Tyrell Goulbourne

[flyershockey]

That and nearly every scouting agency out there had Goulbourne as a 6-7th round pick. It would be one thing if the guy had a ton of skill but was underscouted or undersized like Ghost was in 2012, but Goulbourne is at best a fourth liner in the NHL. Those are guys you look for in the last coule of rounds.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Bjorkstrand was at #51.
Goulbourne was at #72.

They showed the draft board not blurred out by accident on Flight Plan! It was part of the reason Flight Plan was crap from then on... the Flyers got uber-pissed at that being shown, it was a massive **** up... but a great episode! Pretty much all the 1st round and over half the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th could be deciphered.

They also had:

Morin at #6.
Hagg at #25.

Both were BPA going off the draft board when they were picked.

See now that is interesting. I don't remember seeing that, but if that is the case, then count me in on the "bad pick" train. In their defense though (because I am obligated to defend the O&B at all times), draft boards I'm sure are constantly changing.

 

[Beef Invictus]

That and nearly every scouting agency out there had Goulbourne as a 6-7th round pick. It would be one thing if the guy had a ton of skill but was underscouted or undersized like Ghost was in 2012, but Goulbourne is at best a fourth liner in the NHL. Those are guys you look for in the last coule of rounds.

That was Homer's most frustrating draft trait; from the 3rd round on out, he was likely to pick for the 4th line; as in, that was their maximum ceiling. Screw that, aim for talent. Who drafts for the 4th line?

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

That was Homer's most frustrating draft trait; from the 3rd round on out, he was likely to pick for the 4th line; as in, that was their maximum ceiling. Screw that, aim for talent. Who drafts for the 4th line?

Whatever happened to "we need cheap players to fill in on the 4th line and bottom pair" when we were trading crappy prospects and late round picks? I'd rather pick a solid 4th liner that has a better chance at reaching his potential than a guy who might be a 2nd/3rd liner with a lower shot at reaching the potential. That is not necessarily so in all cases, but for the most part, I don't have any issue drafting for the fourth line (or the third pair) from the 3rd out. Someone did the percentages a while back, but third rounders have something like a 7% chance to be NHL regulars or something like that. Drafting for the top line or drafting for the 4th line is really irrelevant at that point. It's like complaining that you picked the wrong scratch-off ticket because one you had a chance to win $1,000,000 but the other one only had a chance to win $500,000. You have such a very little shot at winning, it doesn't really matter.

 

[Beef Invictus]

It never went away.

You know what's a really good way to fill the 4th line? Pick guys who have talent and hope they can be a surprise top 6 player. And if they aren't, develop THEM to put in your 4th line. Examples: Talbot, Lappy, Carcillo, and from the looks of it, Akeson.

You know what's a terrible way to fill the 4th line? Drafting players whose absolute ceiling is that role, and then hoping they manage to hit that ceiling.

 

[Rebels57]

It never went away.

You know what's a really good way to fill the 4th line? Pick guys who have talent and hope they can be a surprise top 6 player. And if they aren't, develop THEM to put in your 4th line. Examples: Talbot, Lappy, Carcillo, and from the looks of it, Akeson.

You know what's a terrible way to fill the 4th line? Drafting players whose absolute ceiling is that role, and then hoping they manage to hit that ceiling.

THIS!

Drafting players with a ceiling of 4th line plug is just awful.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

I have no problem with trying to get on base from the 5th round & on since usually the few guys with any upside left usually have massive question marks.

 

[Tripod]

I disagree. ALWAYS go for a BOOM guy later in the draft as opposed to a 4th liner. As Beef said, the top line busts can still be 4th liners. Plus, if you even NEED a 4th liner, they are dirt cheap to acquire....often for free.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

I disagree. ALWAYS go for a BOOM guy later in the draft as opposed to a 4th liner. As Beef said, the top line busts can still be 4th liners. Plus, if you even NEED a 4th liner, they are dirt cheap to acquire....often for free.

The problem is there's not that many perceived guys with good upside left in the 5th-7th round. It's still not an exact science but teams are getting better & better at identifying talent thanks to the always improving resources.

The chances of guys just becoming NHL players in those rounds are slim to none. So I don't have a problem drafting safe to produce any result depending on the situation which varies every time.

 

[flyershockey]

The problem is there's not that many perceived guys with good upside left in the 5th-7th round. It's still not an exact science but teams are getting better & better at identifying talent thanks to the always improving resources.

The chances of guys just becoming NHL players in those rounds are slim to none. So I don't have a problem drafting safe to produce any result depending on the situation which varies every time.

That's where I'm at with it. You still need to draft guys that might become capable bottom six players, unless you want to overpay UFA's or rely on UDFA's to fill those spots. I just think the third round is entirely too early to just be shooting for a fourth liner.

 

[sallahoose]

It would be good if he could replace Stortini, but do you even think that would happen? I mean the kid can fight, that's basically all he's known for, but he's not exactly ideal goon size. Plus I heard he's been trying to cut down on his fighting at Kelowna. Lets not forget that we have the currently injured Ryan White on a 2-way contract too, unless he took Rinaldos spot I can't really see him sticking around the Flyers roster.

