that hurts, gig.
- hammarby31

Your (infuriating use of incorrect) words hurt also, joking or not

In my view, having a set plan of how to bring a player along is the worst approach you can have. Because it removes the actual play of the player from the equation. If Laughton plays well and earns a spot on the team, why shouldn't he stay? Because that's how Tyler Toffoli's player development path went?
The only thing that can or should trump a player's actual play, is roster issues such as waivers or cap issues.
- MJL

There's always a balance to be struck between how a kid looks versus following the most prudent development planning.

Even if a kid plays well enough to make the team, it could still be in the player's, and team's, long-term interests to stick to the plan. It's a pretty fine line, and its different for every kid, but it never hurts to err on the conservative side of things.

If Laughton had been kept on the roster at the beginning of last season, when he played well enough to be a Flyer... I'm not sure if he'd have the same level of confidence that he has today.

There's always a balance to be struck between how a kid looks versus following the most prudent development planning.

Even if a kid plays well enough to make the team, it could still be in the player's, and team's, long-term interests to stick to the plan. It's a pretty fine line, and its different for every kid, but it never hurts to err on the conservative side of things.

If Laughton had been kept on the roster at the beginning of last season, when he played well enough to be a Flyer... I'm not sure if he'd have the same level of confidence that he has today.
- Tomahawk

There shouldn't be a plan that has to be stuck to. It should be fluid and constantly evolving. I don't disagree that it never hurts to be conservative. Such as Hextall's statement that if a young player who is waiver eligible and a veteran are in a lock for a spot. The veteran should get the nod.

Another thing you're not sure of is had Laughton made the team last year, he might be further along in his development by now. And had benefited greatly from a year in the NHL versus a 4th Junior season. Makes my point. There is no set developmental plan, only a philosophy that has gray areas, and is open minded. As Holmgren often said, the players tend to make those decisions on the ice.

The only thing that throws a wrench into basing it on a players play on the ice, is cap issues and waiver issues. And the games teams have to play. The roster the Flyers submit to the League out of camp, may not be the same one that is in place on opening night. And I think one question that might be answered is the timing of the Rinaldo re-signing.

There's always a balance to be struck between how a kid looks versus following the most prudent development planning.

Even if a kid plays well enough to make the team, it could still be in the player's, and team's, long-term interests to stick to the plan. It's a pretty fine line, and its different for every kid, but it never hurts to err on the conservative side of things.

If Laughton had been kept on the roster at the beginning of last season, when he played well enough to be a Flyer... I'm not sure if he'd have the same level of confidence that he has today.
- Tomahawk

I think there's something to be said, as well, for the kind of physical development that only comes with the passage of time.

It's not that I don't think Laughton can make the roster and play. But take someone like Justin Williams, who also made the roster as a young player. It took Williams a few years to develop the kind of "man strength" you need to play in the league, and there's no reason why a player has to be on the third or fourth lines while they develop that kind of strength.

Most players could really benefit from that extra time. Laughton dominated in the OHL last season, and it is likely that he can contribute, on some level. But I agree with the sentiment that just because he can make the roster, as he did last year, doesn't mean that it's the best path for his development.

Patience cannot hurt these kids. It just can't.

I think there's something to be said, as well, for the kind of physical development that only comes with the passage of time.

It's not that I don't think Laughton can make the roster and play. But take someone like Justin Williams, who also made the roster as a young player. It took Williams a few years to develop the kind of "man strength" you need to play in the league, and there's no reason why a player has to be on the third or fourth lines while they develop that kind of strength.

Most players could really benefit from that extra time. Laughton dominated in the OHL last season, and it is likely that he can contribute, on some level. But I agree with the sentiment that just because he can make the roster, as he did last year, doesn't mean that it's the best path for his development.

Patience cannot hurt these kids. It just can't.
- AllInForFlyers

To me the point is that there is two sides to it. It also doesn't mean that the AHL is the best developmental path for him. The NHL may be the best path. You can bring up all the players from the past you want, doesn't mean that's the case with Laughton. Every player is different.

I think there's something to be said, as well, for the kind of physical development that only comes with the passage of time.

