Kooner91 Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Just wondering about your opinions on the 2. Both play a similar, hard-nosed 2 way game. Who has the higher ceiling, and who would you rather have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rypien37 Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Scott Laughton is a year older and I also believe he is very overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbox Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Scott Laughton is a year older and I also believe he is very overrated. This. I've seen a few gens games and he isn't anything special. Dal Colle is a lot more noticeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merely Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Horvat, this guy is so powerful I had no idea. plus he is a leader off and on the ice. So is laughton but I prefer Horvat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamu101 Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Both Horvat and Laughton are leaders for their respective teams I'd have to give it to Horvat He's more hardworking than Laughton We didnt see Laughton do much in the world juniors Horvat contributed a lot Scored goals, assisted some goals Horvat is the winner in a head to head battle between the two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devoted Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Clear bias asking Canucks fans to compare their top prospect vs another team's top prospect. With that being said, I think Bo will have a more complete career. Similar players on a similar path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayRayDown Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Clear bias asking Canucks fans to compare their top prospect vs another team's top prospect. With that being said, I think Bo will have a more complete career. Similar players on a similar path. asking if a 9th overall pick in a deep draft vs a 20th overall pick are usually one sided. Don't know how that is biased. Gaunce would be like Laughton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B00MER Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 This thread will definitely not be biased... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baka Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 asking if a 9th overall pick in a deep draft vs a 20th overall pick are usually one sided. Don't know how that is biased. Gaunce would be like Laughton i don't think you understand how drafts work. Just because a prospect is high rated at draft day does not mean he will ever live up to his scouting. On the reverse just because a player has a lower draft ranking doesn't mean he won't end up a star. Are you mad that you drafted Hodgson over Filatov? Would you also say taking Grabner was the right choice over Giroux just because he was the better prospect? Scouting reports change every few months it is not the most accurate judgement of a player. if you wanted to go by raw numbers Laughton has a slight edge in prospect rating as a better prospect than Horvat. Players picked in the 3rd round will outrank some 1st round picks as they update. Laughton and Horvat are very comparable players. Both were drafted as players with great defensive games but questionable offensive games. Both players exceeded what was expected offensively this year but Laughton was more dominant. Even if you believe in the detail that Horvat being 1 year younger means he will evolve more they are both still dangerously identical prospects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayRayDown Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 i don't think you understand how drafts work. Just because a prospect is high rated at draft day does not mean he will ever live up to his scouting. On the reverse just because a player has a lower draft ranking doesn't mean he won't end up a star. Are you mad that you drafted Hodgson over Filatov? Would you also say taking Grabner was the right choice over Giroux just because he was the better prospect? Scouting reports change every few months it is not the most accurate judgement of a player. if you wanted to go by raw numbers Laughton has a slight edge in prospect rating as a better prospect than Horvat. Players picked in the 3rd round will outrank some 1st round picks as they update. Laughton and Horvat are very comparable players. Both were drafted as players with great defensive games but questionable offensive games. Both players exceeded what was expected offensively this year but Laughton was more dominant. Even if you believe in the detail that Horvat being 1 year younger means he will evolve more they are both still dangerously identical prospects. Questionable offensive games? Horvat's offense wasn't questioned. You are comparing this years stats side by side while ignoring Horvat is a year younger. Look ath their first, 2nd and 3rd years and compare them and Horvat has the edge. there is a reason why Horvat was ranked as high as 4th overall by a NHL team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedman Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Questionable offensive games? Horvat's offense wasn't questioned. You are comparing this years stats side by side while ignoring Horvat is a year younger. Look ath their first, 2nd and 3rd years and compare them and Horvat has the edge. there is a reason why Horvat was ranked as high as 4th overall by a NHL team Yeah the guy was named OHL MVP last year after more goals than anyone, and 3 gwg in the final series vs Barrie Colts. Horvat might not have Stamkos-like offense, but i'd say there's more offensive potential in Horvat than in Laughton. Laughton started showing off himself his last junior year, he