Absolutely, give him a fair shot in camp for sure, but I don't think you can just pencil him in and hand him a spot.
- BiggE

I think it should be his spot to lose. Akeson was a close second to Giroux in pts per 60 mins in the Ranger series 5v5, while playing on a line often deployed against the opponent's top players and he produced on the PP as well. I didn't see any major concerns in regards to his defensive game. I mean, it's not the best or anything, but I didn't see any glaring deficiencies that would make him a serious liability. When the Rags took the body to him, yeah he got knocked around (so did G), but he took it well...got back up and into the battle...I saw him make more than one good play from the defensive zone.

Here's a kid who won multiple major awards as a scoring champ in the OHL, then goes pro, leading a horrible Phantoms team in scoring for three years despite coaching changes and a stint in the ECHL. He did everything the Flyers org has asked. When he's gotten the call to the big club, he has answered it well. He clearly has NHL level talent and has been playing (and producing) against men for a few years now. What more does this kid have to do for people to believe he's for real? It's like people pigeonhole him because he wasn't drafted and that's ingrained in their minds so they can't easily accept that he's legit.

I know it's a relatively small sample size, but I saw more in his play against the Rags than any training camp/pre-season could possibly show. He looked like he belonged and more than that, he was among the team's best performers on more than one night of the series. The points he put up weren't some fluke. He made numerous skilled plays that showed off his vision and hands (and feet if you count that one goal for which he wasn't credited with a point). He also created some good scoring chances that didn't end up as goals, but he made them nonetheless...and I believe he didn't look that bad in his own end, no worse than say a Schenn or Simmer or Harts...if the team plays good team D in Chief's system, he won't often be left on an island, so I think it's a favorable gambit to go with a guy like Akeson.

I believe that if they give him a top six (for the Flyers, really, a top nine) role, Akseon will produce at a significant rate, without being some big liability on D. If somehow he ends up flaming out and sucking, I'm pretty sure he'll sign for cheap so that can be dealt with a number of ways. I don't see the problem.

Well maybe but it does seem he was almost set up to fail. After leading the minor team for 3 seasons was it in points and seeing ineffectual Downie and Raffl and Mcginn on the 2nd/3rd line he gets a crack 1 game before playoffs. Takes a bad penalty in game 1. Kid must have seen his career flash before his eyes. Shows composure, makes some key plays that directly leads to goals. Seems like every game he does something that leads to a scoring chance. Outplays 70% of the forwards by a mile. But the murmurs continue. Too soft. Not strong. Slow skater. And sooner or later he will hit a bad patch and then we will say: see, I told you. And the bias will then prove self-fulfilling.


I wanna see Akeson in 30-40 games in the NHl before I agree with you.
- PT21

I want to see him get a chance, to see what he can do at the NHL level. I don't think bias had anything to do with it. They simply didn't think that he was ready. I think he played about as well as you would expect a player in his position to play. But saying he outplayed the other forwards by a mile, is overstating it. He was used sparingly, and was hidden. Which there is nothing wrong with. He contributed to the team with some offense, which was a big help.
The reality is that Akeson is an offensive player. Unless he can develop other ways to contribute, or score at a significant level in the NHL, he will likely have a short leash. That's the way it is with players in his mold. It's not bias, it's reality. Unless you think the Flyers just don't want to add a good young winger to the lineup, because of a perceived bias.
It's obvious why a player like Raffl made the lineup before him. Raffl doesn't have to score to help the team. He has other facets to his game.
Akeson has to bring it in training camp. And one thing that Hextall talked about, that is often overlooked and is hard to measure. Is a players will. If Akeson has that will, along with the skill and talent he has, he'll make it. And there isn't anything or any bias that can stop that. They'll have no choice.

Nice goal against they showed. What a lousy clip.
- hammarby31

Wasn't much else to find. I think he could be a 2nd rounder & would help adding another goalie prospect to the system outside of Stolarz.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you saying that because Andy MacDonald played more minutes, even though he was exposed in playing them, the reason that you can't compare him to someone who was slotted properly is because...MacDonald played more minutes...even poorly?
- AllInForFlyers

No, the point was that the Coaches felt he was a good enough player to play him those extended minutes. Jones was never seen as more then a decent top 6 puck mover. There's very little valid comparisons between the two players. It's really more of a baseless attack against Holmgren then anything else.