It's not that I don't think Laughton can make the roster and play. But take someone like Justin Williams, who also made the roster as a young player. It took Williams a few years to develop the kind of "man strength" you need to play in the league, and there's no reason why a player has to be on the third or fourth lines while they develop that kind of strength.

Most players could really benefit from that extra time. Laughton dominated in the OHL last season, and it is likely that he can contribute, on some level. But I agree with the sentiment that just because he can make the roster, as he did last year, doesn't mean that it's the best path for his development.

Patience cannot hurt these kids. It just can't.
- AllInForFlyers

I've said all along that, while I think Laughton is ready, I want him to kick the door down in terms of making the team. I want him to come to camp and be one of the 9 best forwards and make it impossible for the Flyers to send him down.

That said, I think he can earn a job on the Flyers this season. Spending some time in the AHL isn't a killer, though. You know he'll see a ton of ice time and play all situations as a Phantom, but if he does make the Flyers, I'd expect him to see fairly consistent time as well, and seeing some PK time as well.

To me the point is that there is two sides to it. It also doesn't mean that the AHL is the best developmental path for him. The NHL may be the best path. You can bring up all the players from the past you want, doesn't mean that's the case with Laughton. Every player is different.
- MJL

I'm not trying to argue about it; I bring up examples of the known past to reinforce my point. If there are numerous examples, then it goes from outlier to trend to likelihood.

The fact that numerous examples exist isn't positive or negative; it is what it is. Maybe Laughton's ready to rock and doesn't need the extra time. But most players do benefit from it.

I've said all along that, while I think Laughton is ready, I want him to kick the door down in terms of making the team. I want him to come to camp and be one of the 9 best forwards and make it impossible for the Flyers to send him down.

That said, I think he can earn a job on the Flyers this season. Spending some time in the AHL isn't a killer, though. You know he'll see a ton of ice time and play all situations as a Phantom, but if he does make the Flyers, I'd expect him to see fairly consistent time as well, and seeing some PK time as well.
- Jsaquella

Hey, if he's truly ready to go, more power to him. And believe me, I do understand that as a young player, if he does make the roster, he's going to make mistakes -- it's not like I'm going to be sitting here waiting for them. I'll hope he does well, as always.

But if/when a teachable moment comes, it's not like I'm going to be saying he should be on the express to Allentown after the game, you know? I'll hope he plays well enough to merit consideration for more minutes and responsibility, as opposed to Chief having to find creative ways to get him a few minutes here and there.

I'm not trying to argue about it; I bring up examples of the known past to reinforce my point. If there are numerous examples, then it goes from outlier to trend to likelihood.

The fact that numerous examples exist isn't positive or negative; it is what it is. Maybe Laughton's ready to rock and doesn't need the extra time. But most players do benefit from it.
- AllInForFlyers

Out of the thousands of hockey players that have come up through the ranks, you don't think that there is numerous examples of players who were ready for the NHL right out of juniors, and skipped over the AHL? So where is the trend to likelihood?

I think not only do some players benefit from it, but some need it. Some don't. That's the point. Every player is different, and an individual.

The only way I would send Laughton down is if they weren't completely sure that he was ready for the NHL, or if there is a cap or roster situation. Because Laughton is waiver eligible. If there was no roster or cap situation, and there is a consensus that Laughton won a spot, then he should stay with the Flyers in my view.

Hey, if he's truly ready to go, more power to him. And believe me, I do understand that as a young player, if he does make the roster, he's going to make mistakes -- it's not like I'm going to be sitting here waiting for them. I'll hope he does well, as always.

But if/when a teachable moment comes, it's not like I'm going to be saying he should be on the express to Allentown after the game, you know? I'll hope he plays well enough to merit consideration for more minutes and responsibility, as opposed to Chief having to find creative ways to get him a few minutes here and there.
- AllInForFlyers

Exactly, if he's not seeing consistent minutes then it's a no brainer to send him to Allentown. He's got to play regularly. He's got to be able to make and learn from mistakes and gain confidence that one mistake won't be a ticket to the bench

Out of the thousands of hockey players that have come up through the ranks, you don't think that there is numerous examples of players who were ready for the NHL right out of juniors, and skipped over the AHL? So where is the trend to likelihood?

