The Flyers have needs everywhere.
- Jsaquella

Oh god, this.

(Even w/ Sanheim, there are no sure-bets on D either)

Rags lose!!!!

Rags lose!!!!
- BiggE

Rangers offense


[url]

Sure you will get over 2004. When they win the Cup in 2044
- PLindbergh31

nope. there will always be a hole.

Yep. At least he got to bang Pamela Anderson
- Jsaquella

so did my neighbor growing up. in fact, he married her three times. lunatics.

Rags lose!!!!
- BiggE

i'm not sure there's anything on this earth i enjoy more than the rangers getting shutout in a playoff game. (frank) them.

In their opinion, yes. He just said that.
- JAKEw1234

Was their opinion right or wrong?

i'm not sure there's anything on this earth i enjoy more than the rangers getting shutout in a playoff game. (frank) them.
- hammarby31

Their PP was a joke. Literally one guy skating the top of the umbrella until he finally uncorks a limp wrister

nope. there will always be a hole.
- hammarby31

2000 will always piss me off more i think

Was their opinion right or wrong?
- SuperSchennBros

Maybe?

i'm not sure there's anything on this earth i enjoy more than the rangers getting shutout in a playoff game. (frank) them.
- hammarby31

Not even that time you banged Pamela Anderson?

Their PP was a joke. Literally one guy skating the top of the umbrella until he finally uncorks a limp wrister
- Just5

until the final few minutes of the game i saw not much other than a whole lot of high energy slop. i watched the first and third. maybe the second period was a little more precise.

2000 will always piss me off more i think
- Just5

they both suck. a lot. the rage i felt at the end of both games was off the charts.

Not even that time you banged Pamela Anderson?
- Jsaquella

my neighbor really did. rick salamon. grew up with him. in fact, i used to house sit for his aunt up in burlington while i was a student at UVM. she was a writer for the local paper. watched a lot of the canucks playoff run in 94 in her house, alone. it's amazing i didn't break anything.

my neighbor really did. rick salamon. grew up with him. in fact, i used to house sit for his aunt up in burlington while i was a student at UVM. she was a writer for the local paper. watched a lot of the canucks playoff run in 94 in her house, alone. it's amazing i didn't break anything.
- hammarby31

- MBFlyerfan

Maybe?
- JAKEw1234

You wanted to get into the mix on this debate and all you have is "Maybe". At that time we didn't have Morin, Sanhiem, Ghost, Hagg and Alt but we did have a 24 year old Giroux, a 19 year old Couturier and a 20 year old Schenn, all the while making the transition from Briere to Lecavalier. The Pens took Maatta two spots behind us. Is Laughton better then Maatta right now?

You wanted to get into the mix on this debate and all you have is "Maybe". At that time we didn't have Morin, Sanhiem, Ghost, Hagg and Alt but we did have a 24 year old Giroux, a 19 year old Couturier and a 20 year old Schenn, all the while making the transition from Briere to Lecavalier. The Pens took Maatta two spots behind us. Is Laughton better then Maatta right now?
- SuperSchennBros

Well no but that doesn't matter so much. What matters is that they picked the guy that their scouting team thought would be the best guy in the future. We can't really say yet who will end up the better pro, but what's important is the practice of choosing the BPA. There will be a lot of times when someone you passed up on develops into a better player than you thought, so it's a little pointless to rag on the scouting team for not always picking the best guy. Cause prospects can be unpredictable. We could've picked Maatta and passed up on Laughton, and Laughton could've turned into the front runner like Maatta is now. poop happens, it's pointless to take a couple of instances of a good player being passed up on and use it to justify picking based on need.

You wanted to get into the mix on this debate and all you have is "Maybe". At that time we didn't have Morin, Sanhiem, Ghost, Hagg and Alt but we did have a 24 year old Giroux, a 19 year old Couturier and a 20 year old Schenn, all the while making the transition from Briere to Lecavalier. The Pens took Maatta two spots behind us. Is Laughton better then Maatta right now?
- SuperSchennBros

I don't think anyone would disagree that if you have two guys, a forward and a defenseman rated as near equal, then organizational need is a viable way to decide. To use this year's prospective picks, I like Mathew Barzal and Ivan Provorov, just about equally. I rate Barzal slightly higher because he plays a position of deeper need, and if both were there at 7, I'd go with him. Because even though the current D prospects are no sure bet, there's a huge need for skilled forwards.

In the argument of Laughton vs Maatta, I think it's straying a bit. In that case, I agree that not only was Maatta the BPA, but he also filled a bigger need than Laughton. I preferred Maatta then and I'd prefer him now. But I do like Laughton and he was a very solid pick there.

But that's not really a discussion of BPA vs need. It seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you feel that not only was Maatta a better need pick, but also a better player. Would you have had the same feelings if, instead of Laughton or Maatta, the Flyers had drafted Jordan Schmaltz, Michael Matheson or Brady Skjei?

They were the next 3 defensemen taken, and all are very highly regarded prospects who went the NCAA route-and definitely would have been comparable to Laughton in terms of overall rating by most scouting types at the time of the draft. I guess what I'm asking is, is the Laughton/Maatta discussion really about BPA vs need or just a disagreement with the Flyers over whether Laughton or Maatta was the BPA?