Totally forgot about that guy until this..

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

That's where I'm at with it. You still need to draft guys that might become capable bottom six players, unless you want to overpay UFA's or rely on UDFA's to fill those spots.

Yeah it had no affect since he overplayed his capabilities the one year & was shipped out shortly the next year but we saw this with Talbot. The contract just would have gotten unnecessary as time went on.

I just think the third round is entirely too early to just be shooting for a fourth liner.

Oh yeah third round is entirely too early to try to get on base with a pick.

I didn't like the pick & still don't like it but with that said I don't mind Goulbourne as a player & I'm not going to hold something against him that was out of his control when evaluating him.

The things that differ between Goulbourne & Rinaldo for me is that Goulbourne isn't really much of a loose cannon at all (his penalty minutes mostly come from just fighting majors). I also like how he's wore a letter with Kelowna (who's a pretty top notch junior club), I don't think they give those out to guys who are detriments to their teams.

I don't think lack of talent is really Rinaldo's problem at this problem. His stupidity usually gets in the way of things so thats why I am a little more hopeful with Goulbourne in comparison to Rinaldo but we still should aim higher at that point in the draft.

 

[Tripod]

That's where I'm at with it. You still need to draft guys that might become capable bottom six players, unless you want to overpay UFA's or rely on UDFA's to fill those spots. I just think the third round is entirely too early to just be shooting for a fourth liner.

1 million can get you a good player..If you are patient. I would have no issue spending it on a Maholtra,

I just think that drafting a guy who if he pans out, is a 4th liner that you keep for 2-4 years, is a waste. As I and others have said, higher drafted and MORE TALENTED players can always fill that role.

Edit: Who is on Boston's 4th line? 1st rd pick Paille, PPG WHL'er and UDFA Fraser and PPG OHL'er 3rd rd pick Campbell.

It just shows how wide a range if guys can play on the 4th line. But these guys all had skill and talent.

Draft a player with more upside, and if he faulters, he can still be a 4th liner.

 

[usurp]

Here is an interesting article looking at players drafted after the 2nd round from 2005-2014 who have played more than 50 games in the NHL.

http://www.defendingbigd.com/2014/1...ton-oilers-columbus-blue-jackets-dallas-stars

 

[Rebels57]

Here is an interesting article looking at players drafted after the 2nd round from 2005-2014 who have played more than 50 games in the NHL.

http://www.defendingbigd.com/2014/1...ton-oilers-columbus-blue-jackets-dallas-stars

Interesting for sure but flawed.

 

[sa cyred]

Interesting for sure but flawed.

I wish I could find the article, but there was one in the past year that showed if you draft the player left with the highest point total, you have a greater chance at an NHL player than if you dont. Some Leafs writer did the research.

 

[flyershockey]

I wish I could find the article, but there was one in the past year that showed if you draft the player left with the highest point total, you have a greater chance at an NHL player than if you dont. Some Leafs writer did the research.

It was a Vancouver writer.

 

[flyershockey]

1 million can get you a good player..If you are patient. I would have no issue spending it on a Maholtra,

I just think that drafting a guy who if he pans out, is a 4th liner that you keep for 2-4 years, is a waste. As I and others have said, higher drafted and MORE TALENTED players can always fill that role.

Edit: Who is on Boston's 4th line? 1st rd pick Paille, PPG WHL'er and UDFA Fraser and PPG OHL'er 3rd rd pick Campbell.

It just shows how wide a range if guys can play on the 4th line. But these guys all had skill and talent.

Draft a player with more upside, and if he faulters, he can still be a 4th liner.

How many high upside prospects are available in the 6th and 7th round?

Also, there's a lot value to drafting and developing homegrown options for the bottom six. They tend to stay cheap for a lot of their career, versus overpaying UFA's. Examples of getting Maholtra types for a million dollars a year are few and far between.

 

[RJ8812*]

I don't understand why the Flyers look to draft 4th liners. They are a dime-a-dozen that can easily be signed via free agency. Flyers should always be looking to draft potential top-9 forwards. Whether the chances they reach that point are high or low, it doesn't matter. It's a complete waste of a draft pick otherwise IMO

 

[Appleyard]

Rinaldo: 0.37 PPG in juniors
Goulbourne: 0.39 PPG in juniors

Some of the better 'fourth' liners in the NHL over the last few years, showing their junior PPG:

Torres: 1.21 PPG
Talbot: 1.2 PPG
Paille: 1.03 PPG
Richardson: 1.02 PPG
MacKenzie: 0.98 PPG
Carcillo: 0.94 PPG
Cizikas: 0.86 PPG
Malhotra: 0.8 PPG
McClement: 0.77 PPG
Chipchura: 0.76 PPG
Lapierre: 0.73 PPG
Crombeen: 0.69 PPG
Fiddler: 0.69 PPG
Gaustad: 0.68 PPG
Martin: 0.66 PPG
Campbell: 0.66 PPG
Weise: 0.65 PPG
Prust: 0.63 PPG
Bordeleau: 0.61 PPG
Roussel: 0.55 PPG
Klinkhammer: 0.54 PPG
Bouma: 0.50 PPG

College:

Letestu: 1.24 PPG
Moore: 1.15 PPG
Condra: 0.99 PPG
Boyle: 0.88 PPG
Vitale: 0.66 PPG

Virtually non of them had below 0.5 PPG when drafted either. (if they were drafted) And a lot had seasons of 0.8 PPG or above.

