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

You jest but Bill said Zac was lobbying for a try at PK

I see a 5-3 result, but he does draw penalties too

I hope we get a few more regulars in the lineup tonight and perhaps see a couple of forward lines that might work together during the regular season.

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

I would, too. I expect the Flyers to be the near the top of the league in minor penalties yet again.

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.
- AllInForFlyers

That's because undrafted free agents have much bigger flaws. They have much more to overcome. 1st round picks are major investments and are given every opportunity because the assumption is that they will develop into good players.

I would, too. I expect the Flyers to be the near the top of the league in minor penalties yet again.
- Feanor

Pretty much the only prediction that's bankable.

I would, too. I expect the Flyers to be the near the top of the league in minor penalties yet again.
- Feanor

Ugh
Likely true but still ugh

I would, too. I expect the Flyers to be the near the top of the league in minor penalties yet again.
- Feanor

I would put money on it.

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

I think the bottom line is the current age of both players. Akeson is 4 years older than Laughton, which is a pretty significant gap in terms of development time. Akeson is running out of time to work on things like his skating and defense if he wants to land a full time NHL job and he's barely a point per game player in the AHL after two full seasons. Laughton arguably meets NHL teams' needs defensively and hasn't even set foot in the AHL. If Laughton's offensive game comes to fruition, then that's just a bonus. Until Laughton hits age 23, 24, and proves otherwise, pundits will continue to talk about his "potential" and "upside"

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.
- AllInForFlyers

How can you call a lack of NHL experience for an NHL player, a flaw in his game? Every single NHL player at 19 has a lack of experience at the NHL level. It doesn't even fit in the discussion. It's impossible for Laughton to possess that quality in his game at this point.
And yes, Laughton's two way ability rates him higher as a prosepct at this point, then Akeson does. Because Laughton has the skill set to contribute in a meaninful way, without scoring. Because nobody expects Laughton's offensive game to translate to the NHL immediately
As opposed to Akeson, who would have to score at a fairly high level to contribute to the team now.
Not to mention that the only potential opening on the roster is going to be at a lower line level.
So out of the two, who is a better fit for the team right now?
It's not a benefit of the doubt, or perception, or hyperbole. It's reality!

Looking for a little fantasy draft help. Vorachek is still available and its closing in on my pick at 35th overall. Krecji, Subban, Stepan, Ryan are some other names still available.

Im thinking Vorachek may be a steal at 35. Who is he playing with and do you expect a big season?

Looking for a little fantasy draft help. Vorachek is still available and its closing in on my pick at 35th overall. Krecji, Subban, Stepan, Ryan are some other names still available.

Im thinking Vorachek may be a steal at 35. Who is he playing with and do you expect a big season?
- HabsRUs

Voracek will likely be on the top line and top pp with Giroux, I'd grab him in a second at 35.

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.
- Jsaquella

I have no issues with that. But I'm the kind of person that I don't think the 3 best players have to be on the top line. I believe that chemistry can do wonders.

Do I think Akeson would make the team. Most likely not. If he makes the team, it will be in a scoring roll, and if its a scoring roll it will likely be with Giroux and Voracek.

I'm not saying this is going to happen, but what if Hartnell doesn't return to the player he was in 2011? Who do you get to play with Giroux? Is Schenn ready to be a top line winger? Is Read? Is Simmonds a top line player playing on the off-wing?

I would give it a 1 in 50 shot of happening, but I would at least like to give them a look together in preseason. If somehos they look like the Hartnell-Giroux-Jagr line from 2 years ago in their passing and scoring, why not keep them together?

I think the bottom line is the current age of both players. Akeson is 4 years older than Laughton, which is a pretty significant gap in terms of development time. Akeson is running out of time to work on things like his skating and defense if he wants to land a full time NHL job and he's barely a point per game player in the AHL after two full seasons. Laughton arguably meets NHL teams' needs defensively and hasn't even set foot in the AHL. If Laughton's offensive game comes to fruition, then that's just a bonus. Until Laughton hits age 23, 24, and proves otherwise, pundits will continue to talk about his "potential" and "upside"
- mcefalu

As I said, we don't just do it with Jason Akeson. Nick Cousins, all of one year older than Scott Laughton, "has things he needs to work on."

We know that because that's what we've been told. But if Paul Holmgren had said at the end of last season that "We think Nick Cousins should have won the OHL scoring title last season and we think he could be our second-line center next year," then we'd be repeating that phrase on these boards just like we repeat the phrase that Scott Laughton is "defensively responsible" and "almost NHL ready" and "won't be helped anymore by going back to junior."

I watched two games that Scott Laughton played last year in junior, in addition to the five he played with the Flyers. Yet I'm honest enough to admit that I have no freaking clue what that kid's going to do in the NHL -- if he even makes it.

Again: There's nothing that says that Laughton will or won't be successful more than what we've been told. But with Laughton, because it's positive, we're willing to go to bat for him like no other draft pick I've seen in awhile.

Looking for a little fantasy draft help. Vorachek is still available and its closing in on my pick at 35th overall. Krecji, Subban, Stepan, Ryan are some other names still available.

Im thinking Vorachek may be a steal at 35. Who is he playing with and do you expect a big season?
- HabsRUs

He'll be playing with Hartnell and Giroux on the top line.

He gets PP minutes aplenty.

You could do worse.

He'll be playing with Hartnell and Giroux on the top line.

He gets PP minutes aplenty.

