Ghoul would have been a nice 5th round pick in 2013, but too late to still be crying over spilled Bjorkstrands.
- Feanor

Don't you mean spilled Duclair's?

Keep in mind, as much as people like to say, "We could have had [insert player] in the [number] round but we decided to take [insert player] istead," that as long as the pick is outside of the first 2 rounds, every single NHL team passed on drafting that player at least once. So when you compare Goulbourne to Duclair, keep in mind that New York also selected Pavel Buchnevich before Duclair.

I'm sorry, but I just saw another one of these "Solve if you're a math genius" things and they're infuriating. For those of who don't know, here's an example:

If
1 + 5 = 18
2 + 10 =36
3 + 15 = 54

Then what is

4 + 20

The answer is 24. And 1+5 = 6, 2 + 10 = 12, and 3 + 15 = 18. These are not functions (f(x) = y), they are simple mathematical statements. Math is math. 4 + 20 =24, not 72.

Sorry.
- jmatchett383

Thinking is hard.

a ghost taken in the 3rd round is a pretty good pick, a ghoule... lets wait and see

Don't you mean spilled Duclair's?

Keep in mind, as much as people like to say, "We could have had
- jmatchett383[insert player] in the [number] round but we decided to take [insert player] istead," that as long as the pick is outside of the first 2 rounds, every single NHL team passed on drafting that player at least once. So when you compare Goulbourne to Duclair, keep in mind that New York also selected Pavel Buchnevich before Duclair.

Good point. You can look back year after year, and find similar situations.

Yes, it is exactly what he said. This has been discussed many times, by many people. Some have called the pick a bad pick from the get go. That's a false narrative, in my opinion. As is the idea that a team should always draft players with high upside, but low odds and making the NHL, over players who may not have as high of a perceived upside, but are "safer" picks. I believe a team should have a balance between the two, in their drafting. Obviously, it's all speculative, but sometimes the "goon" turns out to be more also.
- MJL

Yes...it is exactly what he said...I don't know why you seem to need to restate that. I think everyone would take a pick that ends up an NHL player over a pick that doesn't (except for 1 person). I think it's a bad way to view draft picks, but as long as he wants ECHL/AHL lifers...

I have a question for you. Had the Flyers really liked Goulbourne, and taken him 11th overall instead of Morin, would you consider it a good pick, assuming he makes the NHL as a 4th liner? To me, it's the weight of the selection, and the player's perceived value, that is the issue. I, and many other people, didn't see him warranting being selected in the 3rd round. Again, you never how 29 other teams value a player, and if you think he's going to get snatched up, then you have to take him. It just seems like a reach is all.

It was held on a weekday at a practice facility over an hour away from where both teams play
- YuenglingJagr

Is that the Islanders normal practice facility?

Yes...it is exactly what he said...I don't know why you seem to need to restate that. I think everyone would take a pick that ends up an NHL player over a pick that doesn't (except for 1 person). I think it's a bad way to view draft picks, but as long as he wants ECHL/AHL lifers...

I have a question for you. Had the Flyers really liked Goulbourne, and taken him 11th overall instead of Morin, would you consider it a good pick, assuming he makes the NHL as a 4th liner? To me, it's the weight of the selection, and the player's perceived value, that is the issue. I, and many other people, didn't see him warranting being selected in the 3rd round. Again, you never how 29 other teams value a player, and if you think he's going to get snatched up, then you have to take him. It just seems like a reach is all.
- jmatchett383

That's the entire point. Fans who think they know more than an NHL team who has extensively scouted a player, and liked him enough to draft him, with a 3rd round pick. Maybe they'll be wrong, or maybe they won't. They read a few scouting reports, a few highlights on youtube, or maybe a write up from a draft "expert" and then call a pick a bad pick. That's BS in my opinion. I agree a team should certainly reach for skilled players, who may have fallen in the draft for whatever reason, and take some chances. Maybe even do more of that, then taking a safer perceived pick. I think they should do some of both.

Don't you mean spilled Duclair's?

Keep in mind, as much as people like to say, "We could have had
- jmatchett383[insert player] in the [number] round but we decided to take [insert player] istead," that as long as the pick is outside of the first 2 rounds, every single NHL team passed on drafting that player at least once. So when you compare Goulbourne to Duclair, keep in mind that New York also selected Pavel Buchnevich before Duclair.

It is impossible to pick player A vs. player B or C and say we should've had that guy, but it is not impossible to fault the strategy. It is also obvious that the Flyers have changed their strategy.

I think going for anything less than a home run is pointless though, as you can find a grinder like Ryan White or a skill guy that hasn't panned out like Sam Gagner any day of the week during the offseason.

That is why going for a "safe" 4th liner with size makes no sense and why I would still rather have picked a skilled guy. The reward is without a doubt worth the risk. And of course...all of this is without the caveat that Goulbourne probably could've been picked several rounds later!

Yes...it is exactly what he said...I don't know why you seem to need to restate that. I think everyone would take a pick that ends up an NHL player over a pick that doesn't (except for 1 person). I think it's a bad way to view draft picks, but as long as he wants ECHL/AHL lifers...