No, the point was that the Coaches felt he was a good enough player to play him those extended minutes. Jones was never seen as more then a decent top 6 puck mover. There's very little valid comparisons between the two players. It's really more of a baseless attack against Holmgren then anything else.
- MJL

But what if the comparison is that, if MacDonald had been on a better team, he should've been used just like Randy Jones was, because of how MacDonald gets exposed against better competition -- which I'm hoping isn't necessarily the case, but could be argued?

A lot of folks use tough comparisons to make their point, but I didn't think it was a shot at Holmgren, per se. Thought it was more the comparison that maybe MacDonald should face the type of situations/competition that Jones faced.

No, the point was that the Coaches felt he was a good enough player to play him those extended minutes. Jones was never seen as more then a decent top 6 puck mover. There's very little valid comparisons between the two players. It's really more of a baseless attack against Holmgren then anything else.
- MJL

Except that Jones was used as a top4 guy here toward the end, and I didn't even mention Homer once.

Honestly, Jones wasnt even all that bad... just a lightning rod who had his career buried by an outsized cap hit.

I think it should be his spot to lose. Akeson was a close second to Giroux in pts per 60 mins in the Ranger series 5v5, while playing on a line often deployed against the opponent's top players and he produced on the PP as well. I didn't see any major concerns in regards to his defensive game. I mean, it's not the best or anything, but I didn't see any glaring deficiencies that would make him a serious liability. When the Rags took the body to him, yeah he got knocked around (so did G), but he took it well...got back up and into the battle...I saw him make more than one good play from the defensive zone.

Here's a kid who won multiple major awards as a scoring champ in the OHL, then goes pro, leading a horrible Phantoms team in scoring for three years despite coaching changes and a stint in the ECHL. He did everything the Flyers org has asked. When he's gotten the call to the big club, he has answered it well. He clearly has NHL level talent and has been playing (and producing) against men for a few years now. What more does this kid have to do for people to believe he's for real? It's like people pigeonhole him because he wasn't drafted and that's ingrained in their minds so they can't easily accept that he's legit.

I know it's a relatively small sample size, but I saw more in his play against the Rags than any training camp/pre-season could possibly show. He looked like he belonged and more than that, he was among the team's best performers on more than one night of the series. The points he put up weren't some fluke. He made numerous skilled plays that showed off his vision and hands (and feet if you count that one goal for which he wasn't credited with a point). He also created some good scoring chances that didn't end up as goals, but he made them nonetheless...and I believe he didn't look that bad in his own end, no worse than say a Schenn or Simmer or Harts...if the team plays good team D in Chief's system, he won't often be left on an island, so I think it's a favorable gambit to go with a guy like Akeson.

I believe that if they give him a top six (for the Flyers, really, a top nine) role, Akseon will produce at a significant rate, without being some big liability on D. If somehow he ends up flaming out and sucking, I'm pretty sure he'll sign for cheap so that can be dealt with a number of ways. I don't see the problem.
- exlund

Nice post

But what if the comparison is that, if MacDonald had been on a better team, he should've been used just like Randy Jones was, because of how MacDonald gets exposed against better competition -- which I'm hoping isn't necessarily the case, but could be argued?

A lot of folks use tough comparisons to make their point, but I didn't think it was a shot at Holmgren, per se. Thought it was more the comparison that maybe MacDonald should face the type of situations/competition that Jones faced.
- AllInForFlyers

It was a thinly veiled shot that the Flyers have signed another bad contract, for a journeyman mediocre defenseman, based on one good year, as they did with Jones.
I don't believe that the Flyers feel that MacDonald is a defenseman who should play top pair minutes, against top competition. If they did, they made a mistake. MacDonald is a solid 2nd pair all around puck moving defenseman, that makes the team better. And adds mobility and skill to the defense.

Except that Jones was used as a top4 guy here toward the end, and I didn't even mention Homer once.