I think not only do some players benefit from it, but some need it. Some don't. That's the point. Every player is different, and an individual.

The only way I would send Laughton down is if they weren't completely sure that he was ready for the NHL, or if there is a cap or roster situation. Because Laughton is waiver eligible. If there was no roster or cap situation, and there is a consensus that Laughton won a spot, then he should stay with the Flyers in my view.
- MJL

TBH, I'd bet every single thing that I own that far more players were not ready for the NHL out of junior than were.

I agree that Laughton's an individual and deserves to be judged accordingly, but at the same time, I don't pretend that making the team out of camp in a fourth-line role, if that role is limited, is an accomplishment that indicates whether Laughton is truly ready to play.

TBH, I'd bet every single thing that I own that far more players were not ready for the NHL out of junior than were.
- AllInForFlyers

So just as a hypothetical, say we look at 1000 players who came up, and 600 weren't ready, and 400 were. Therefore that should factor into whether Scott Laughton makes the team or not? Even if it's 70%. Or whatever it is. Why does that matter? Why should there be some rigid plan that factors in that more players weren't ready then were, into how the Flyers handle any player making the team? Shouldn't that players play, and whether he is actually ready or not, be the biggest deciding factor?

Here's how I see it. Has Laughton earned a spot, and does he seem ready for the NHL? Can we be assured that he will see enough playing time? And are there any roster or cap implications that would factor in?

Anything else, such as what's happened in the past with Justin Williams, or any other player, couldn't be more irrelevant in my view.

I agree that Laughton's an individual and deserves to be judged accordingly, but at the same time, I don't pretend that making the team out of camp in a fourth-line role, if that role is limited, is an accomplishment that indicates whether Laughton is truly ready to play.
- AllInForFlyers

This doesn't make a lot of sense. If he's not ready to play in the NHL, why would he make the team in any capacity or role? That would truly be a case of player mismanagement. With a player that is waiver exempt and eligible for the AHL? Then that would be a case of a player making the team based on draft status, and or pedigree. Instead of relying on the play on the ice.

So just as a hypothetical, say we look at 1000 players who came up, and 600 weren't ready, and 400 were. Therefore that should factor into whether Scott Laughton makes the team or not? Even if it's 70%. Or whatever it is. Why does that matter? Why should there be some rigid plan that factors in that more players weren't ready then were, into how the Flyers handle any player making the team? Shouldn't that players play, and whether he is actually ready or not, be the biggest deciding factor?

Here's how I see it. Has Laughton earned a spot, and does he seem ready for the NHL? Can we be assured that he will see enough playing time? And are there any roster or cap implications that would factor in?

Anything else, such as what's happened in the past with Justin Williams, or any other player, couldn't be more irrelevant in my view.
- MJL

And that's where we disagree -- and that's fine. People can disagree.

But the reason why it isn't irrelevant is because teams make decisions based on many things, including production. How players are perceived is based on production.

Production comes from many things; experience and physical development are two of the biggest. Obviously, you don't get NHL experience when you're not in the league -- we all get that.

But where we disagree is that I feel it is completely relevant to look at history, because it can be clearly seen that young players tend to struggle in the NHL. But in many cases, minor-league experience or professional experience in Europe appears to help minimize some of those struggles.

None of this stuff happens in a vacuum. It's entirely possible that Laughton could be ready. But league history has shown that more likely than not, he isn't completely ready AND would benefit from more development time.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. If he's not ready to play in the NHL, why would he make the team in any capacity or role? That would truly be a case of player mismanagement. With a player that is waiver exempt and eligible for the AHL? Then that would be a case of a player making the team based on draft status, and or pedigree. Instead of relying on the play on the ice.
- MJL

Why did he make the team last year, but was immediately sent down? Just because you make the team doesn't mean you're ready to play.

Matt Barkley's a Philadelphia Eagle. Is he ready to play? Players make teams all the time, in every sport, and aren't ready to play.

Why did he make the team last year, but was immediately sent down? Just because you make the team doesn't mean you're ready to play.