Well no but that doesn't matter so much. What matters is that they picked the guy that their scouting team thought would be the best guy in the future. We can't really say yet who will end up the better pro, but what's important is the practice of choosing the BPA. There will be a lot of times when someone you passed up on develops into a better player than you thought, so it's a little pointless to rag on the scouting team for not always picking the best guy. Cause prospects can be unpredictable. We could've picked Maatta and passed up on Laughton, and Laughton could've turned into the front runner like Maatta is now. poop happens, it's pointless to take a couple of instances of a good player being passed up on and use it to justify picking based on need.
- JAKEw1234

No the point. We were deep at center and weak on defense. I don't think we've been picking the "Best Player Available" the last couple years. I think it's no coincidence that while Kimmo Timonen was aging and how we've become thin on defense on the current roster that we talk piled on defense. Now moving forward, I think we're thin at forward and that's what I would push towards, most importantly on wing. Now if the Flyers choose a defenseman that they feel could be a home run, Why would I be upset about that? I wouldn't be. At the same time, I think it's best to lean towards a position of need.

Some on here have widen the gap to make their point to say that you don't choose a player likely to be chosen late to get him early because the organization he fills a need. I think this is a weak argument. Let's say we could use the forward but the BPA is only two spots up from our position. I would stop and think before making this decision. A two spot separation is much better then trying to make the point between a 13 separation.

I don't think anyone would disagree that if you have two guys, a forward and a defenseman rated as near equal, then organizational need is a viable way to decide. To use this year's prospective picks, I like Mathew Barzal and Ivan Provorov, just about equally. I rate Barzal slightly higher because he plays a position of deeper need, and if both were there at 7, I'd go with him. Because even though the current D prospects are no sure bet, there's a huge need for skilled forwards.

In the argument of Laughton vs Maatta, I think it's straying a bit. In that case, I agree that not only was Maatta the BPA, but he also filled a bigger need than Laughton. I preferred Maatta then and I'd prefer him now. But I do like Laughton and he was a very solid pick there.

But that's not really a discussion of BPA vs need. It seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you feel that not only was Maatta a better need pick, but also a better player. Would you have had the same feelings if, instead of Laughton or Maatta, the Flyers had drafted Jordan Schmaltz, Michael Matheson or Brady Skjei?

They were the next 3 defensemen taken, and all are very highly regarded prospects who went the NCAA route-and definitely would have been comparable to Laughton in terms of overall rating by most scouting types at the time of the draft. I guess what I'm asking is, is the Laughton/Maatta discussion really about BPA vs need or just a disagreement with the Flyers over whether Laughton or Maatta was the BPA?
- Jsaquella

I think you have proposed the best argument of anyone so far. With this said though, I don't think we've been picking the "best player available". I truly believe that we needed defense after the 2012 draft where we chose Laughton and ran with things from there. I don't think it's a coincidence at all that we're deep within defensive prospects as appose to a couple years ago. I think the Flyers like Steve Mason and Anthony Stolarz and are building from the net out.

I think you have proposed the best argument of anyone so far. With this said though, I don't think we've been picking the "best player available". I truly believe that we needed defense after the 2012 draft where we chose Laughton and ran with things from there. I don't think it's a coincidence at all that we're deep within defensive prospects as appose to a couple years ago.
- SuperSchennBros

It's certainly debateable if they are picking the best player available...a better way to put it, they're picking the player they have rated the highest. We can argue that all the live long day.

In 2012, Maatta was seen as more NHL ready, but there were questions about how good he would be at the next level. Still he was expected to go around the 10 slot. Heading into that draft, I liked Slater Koekkoek for the Flyers. But Tampa grabbed him at 10. When Maatta slid, I preferred him. But I viewed it as the guy who I felt was best. It was just gravy that he was a defenseman.

Same thing in 2013. I wasn't a huge fan of Morin. I was hoping they'd get a shot at Sean Monahan, and failing that I liked Nichushkin, Pulock, Morrissey, Zadorov, & Ristolainen. Morin has made huge strides, but I'd still rather have Monahan.

But that's more a disagreement with which guy is the best prospect, rather than making need a primary factor. I'm not dismissing need, I just see it as a secondary factor, something to consider when you're looking at two guys and it's pretty much a dead heat. That's why I use Barzal and Provorov. In and of themselves, Provorov is probably a bit more highly rated by most. But I prefer Barzal, because he's a bigger need-but also because the difference them in terms of being a better prospect is miniscule.

Now if it's a debate between a guy like Timo Meier vs Provorov, it's no question. I'm taking Provorov, even though Meier fills a bigger immediate need, because Provorov steps in and is immediately their best or second best D prospect.

It's certainly debateable if they are picking the best player available...a better way to put it, they're picking the player they have rated the highest. We can argue that all the live long day.

In 2012, Maatta was seen as more NHL ready, but there were questions about how good he would be at the next level. Still he was expected to go around the 10 slot. Heading into that draft, I liked Slater Koekkoek for the Flyers. But Tampa grabbed him at 10. When Maatta slid, I preferred him. But I viewed it as the guy who I felt was best. It was just gravy that he was a defenseman.

Same thing in 2013. I wasn't a huge fan of Morin. I was hoping they'd get a shot at Sean Monahan, and failing that I liked Nichushkin, Pulock, Morrissey, Zadorov, & Ristolainen. Morin has made huge strides, but I'd still rather have Monahan.

But that's more a disagreement with which guy is the best prospect, rather than making need a primary factor. I'm not dismissing need, I just see it as a secondary factor, something to consider when you're looking at two guys and it's pretty much a dead heat. That's why I use Barzal and Provorov. In and of themselves, Provorov is probably a bit more highly rated by most. But I prefer Barzal, because he's a bigger need-but also because the difference them in terms of being a better prospect is miniscule.

Now if it's a debate between a guy like Timo Meier vs Provorov, it's no question. I'm taking Provorov, even though Meier fills a bigger immediate need, because Provorov steps in and is immediately their best or second best D prospect.
- Jsaquella

Great points. I also wanted Ryan Pulock during the 2013 draft.

- ob18

i just want some chips.