had decent offensive numbers last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Horvat and I don't think it's close. I think Laughton is going to be a future 3rd line player, kinda like an Alex Burrows type of player when it's all said and done, and Horvat will be more of a Bergeron or Mike Richards type of player. Although Burrows as we all know is pretty damn good player, Laughton at both world juniors has been quite disappointing even as 3rd line player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azzy Mahmood Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Look ath their first, 2nd and 3rd years and compare them and Horvat has the edge. Doing this shows that Horvat is clearly ahead on offense. I hadn't realised how well Cole Cassels was performing until I looked this up either, the kid looks to be having a good season. So is Gaunce. Makes me wonder, if all these prospects have ace +/- stats, what do the worst kids in the OHL have? -80? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baka Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Questionable offensive games? Horvat's offense wasn't questioned. You are comparing this years stats side by side while ignoring Horvat is a year younger. Look ath their first, 2nd and 3rd years and compare them and Horvat has the edge. there is a reason why Horvat was ranked as high as 4th overall by a NHL team Yeah the guy was named OHL MVP last year after more goals than anyone, and 3 gwg in the final series vs Barrie Colts. Horvat might not have Stamkos-like offense, but i'd say there's more offensive potential in Horvat than in Laughton. Laughton started showing off himself his last junior year, he had decent offensive numbers last year. I guess if you guys consider OHL stats a clear indication of what a players offensive abilities are. (You guys must be pretty disappointed Sestito isn't dropping 40 goals a game like he did in the OHL). On a serious note yes both players offensive sides were questioned as to if they would truly develop and transition in the NHL level. Unless you have a valid theory other than looking at OHL stats I am more inclined to put more faith in a scouting report than a random person on the internet saying his offense is great for no valid reason... Also just because a player is a year younger does not mean anything. Each player has their own ceiling. Same way a player who posts good numbers but is a year younger than Horvat doesn't mean that player is better. Ether way... Bo Horvat 7.5C http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/bo-horvat/ Talent Analysis Horvat’s bullish style of play garnered a lot of attention this year both in London and during the Knights’ run through the OHL playoffs. On a young team, Horvat stepped up and assumed a huge leadership responsibility, while showing his offensive bonafides. But what impresses observers most about Horvat is how hard he plays the game. He can score, but his truest strengths are defensive play and skill in the faceoff circle. Though he would be an ideal third-line centre in the NHL, Horvat could find himself on a team’s top six -- as the sandpaper on an offensively gifted line. He could be lethal in that role as he has the hands and nose for the net to take advantage of the dirty areas of the net. Scott Laughton 7.5B http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/scott_laughton/ Talent Analysis Laughton is two-way center whose primary skills are on the defensive side of the ledger. He is a hard-worker with a consistent approach to the game and plenty of smarts. Laughton is not a highly skilled player and it remains to be seen how he'll develop in this area, but he should be an effective third-line player with some potential for second-line duty ^^^^ Near identical potential ratings. Both players offensive development was questioned and both players are being described at almost the exact same style. Hard working defensive first players who may develop offensively enough to be a top 6 center. I have no issue with someone preferring Horvat but as far as all this talk about how Laughton is like Gaunce and how Horvat is easily the better prospect is laughable homerism by people who have no grasp of prospects out of the Canucks system. This comparison is as close as comparing Kesler to Richards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayRayDown Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I guess if you guys consider OHL stats a clear indication of what a players offensive abilities are. (You guys must be pretty disappointed Sestito isn't dropping 40 goals a game like he did in the OHL). On a serious note yes both players offensive sides were questioned as to if they would truly develop and transition in the NHL level. Unless you have a valid theory other than looking at OHL stats I am more inclined to put more faith in a scouting report than a random person on the internet saying his offense is great for no valid reason... Also just because a player is a year younger does not mean anything. Each player has their own ceiling. Same way a player who posts good numbers but is a year younger than Horvat doesn't mean that player is better. Ether way... Bo Horvat 7.5Chttp://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/bo-horvat/ Scott Laughton 7.5Bhttp://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/scott_laughton/ ^^^^ Near identical potential ratings. Both players offensive development was questioned and both players are being described at almost the exact same style. Hard working defensive first players who may develop offensively enough to be a top 6 center. I have no issue with someone preferring Horvat but as far as all this talk about how Laughton is like Gaunce and how Horvat is easily the better