Jesper Pettersson - D - 5'8" - 187 - Linkoping Sweden - 2014 pick (7-198)

[dats81]

well, better than taking another Klotz or Mathers but probably about the same likelyhood of him ever making it on the Flyers roster

 

[Philadelphia Ducks]

One of my fave picks that we had. Fiesty little guy, hoping we have a baby (less offensive) Timonen in him. Although it seems wrong comparing anyone to the Finnish God.

 

[BernieParent]

Maybe a 5'9 version of Weber?

Spud Weber?

 

[Pantokrator]

Spud Weber?

Hah! Good one.

I like the pick because he looks like someone who can at least fill an AHL slot. The likelihood of getting an NHLer in the 7th round is so small, I'd take someone who can play in the AHL.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

well, better than taking another Klotz or Mathers but probably about the same likelyhood of him ever making it on the Flyers roster

I don't want to get into the whole Klotz, Ghoul, Mathers, Rinaldo, whomever debate...but how is picking a player with the same likelihood to make the team better than taking one of those guys? If you are upset when they picked Ghoul because it is so obvious to everyone that he will never be an NHLer, and this guy is on the same level, why aren't you upset about this?

 

[flyershockey]

I don't want to get into the whole Klotz, Ghoul, Mathers, Rinaldo, whomever debate...but how is picking a player with the same likelihood to make the team better than taking one of those guys? If you are upset when they picked Ghoul because it is so obvious to everyone that he will never be an NHLer, and this guy is on the same level, why aren't you upset about this?

Nobody has a problem with the Goulbourne pick in the 6th or 7th round where this guy was selected. Problem is they picked Goulbourne in the third round when better players were still available, just like they did with Klotz. Notice how people don't hate the Mathers pick that much since it was made in the 7th round?

 

[FLYguy3911]

Nobody has a problem with the Goulbourne pick in the 6th or 7th round where this guy was selected. Problem is they picked Goulbourne in the third round when better players were still available, just like they did with Klotz. Notice how people don't hate the Mathers pick that much since it was made in the 7th round?

Remember Tomas Hyka?

 

[flyershockey]

Remember Tomas Hyka?

Yeah I hesitated to add him because of the **** storm that followed. The pick in general wouldn't have been hated, but because Homer fouled up a rule that he should have known, it blew up into something entirely different.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

The fans calls him "Pitbull".

Had problems in his own zone this season and did not take the step that most people excpected. But still has a lot in him, plays much bigger than his size might indicate.

I hope he makes it on that alone.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Nobody has a problem with the Goulbourne pick in the 6th or 7th round where this guy was selected. Problem is they picked Goulbourne in the third round when better players were still available, just like they did with Klotz. Notice how people don't hate the Mathers pick that much since it was made in the 7th round?

Strange position to take given that the post to which I was responding specifically stated that this pick is better than taking those guys despite the fact that there is the same likelihood of them reaching the NHL. That sounds a lot like a guy who wouldn't have been happy about drafting those guys (he even mentioned Mathers by name). Perhaps you wouldn't have a problem with those picks in the later rounds, but I wasn't responding to anything you said.

A guy made a comment and I was trying to get an explanation. His comment wasn't, "I'd be ok taking Ghoul, Klotz, whomever in the 7th round, but I'd prefer this pick because it is a better pick." His comment was specifically saying that this pick is better than picking someone of that ilk, despite the fact that the players are on the same level and have the same chance at success. I was simply looking for an explanation about why you are ok taking Player A who has little no chance to make the NHL roster, but not ok taking Player B who has the same slim chance at making the NHL roster.

If his explanation is, "What I meant to say was that I'd be ok taking them in the 7th round but not the third round," fine, whatever. But I'm not interested in what you have to say on the subject because you didn't make the initial post. As I said, I don't want to get into whether or not prior picks are good picks or whatever, I just am curious why it is ok draft one guy you think sucks but not another guy you think sucks.

 

[flyershockey]

Strange position to take given that the post to which I was responding specifically stated that this pick is better than taking those guys despite the fact that there is the same likelihood of them reaching the NHL. That sounds a lot like a guy who wouldn't have been happy about drafting those guys (he even mentioned Mathers by name). Perhaps you wouldn't have a problem with those picks in the later rounds, but I wasn't responding to anything you said.

A guy made a comment and I was trying to get an explanation. His comment wasn't, "I'd be ok taking Ghoul, Klotz, whomever in the 7th round, but I'd prefer this pick because it is a better pick." His comment was specifically saying that this pick is better than picking someone of that ilk, despite the fact that the players are on the same level and have the same chance at success. I was simply looking for an explanation about why you are ok taking Player A who has little no chance to make the NHL roster, but not ok taking Player B who has the same slim chance at making the NHL roster.

