain that success night in and night out at the NHL level.

Akeson will most likely spend his career as a very successful AHL player who you can call up to fill a short time hole on a scoring line, but I very much doubt he will ever be an NHL regular.

Just to change the subject a bit.

Who do you want to see killing penalties this year?
Should Giroux be given PK responsibilty?

Talbot, Hall, Read, Couts would be the top 4 for me.
- Marc D

That would work for me.

No not really. I was just opening up something for discussion. I said having a rookie on a top line is not un-heard of and gave an example of one. But he automatically assumes I'm compairing the 2 players and turns it into a soapbox to stand on. Then everyone else swarms to try and pull him off, and he is in his glory.
- youarewrong

The problem is, that its like when they put Mike Maneluk with Lindros & LeClair. Akeson has great instincts, but he's small & slow, and they have far better options for the spot than him.

Just to change the subject a bit.

Who do you want to see killing penalties this year?
Should Giroux be given PK responsibilty?

Talbot, Hall, Read, Couts would be the top 4 for me.
- Marc D

I would like to see Giroux's PK time cust drastically. I would have the same top 4.

Just to change the subject a bit.

Who do you want to see killing penalties this year?
Should Giroux be given PK responsibilty?

Talbot, Hall, Read, Couts would be the top 4 for me.
- Marc D

I like that. They can also mix in Laughton (assuming he's on the team) a little bit. I want the team to give Giroux more scoring opportunities by giving some PK duties and defensive faceoff duties to Hall.