Honestly, Jones wasnt even all that bad... just a lightning rod who had his career buried by an outsized cap hit.
- Tomahawk

Jones had a couple of solid years, but he could not sustain that play. Jones was already showing signs of faltering when he was MacDonald's age. Jones, was a player who was able to turn a few good years into a decent contract for market value at the time. MacDonald has sustained his level of play for a longer period of time. And would've been one of the top Free Agent defenseman on the market. JOnes never reached that level. But the time he was around MacDonald's age, he was waived, claimed on recall. Bounced around to a couple of teams, and is now an AHL player at 32.

good read, Bill.

it's funny how cerebral Hexy seemed in his press conference, compared to his rather "physical" approach to the game while playing.

I think it should be his spot to lose. Akeson was a close second to Giroux in pts per 60 mins in the Ranger series 5v5, while playing on a line often deployed against the opponent's top players and he produced on the PP as well. I didn't see any major concerns in regards to his defensive game. I mean, it's not the best or anything, but I didn't see any glaring deficiencies that would make him a serious liability. When the Rags took the body to him, yeah he got knocked around (so did G), but he took it well...got back up and into the battle...I saw him make more than one good play from the defensive zone.

Here's a kid who won multiple major awards as a scoring champ in the OHL, then goes pro, leading a horrible Phantoms team in scoring for three years despite coaching changes and a stint in the ECHL. He did everything the Flyers org has asked. When he's gotten the call to the big club, he has answered it well. He clearly has NHL level talent and has been playing (and producing) against men for a few years now. What more does this kid have to do for people to believe he's for real? It's like people pigeonhole him because he wasn't drafted and that's ingrained in their minds so they can't easily accept that he's legit.

I know it's a relatively small sample size, but I saw more in his play against the Rags than any training camp/pre-season could possibly show. He looked like he belonged and more than that, he was among the team's best performers on more than one night of the series. The points he put up weren't some fluke. He made numerous skilled plays that showed off his vision and hands (and feet if you count that one goal for which he wasn't credited with a point). He also created some good scoring chances that didn't end up as goals, but he made them nonetheless...and I believe he didn't look that bad in his own end, no worse than say a Schenn or Simmer or Harts...if the team plays good team D in Chief's system, he won't often be left on an island, so I think it's a favorable gambit to go with a guy like Akeson.

I believe that if they give him a top six (for the Flyers, really, a top nine) role, Akseon will produce at a significant rate, without being some big liability on D. If somehow he ends up flaming out and sucking, I'm pretty sure he'll sign for cheap so that can be dealt with a number of ways. I don't see the problem.
- exlund

Agreed, 100%.

There's no reason to go out and spend assets when you might have a guy that can fill the need from within. Hextall spoke about fixing things from within, and hopefully that means Akeson gets a legit shot.

Agreed, 100%.

There's no reason to go out and spend assets when you might have a guy that can fill the need from within. Hextall spoke about fixing things from within, and hopefully that means Akeson gets a legit shot.
- Jsaquella

I think Akeson deserves and has earned a legitimate shot at making the team. But to pencil him in, and to count on him to bolster a scoring line could be a mistake. If a reasonable deal presents itself, to bring in a more established skilled winger for the right price in the off season. It would be a mistake to pass that up because Akeson is in the system.

Agreed, 100%.

There's no reason to go out and spend assets when you might have a guy that can fill the need from within. Hextall spoke about fixing things from within, and hopefully that means Akeson gets a legit shot.
- Jsaquella

Hextall also said that the team might be a bit small. If VL is dealt, their top 9 forwards have only 3 guys over 200 lbs and none that are 215+

Hard to win a lot of board battles when you are the small dog in the fight

good read, Bill.

it's funny how cerebral Hexy seemed in his press conference, compared to his rather "physical" approach to the game while playing.



- FlyerGuy

you know what sucks?