prospect is laughable homerism by people who have no grasp of prospects out of the Canucks system. This comparison is as close as comparing Kesler to Richards. You quoted hockey future? Lol They had Markstrom at #16th top prospect to start the season and Yakupov #3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Not quite sure why we're comparing them, but what the hey: I think both will be very solid 2nd line centers. Laughton will be more in a Mike Richards mold, a little grittier, whereas Horvat will be more in a Bergeron mold, a little stronger defensive game. I would take him over Laughton, but it's pretty close. Both have the potential to be great leaders and wear a "C" on their chest. A more fair comparison would be Laughton and Gaunce, and Couturier and Horvat (drafted in similar places in the draft). Laughton would have a clear advantage over Gaunce, who projects to be a good 3rd line center, sort of like Manny Malhotra. I'd say Couts and Horvat are pretty similar as well. I see Couts as being someone like Jordan Staal with a little more offensive upside. I really couldn't pick one over the other. All in all, I would take Phillys combo of Laughton and Couts over Horvat and Gaunce, but they are both very similar, and both teams have a great set up for their future down the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baka Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 You quoted hockey future? Lol They had Markstrom at #16th top prospect to start the season and Yakupov #3 Oh really? HF doesn't have a record of 100% in prospect scouting reports? Guess they are a terrible source (even though it isn't just HF that says this) Obviously I should trust MayRayDown of CDC for my scouting reports. His experience and expertise make his personal evaluation (which is nothing more than a vague random statement) way more accurate than any scouting report. So ... Give me your expert opinion. Breakdown Horvat's flaws, assets, and his potential. Then give me Laughtons. I will actually save this since my sources on the two are all invalid rendering your opinion as accurate apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baka Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Also comes to mind that Nail and Jacob were both highly touted prospects that dropped off. HF seems more accurate with players who increase in value aka players like Laughton which they have been highering in rating regularly now. If anything your theory is more concerning to Horvat. Though IMO both will end up good NHL players producing around the same as 2C's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayRayDown Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Oh really? HF doesn't have a record of 100% in prospect scouting reports? Guess they are a terrible source (even though it isn't just HF that says this) Obviously I should trust MayRayDown of CDC for my scouting reports. His experience and expertise make his personal evaluation (which is nothing more than a vague random statement) way more accurate than any scouting report. So ... Give me your expert opinion. Breakdown Horvat's flaws, assets, and his potential. Then give me Laughtons. I will actually save this since my sources on the two are all invalid rendering your opinion as accurate apparently. You're the one saying Horvat's offense was in question and the HF qoute about him clearly says "He can score" you are the one rendering your opinions as facts and posting articles that even prove your opinions are wrong lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedman Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I guess if you guys consider OHL stats a clear indication of what a players offensive abilities are. (You guys must be pretty disappointed Sestito isn't dropping 40 goals a game like he did in the OHL). On a serious note yes both players offensive sides were questioned as to if they would truly develop and transition in the NHL level. Unless you have a valid theory other than looking at OHL stats I am more inclined to put more faith in a scouting report than a random person on the internet saying his offense is great for no valid reason... Also just because a player is a year younger does not mean anything. Each player has their own ceiling. Same way a player who posts good numbers but is a year younger than Horvat doesn't mean that player is better. Ether way... Bo Horvat 7.5C http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/bo-horvat/ Scott Laughton 7.5B http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/scott_laughton/ ^^^^ Near identical potential ratings. Both players offensive development was questioned and both players are being described at almost the exact same style. Hard working defensive first players who may develop offensively enough to be a top 6 center. I have no issue with someone preferring Horvat but as far as all this talk about how Laughton is like Gaunce and how Horvat is easily the better prospect is laughable homerism by people who have no grasp of prospects out of the Canucks system. This comparison is as close as comparing Kesler to Richards. I wouldn't expect HF to update those reports often. There's also this: "After a relatively successful Team Canada World Juniors Summer Evaluation Camp, Horvat will attend the Canucks training camp, hoping to earn a spot on the Canucks roster this season. Though there is a chance he might do this, it is more likely that he will need to spend more time with the London Knights. Horvat has the size, speed, and grit that should ultimately land him a top-six position with the Canucks." So basically, this whole report was written before the season even started. I wouldn't look too much into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.