To be a good NHL 4th liner in general you have to produce at a decent clip in lower level leagues... I mean, it makes sense, if you are a decent hockey player with good physical attributes and a solid two way game capable of transferring to the NHL you should really be pretty good in juniors regardless of your offensive upside simply due to hockey smarts, strength, skating etc.

Pretty much every single one of the decent 4th liners in the NHL had more upside than Rinaldo and Goulbourne when they were drafted... or signed UFA after no-one drafted them.

Taylor Leier, Radel Fazleev and Oskar Lindblom are the kind of guys who if you draft and they don't pan out perfectly could very well make great 4th liners. I mean, they all have more offensive ability than Goulbourne, have great D and were all drafted later than him.

McGinn, Chaput, Cousins, Kempe, Kalinski, Maroon, Matsumoto, Laliberté and Rheault fit that category to some extent as well, skilled players at lower levels, with varying two way games... did they all pan out? No, the odds are stacked against them to begin with...though 7/9 have made the NHL, with Cousins quite possibly doing so in the future as well... but they have a better chance of making an NHL impressions than guys who were worse than them in juniors!

 

[GKJ]

Whatever happened to "we need cheap players to fill in on the 4th line and bottom pair" when we were trading crappy prospects and late round picks? I'd rather pick a solid 4th liner that has a better chance at reaching his potential than a guy who might be a 2nd/3rd liner with a lower shot at reaching the potential. That is not necessarily so in all cases, but for the most part, I don't have any issue drafting for the fourth line (or the third pair) from the 3rd out. Someone did the percentages a while back, but third rounders have something like a 7% chance to be NHL regulars or something like that. Drafting for the top line or drafting for the 4th line is really irrelevant at that point. It's like complaining that you picked the wrong scratch-off ticket because one you had a chance to win $1,000,000 but the other one only had a chance to win $500,000. You have such a very little shot at winning, it doesn't really matter.

Just to be clear, you'd rather draft a worse prospect with a low ceiling, than a better prospect with a higher ceiling but likewise higher bust potential?

That's like saying you'd rather work at Wal-Mart because an actual career might not work out.

Good to see standards are high.

 

[Random Forest]

Just to be clear, you'd rather draft a worse prospect with a low ceiling, than a better prospect with a higher ceiling but likewise higher bust potential?

More like getting on base can be in some circumstances more effective than swinging for the fences.

Disclaimer: Not justifying the Goulbourne pick.

That's like saying you'd rather work at Wal-Mart because an actual career might not work out.

Good to see standards are high.

That's a mortifyingly bad analogy.

 

[Beef Invictus]

There is no "safe" pick where you pick for the 4th line. Rinaldo sucks. Klotz sucked. Ghoul sucks. Good 4th liners were guys who were hoped to be more, but didn't make it. Crappy players are just crappy players.

 

[GapToothedWonder]

When it comes down to it you should draft the best combination of skill, size, speed and brains you can when it is your turn to draft. If a player has a decent amount of ability in those areas they should succeed at the junior level and put up a decent amount of points. If you can't have a decent impact on a junior game shouldn't that be a red flag regardless of what role you think they project to be in the NHL.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Just to be clear, you'd rather draft a worse prospect with a low ceiling, than a better prospect with a higher ceiling but likewise higher bust potential?

That's like saying you'd rather work at Wal-Mart because an actual career might not work out.

Good to see standards are high.

To a certain extent that is what I am saying, but it is not a blanket statement. In the first round, I wouldn't draft a 4th liner. In the third round, the chances of a guy reaching the NHL at all, let alone regularly, let alone above the fourth line, is very minimal. If there is player A who has a shot to be a 2nd-3rd liner, but the scouts or GM or whomever feel that that is a long shot, and player B has a much better shot at becoming a solid 4th liner, then yes I would take the 4th liner. Again, if this was the first round no, I wouldn't take the "safer" 4th line pick. This isn't really a generalized "I'd do this in all situations" scenario, it is very much fact sensitive.

And also, that analogy is wholly off-point. (keeping in the Wal-Mart line) It would be more like saying I'm going to pick something up at Wal-Mart because there's a better chance they will have the item need, even if may not be as high quality as going to the farmer's market. If you go to the farmer's market and get what you need, it's probably higher quality, but they may not have the item you need because the selection is smaller or the item still may not taste as good as the one at Wal-Mart if they do have it.

There is no "safe" pick where you pick for the 4th line. Rinaldo sucks. Klotz sucked. Ghoul sucks. Good 4th liners were guys who were hoped to be more, but didn't make it. Crappy players are just crappy players.

Not sure I'd agree with that. That doesn't really make a lot of sense. You don't think there are players that are drafted with the intent of being on the 4th line? Only players that were supposed to be more are good fourth liners? What about guys that weren't drafted at all that play on the fourth line (or higher for that matter)?