A guy like him would never see the light of day in this league now with the suspensions he would have accumulated.
But hey, if Matt Cooke can get a job, i bet someone would employ hextall too

I think Akeson deserves and has earned a legitimate shot at making the team. But to pencil him in, and to count on him to bolster a scoring line could be a mistake. If a reasonable deal presents itself, to bring in a more established skilled winger for the right price in the off season. It would be a mistake to pass that up because Akeson is in the system.
- MJL

Agreed

Hextall also said that the team might be a bit small. If VL is dealt, their top 9 forwards have only 3 guys over 200 lbs and none that are 215+

Hard to win a lot of board battles when you are the small dog in the fight
- BiggE

And unless a player like Akeson is putting up points at a consistent level, a Coach like Berube isn't likely to stick with him for long, if he can't contribute in other ways.

Hextall also said that the team might be a bit small. If VL is dealt, their top 9 forwards have only 3 guys over 200 lbs and none that are 215+

Hard to win a lot of board battles when you are the small dog in the fight
- BiggE

They're not winning a ton of board battles now.

I'm very interested to see what role Raffl has next season. I thought his best work was with G and Voracek.

I think if they are really conscious about putting him in a position to succeed, he'll be OK for the most part.

But overall, I'm not convinced that he's really that much better of a hockey player than, say.... Randy Jones.
- Tomahawk

You have a major problem with the flyers picking off the islander fruit tree don't you?

They're not winning a ton of board battles now.
- Jsaquella

True, but getting smaller up front probably won't make it any better.

I'm very interested to see what role Raffl has next season. I thought his best work was with G and Voracek.
- ravishingone

I thought he played really well there also. Enough to give it another look, man if only he had a better pair of hands

I think it should be his spot to lose. Akeson was a close second to Giroux in pts per 60 mins in the Ranger series 5v5, while playing on a line often deployed against the opponent's top players and he produced on the PP as well. I didn't see any major concerns in regards to his defensive game. I mean, it's not the best or anything, but I didn't see any glaring deficiencies that would make him a serious liability. When the Rags took the body to him, yeah he got knocked around (so did G), but he took it well...got back up and into the battle...I saw him make more than one good play from the defensive zone.

Here's a kid who won multiple major awards as a scoring champ in the OHL, then goes pro, leading a horrible Phantoms team in scoring for three years despite coaching changes and a stint in the ECHL. He did everything the Flyers org has asked. When he's gotten the call to the big club, he has answered it well. He clearly has NHL level talent and has been playing (and producing) against men for a few years now. What more does this kid have to do for people to believe he's for real? It's like people pigeonhole him because he wasn't drafted and that's ingrained in their minds so they can't easily accept that he's legit.

I know it's a relatively small sample size, but I saw more in his play against the Rags than any training camp/pre-season could possibly show. He looked like he belonged and more than that, he was among the team's best performers on more than one night of the series. The points he put up weren't some fluke. He made numerous skilled plays that showed off his vision and hands (and feet if you count that one goal for which he wasn't credited with a point). He also created some good scoring chances that didn't end up as goals, but he made them nonetheless...and I believe he didn't look that bad in his own end, no worse than say a Schenn or Simmer or Harts...if the team plays good team D in Chief's system, he won't often be left on an island, so I think it's a favorable gambit to go with a guy like Akeson.

I believe that if they give him a top six (for the Flyers, really, a top nine) role, Akseon will produce at a significant rate, without being some big liability on D. If somehow he ends up flaming out and sucking, I'm pretty sure he'll sign for cheap so that can be dealt with a number of ways. I don't see the problem.
- exlund

This is great. I too believe Akeson has proved himself in the playoff loss to the Rangers.

1. think Akeson has earned the right to be in the discussion and likely should be in lineup to start season;
2. will be interested to see how he holds up over 82 games in the NHL physicality wise. i know the AHL is tough too

True, but getting smaller up front probably won't make it any better.
- BiggE

Possibly, but getting bigger and slower isn't always a great idea. A lot of times board battles are won with smarts and tenacity more than sheer size.

If a deal comes along that makes sense, fine. But I really want to see them value hockey sense and skating more than size and brawn...or value the former traits as much as the latter.

If you can get a big guy that skates well and has good hockey sense, great.

I think subban is an 8 mil a year dman this summer. I would pay every penny if im the Habs