Matt Barkley's a Philadelphia Eagle. Is he ready to play? Players make teams all the time, in every sport, and aren't ready to play.
- AllInForFlyers

In all fairness, that is an apples to oranges comparison.

Top QBs in the league
1. Foles
2. Kaepernick

Worst QBs in the league
1. Romo
2. Cutler

In all fairness, that is an apples to oranges comparison.
- MBFlyerfan

How else can you do it? I can name hundreds of players. My point's a simple one: Players do make teams in the NHL and they're just not ready -- Luca Sbisa. Joe Thornton had something like six points as a rookie.

It's not being critical, or negative, to just state that.

And that's where we disagree -- and that's fine. People can disagree.

But the reason why it isn't irrelevant is because teams make decisions based on many things, including production. How players are perceived is based on production.

Production comes from many things; experience and physical development are two of the biggest. Obviously, you don't get NHL experience when you're not in the league -- we all get that.

But where we disagree is that I feel it is completely relevant to look at history, because it can be clearly seen that young players tend to struggle in the NHL. But in many cases, minor-league experience or professional experience in Europe appears to help minimize some of those struggles.

None of this stuff happens in a vacuum. It's entirely possible that Laughton could be ready. But league history has shown that more likely than not, he isn't completely ready AND would benefit from more development time.
- AllInForFlyers

So again, the team should factor in the odds based on past history, of other players, into the equation when deciding to keep Laughton or send him down?

Well you're right that none of this stuff happens in a vacuum, which is exactly why what's happened with other players is irrelevant.

I believe the Flyers should be conservative, and if there is any doubt about Laughton, they should send him down. So maybe we arrive at the same place, but the method is different. I'm going to let Laughton decide whether he is ready or not. Not Justin Williams or any other player.

Why did he make the team last year, but was immediately sent down? Just because you make the team doesn't mean you're ready to play.

Matt Barkley's a Philadelphia Eagle. Is he ready to play? Players make teams all the time, in every sport, and aren't ready to play.
- AllInForFlyers

Salary Cap maneuver! We're probably going to see the some of the same this year. The roster that is given to the League coming out of camp, may not be the same one in place on opening night of the season.

And guess what, If Laughton makes the team this year, and seems to struggle, then they should send him down! And they would be making the decision based on his play and what's best for him and the team. Or should the Flyers consult past league history and see what was done with other players in that situation?

Salary Cap maneuver!

And guess what, If Laughton makes the team this year, and seems to struggle, then they should send him down! And they would be making the decision based on his play and what's best for him and the team. Or should the Flyers consult past league history and see what was done with other players in that situation?
- MJL

Which was my point: Making the team isn't that big a deal, if you're not truly ready to play.

How else can you do it? I can name hundreds of players. My point's a simple one: Players do make teams in the NHL and they're just not ready -- Luca Sbisa. Joe Thornton had something like six points as a rookie.

It's not being critical, or negative, to just state that.
- AllInForFlyers

Ok, because Matt Barkley is never going to play 2 series in every game which is akin to what a 4th liner playing 8 or 10 minutes a game is like in hockey. Its a different animal altogether.

Ok, because Matt Barkley is never going to play 2 series in every game which is akin to what a 4th liner playing 8 or 10 minutes a game is like in hockey. Its a different animal altogether.
- MBFlyerfan

Believe me, I understand that. But the statement was made that players won't make the team if they're not ready to play, but that simply isn't true.

Which was my point: Making the team isn't that big a deal, if you're not truly ready to play.
- AllInForFlyers

That's not what the conversation is about. The conversation is about what comes into play in deciding if Laughton should make the team or not.

You say past history of other NHL players should factor in, I disagree that it should.

Who would disagree that if Laughton is not ready for the NHL then he should be sent down?

How else can you do it? I can name hundreds of players. My point's a simple one: Players do make teams in the NHL and they're just not ready -- Luca Sbisa. Joe Thornton had something like six points as a rookie.

It's not being critical, or negative, to just state that.
- AllInForFlyers

don't forget lecavalier struggled for a few years when he came into the NHL!