You could do worse.
- johndewar

Thanks I think its between him and Stepan for me

Looking for a little fantasy draft help. Vorachek is still available and its closing in on my pick at 35th overall. Krecji, Subban, Stepan, Ryan are some other names still available.

Im thinking Vorachek may be a steal at 35. Who is he playing with and do you expect a big season?
- HabsRUs

He'll be starting with Giroux and Hartnell. His shooting percentage was much higher last year than his career percentage. I don't think he will be a PPG player like last year. He will still produce though, but his goal output may go down.

I have no issues with that. But I'm the kind of person that I don't think the 3 best players have to be on the top line. I believe that chemistry can do wonders.

Do I think Akeson would make the team. Most likely not. If he makes the team, it will be in a scoring roll, and if its a scoring roll it will likely be with Giroux and Voracek.

I'm not saying this is going to happen, but what if Hartnell doesn't return to the player he was in 2011? Who do you get to play with Giroux? Is Schenn ready to be a top line winger? Is Read? Is Simmonds a top line player playing on the off-wing?

I would give it a 1 in 50 shot of happening, but I would at least like to give them a look together in preseason. If somehos they look like the Hartnell-Giroux-Jagr line from 2 years ago in their passing and scoring, why not keep them together?
- youarewrong

I would take B Schenn or Read in that spot over Akeson in a heartbeat. I think people are WAY overrating Akeson based on one late season game and one split squad preseason game.

How can you call a lack of NHL experience for an NHL player, a flaw in his game? Every single NHL player at 19 has a lack of experience at the NHL level. It doesn't even fit in the discussion. It's impossible for Laughton to possess that quality in his game at this point.
And yes, Laughton's two way ability rates him higher as a prosepct at this point, then Akeson does. Because Laughton has the skill set to contribute in a meaninful way, without scoring. Because nobody expects Laughton's offensive game to translate to the NHL immediately
As opposed to Akeson, who would have to score at a fairly high level to contribute to the team now.
Not to mention that the only potential opening on the roster is going to be at a lower line level.
So out of the two, who is a better fit for the team right now?
It's not a benefit of the doubt, or perception, or hyperbole. It's reality!
- MJL

Two-way ability? How do you know he has two-way ability at the NHL level? Maybe, just maybe, he should score in any game, preseason, regular season, postseason, at the NHL level before you start talking about "two-way ability!"

As I said, we don't just do it with Jason Akeson. Nick Cousins, all of one year older than Scott Laughton, "has things he needs to work on."

We know that because that's what we've been told. But if Paul Holmgren had said at the end of last season that "We think Nick Cousins should have won the OHL scoring title last season and we think he could be our second-line center next year," then we'd be repeating that phrase on these boards just like we repeat the phrase that Scott Laughton is "defensively responsible" and "almost NHL ready" and "won't be helped anymore by going back to junior."

I watched two games that Scott Laughton played last year in junior, in addition to the five he played with the Flyers. Yet I'm honest enough to admit that I have no freaking clue what that kid's going to do in the NHL -- if he even makes it.

Again: There's nothing that says that Laughton will or won't be successful more than what we've been told. But with Laughton, because it's positive, we're willing to go to bat for him like no other draft pick I've seen in awhile.
- AllInForFlyers

There's fantasy and there's reality. Fantasy is Holmgren stating that they think Cousins can be the 2nd line Center on this team. It never happened, and it wouldn't happen at this time. What's reality is that Laughton is a better player then Akeson is, and poseesses a better skill set for the needs of the team at this point in time. so therefore, has a more realistic shot at making the team. That is what it is based on. And not the imaginary situation that you propose that doesn't exist.

You jest but Bill said Zac was lobbying for a try at PK

I see a 5-3 result, but he does draw penalties too
- Marc D

I dont understand why they can't have 3 pk units for when you get multiple clears.

My top 3 would be:

Couturier-Talbot
Hall-Rinaldo
Laughton/Raffl-Giroux

I would take B Schenn or Read in that spot over Akeson in a heartbeat. I think people are WAY overrating Akeson based on one late season game and one split squad preseason game.
- BiggE

I agree. It takes a number of games to see a player's deficiencies.

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.
- AllInForFlyers

Yes, you're absolutely right, Laughton is unfairly being hailed as the golden boy and everyone who says he's NHL ready is wrong. Happy?

I dont understand why they can't have 3 pk units for when you get multiple clears.

My top 3 would be:

Couturier-Talbot
Hall-Rinaldo
Laughton/Raffl-Giroux
- youarewrong

You wouldn't use Read at all? Their PK was so good last year. I wouldn't want to make many changes except subbing out Giroux a lot more often.

Two-way ability? How do you know he has two-way ability at the NHL level? Maybe, just maybe, he should score in any game, preseason, regular season, postseason, at the NHL level before you start talking about "two-way ability!"
- AllInForFlyers

So you're saying that Laughton doesn't have two way ability? What exactly made him a first round pick then? The Flyers just thought he was a nice guy. Obviously, no one can predict the future, and how a player is going to turn out. Your argument seems to be that how Laughton is looked at, versus how Akeson is looked at, is just a false perception, not based on any sound hockey principles. It is a false argument.

I dont understand why they can't have 3 pk units for when you get multiple clears.

My top 3 would be:

Couturier-Talbot
Hall-Rinaldo
Laughton/Raffl-Giroux
- youarewrong

You certainly can have 3 pairs of forwards. I think it's better, because it spreads the tough minutes around.