I have a question for you. Had the Flyers really liked Goulbourne, and taken him 11th overall instead of Morin, would you consider it a good pick, assuming he makes the NHL as a 4th liner? To me, it's the weight of the selection, and the player's perceived value, that is the issue. I, and many other people, didn't see him warranting being selected in the 3rd round. Again, you never how 29 other teams value a player, and if you think he's going to get snatched up, then you have to take him. It just seems like a reach is all.
- jmatchett383

It was a reach in a way because they didn't have a 4th or think 5th that year. So they took him in the 3rd because they thought he wouldn't be there later. Wrong or right I don't know.

Thing is people, not you but most others, like to say swing for high ceiling guys in the later rounds. Problem is those guys also come with great odds of failing. There are reasons why they drop past the top 3 rounds. Also your building an organization. You can't always swing for home runs. Sometimes you have to hit some doubles and singles meaning sometimes you need more projectable safe players that have a chance of making your nhl or ahl teams.

I think the Flyers have done well in this balance. I mean look at lindholm in the 5th round who looks to be a very solid pick if he continues development. Wilcox looks to be a solid defense pick. Gostisbehere was really a good pick in the 3rd round.

I really think if you look at the system there is a good balance of prospects.

That's the entire point. Fans who think they know more than an NHL team who has extensively scouted a player, and liked him enough to draft him, with a 3rd round pick. Maybe they'll be wrong, or maybe they won't. They read a few scouting reports, a few highlights on youtube, or maybe a write up from a draft "expert" and then call a pick a bad pick. That's BS in my opinion. I agree a team should certainly reach for skilled players, who may have fallen in the draft for whatever reason, and take some chances. Maybe even do more of that, then taking a safer perceived pick. I think they should do some of both.
- MJL

So, again, if the Flyers really liked Goulbourne, and had taken him with the 11th overall pick that year, would you be okay with it?

Yes, it is exactly what he said. This has been discussed many times, by many people. Some have called the pick a bad pick from the get go. That's a false narrative, in my opinion. As is the idea that a team should always draft players with high upside, but low odds and making the NHL, over players who may not have as high of a perceived upside, but are "safer" picks. I believe a team should have a balance between the two, in their drafting. Obviously, it's all speculative, but sometimes the "goon" turns out to be more also.
- MJL

Goul has played how many NHL games to date?

Goul has played how many NHL games to date?
- jak521

0 but he punched someone

It is impossible to pick player A vs. player B or C and say we should've had that guy, but it is not impossible to fault the strategy. It is also obvious that the Flyers have changed their strategy.

I think going for anything less than a home run is pointless though, as you can find a grinder like Ryan White or a skill guy that hasn't panned out like Sam Gagner any day of the week during the offseason.

That is why going for a "safe" 4th liner with size makes no sense and why I would still rather have picked a skilled guy. The reward is without a doubt worth the risk. And of course...all of this is without the caveat that Goulbourne probably could've been picked several rounds later!
- YuenglingJagr

You might be able to. But you also have to pay them. If I can get Goulbourne on the 4th line and play some pk and chip in some points at $677,500 compared to Ryan White at a 1million then that is savings I can use else where or keep free for the TDL if needed.

It's nice to have some role players in your system instead of having to always go out and pay for FA.

It was a reach in a way because they didn't have a 4th or think 5th that year. So they took him in the 3rd because they thought he wouldn't be there later. Wrong or right I don't know.

Thing is people, not you but most others, like to say swing for high ceiling guys in the later rounds. Problem is those guys also come with great odds of failing. There are reasons why they drop past the top 3 rounds. Also your building an organization. You can't always swing for home runs. Sometimes you have to hit some doubles and singles meaning sometimes you need more projectable safe players that have a chance of making your nhl or ahl teams.

I think the Flyers have done well in this balance. I mean look at lindholm in the 5th round who looks to be a very solid pick if he continues development. Wilcox looks to be a solid defense pick. Gostisbehere was really a good pick in the 3rd round.

I really think if you look at the system there is a good balance of prospects.
- J35Bacher

They did have a 5th, and they used it on Amorosa.

But yes, if they really liked him and thought he'd be gone by the time they picked in the 5th, then it makes some more sense. I, personally, would have gone for a player with a different skill set and track record at that point with the 3rd round pick.

That's the entire point. Fans who think they know more than an NHL team who has extensively scouted a player, and liked him enough to draft him, with a 3rd round pick. Maybe they'll be wrong, or maybe they won't. They read a few scouting reports, a few highlights on youtube, or maybe a write up from a draft "expert" and then call a pick a bad pick. That's BS in my opinion. I agree a team should certainly reach for skilled players, who may have fallen in the draft for whatever reason, and take some chances. Maybe even do more of that, then taking a safer perceived pick. I think they should do some of both.
- MJL

I'm not sure if you are referring to me here, but I never said it was a bad pick. If I did then I 'misspoke', and what I meant is that my preference would be to pick a higher end skill guy in the top 3 rounds...all things being equal.