If his explanation is, "What I meant to say was that I'd be ok taking them in the 7th round but not the third round," fine, whatever. But I'm not interested in what you have to say on the subject because you didn't make the initial post. As I said, I don't want to get into whether or not prior picks are good picks or whatever, I just am curious why it is ok draft one guy you think sucks but not another guy you think sucks.

I would venture to guess that it has something to do with this guy actually being a hockey player and not only providing a skill that's becoming less and less of a necessity at the NHL level. I'm not going to get too upset about them wasting a 7th rounder on Mathers, but it's pretty obvious to most (apparently not to you, but whatever) that taking skill in the later rounds (albeit not that much) is still better than taking another knuckle dragger that might become the next Jody Shelley (useless). It's completely moronic to take those guys in the third round like they did with Klotz.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I would venture to guess that it has something to do with this guy actually being a hockey player and not only providing a skill that's becoming less and less of a necessity at the NHL level. I'm not going to get too upset about them wasting a 7th rounder on Mathers, but it's pretty obvious to most (apparently not to you, but whatever) that taking skill in the later rounds (albeit not that much) is still better than taking another knuckle dragger that might become the next Jody Shelley (useless). It's completely moronic to take those guys in the third round like they did with Klotz.

Again, that wasn't what the post said so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Either way, it still doesn't make sense to me to want one player with a miniscule chance to make the NHL over another player with the same chance. The only way it makes any sense is if your position is simply that no player known for being a pest/fighter/sandpaper guy can ever develop into any form of NHL player (which is silly) and therefore a player who is at the same skill level but doesn't possess that added grit is somehow more valuable.

 

[Random Forest]

Again, that wasn't what the post said so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Either way, it still doesn't make sense to me to want one player with a miniscule chance to make the NHL over another player with the same chance. The only way it makes any sense is if your position is simply that no player known for being a pest/fighter/sandpaper guy can ever develop into any form of NHL player (which is silly) and therefore a player who is at the same skill level but doesn't possess that added grit is somehow more valuable.

Pettersson had/has a proven track record of playing quality hockey at multiple high levels of hockey.

Goulbourne was purely a projection. Perhaps it's a relatively safe one (even that's debatable), but he didn't have the pedigree that Pettersson has.

 

[flyershockey]

Again, that wasn't what the post said so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Either way, it still doesn't make sense to me to want one player with a miniscule chance to make the NHL over another player with the same chance. The only way it makes any sense is if your position is simply that no player known for being a pest/fighter/sandpaper guy can ever develop into any form of NHL player (which is silly) and therefore a player who is at the same skill level but doesn't possess that added grit is somehow more valuable.

Goulbourne isn't the same type of player as Mathers or Klotz. I wouldn't have cared if they took a Goulbourne type player in the 7th this year over over a guy like Pettersson. It's still silly to take guys like Klotz and Mathers over someone like Pettersson though. You want a guy that can actually provide something to an NHL club if he develops (even if it's a long shot) versus someone like Mathers or Klotz who are dime a dozen players even by ECHL standards.

The Goulbourne complaint comes from them taking him in the third round when other more skilled players were available. You're combining two arguments that some have when it comes to their old drafting trends.

 

[Curufinwe]

Goulbourne in the 5th would have been fine.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Pettersson had/has a proven track record of playing quality hockey at multiple high levels of hockey.

Goulbourne was purely a projection. Perhaps it's a relatively safe one (even that's debatable), but he didn't have the pedigree that Pettersson has.

See this is the type of response for which I was looking. I still don't agree, but at least it is an actual response to my question.

Goulbourne isn't the same type of player as Mathers or Klotz. I wouldn't have cared if they took a Goulbourne type player in the 7th this year over over a guy like Pettersson. It's still silly to take guys like Klotz and Mathers over someone like Pettersson though. You want a guy that can actually provide something to an NHL club if he develops (even if it's a long shot) versus someone like Mathers or Klotz who are dime a dozen players even by ECHL standards.

The Goulbourne complaint comes from them taking him in the third round when other more skilled players were available. You're combining two arguments that some have when it comes to their old drafting trends.

Goulbourne in the 5th would have been fine.

Like I said, I didn't want to get into the merits of whether or not these guys should have been drafted or where they should have been drafted or whatever. I was responding to a post regarding a sentiment with which I didn't agree. The continued to discussion of when or if it would be appropriate to draft these players is irrelevant to the question I was asking.