You might be able to. But you also have to pay them. If I can get Goulbourne on the 4th line and play some pk and chip in some points at $677,500 compared to Ryan White at a 1million then that is savings I can use else where or keep free for the TDL if needed.

It's nice to have some role players in your system instead of having to always go out and pay for FA.
- J35Bacher

But for every guy like Goulbourne who may work out in the first 3 rounds, you have a handful of Garrett Klotz and Kevin Marshall types.

It is impossible to pick player A vs. player B or C and say we should've had that guy, but it is not impossible to fault the strategy. It is also obvious that the Flyers have changed their strategy.

I think going for anything less than a home run is pointless though, as you can find a grinder like Ryan White or a skill guy that hasn't panned out like Sam Gagner any day of the week during the offseason.

That is why going for a "safe" 4th liner with size makes no sense and why I would still rather have picked a skilled guy. The reward is without a doubt worth the risk. And of course...all of this is without the caveat that Goulbourne probably could've been picked several rounds later!
- YuenglingJagr

That's a contradiction. If it is impossible to pick player A vs. player B or C and say we should've had that guy, which I agree with, then it also impossible to hypothetically say we could've taken a player later in the 5th round. If you think a player is going to be a player that you like, and think he can help down the line, then there is nothing wrong with taking the player at that spot.

I'm not sure if you are referring to me here, but I never said it was a bad pick. If I did then I 'misspoke', and what I meant is that my preference would be to pick a higher end skill guy in the top 3 rounds...all things being equal.
- VladDrag

I think he's more talking about the people who come on here and post mock drafts for every round around draft time.

I'm not sure if you are referring to me here, but I never said it was a bad pick. If I did then I 'misspoke', and what I meant is that my preference would be to pick a higher end skill guy in the top 3 rounds...all things being equal.
- VladDrag

It wasn't meant towards anyone specifically, but more in general in how the pick has been viewed. A team needs a balance in it's drafting.

You might be able to. But you also have to pay them. If I can get Goulbourne on the 4th line and play some pk and chip in some points at $677,500 compared to Ryan White at a 1million then that is savings I can use else where or keep free for the TDL if needed.

It's nice to have some role players in your system instead of having to always go out and pay for FA.
- J35Bacher

Okay, even though that difference is incredibly small and there are also players like Gagner who sign for less...I am just going to talk about how nice it is to have those players in your system.

The Flyers currently have about 10 million of those players, and are still searching for skill. Things could be different now if they had placed an emphasis on drafting skill 3-5 years ago, no?

They did have a 5th, and they used it on Amorosa.

But yes, if they really liked him and thought he'd be gone by the time they picked in the 5th, then it makes some more sense. I, personally, would have gone for a player with a different skill set and track record at that point with the 3rd round pick.
- jmatchett383

Obviously a bit easier to play GM from a computer seat, but they could have also offered up trading down a few spots to acquire a 4th and 5th. I know, it does take two to tango.

And, there is also the possibility that at the time of the draft, the Flyers thought Goul had some untapped offensive talent that would come later in development. Or, they knew of another team that was looking to draft him before their pick in the 5th round. Or, they summed up who was left on the board, and in their estimation, no player had a high enough ceiling (in their eyes), so they went with the 'safe' pick.

That's a contradiction. If it is impossible to pick player A vs. player B or C and say we should've had that guy, which I agree with, then it also impossible to hypothetically say we could've taken a player later in the 5th round. If you think a player is going to be a player that you like, and think he can help down the line, then there is nothing wrong with taking the player at that spot.
- MJL

I agree for the most part, but you also have to (in my opinion) see what kind of weight pick carries. If you think a guy has a good chance of being a 4th line grinder/PK player, then you don't take him with a top-15 pick, you take a player who has a shot at being a bigger difference maker.

But for every guy like Goulbourne who may work out in the first 3 rounds, you have a handful of Garrett Klotz and Kevin Marshall types.
- jmatchett383

The crazy thing is that Goul still hasnt done squat.

I think there are about 6-8 guys still ahead of him on that bottom 6 spot fight.

You have guys like Bardreau, Fazleev, Leier, NAK and a vet like McDonald.

You have current competition like Weal, VDV and that new russian kid.

Goul's development has been incredible, not predictable.

But for every guy like Goulbourne who may work out in the first 3 rounds, you have a handful of Garrett Klotz and Kevin Marshall types.
- jmatchett383

I agree.

I mean the draft is hard. It's projected 17-18 year olds and where they might be in 3-4, 5 years for your team.

I do find it funny though that this Golhbourne pick seems to be critiqued all the time like it is the pick that determine if the franchise will succeed. I mean yes, they used a 3rd round pick on Goulbourne but they were also able to find a undrafted player like bardreau, martel, Myers.

I think the Flyers do do a good job of finding the right balance in selections.

It wasn't meant towards anyone specifically, but more in general in how the pick has been viewed. A team needs a balance in it's drafting.
- MJL

No problem. That's fair.