Scott Laughton vs Bo Horvat

[Baka]

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

Oh... So now that you are apparently on the HF bandwagon... Because they said he can score... even though they clearly say he is suited for a 3C position and is still a lower rank than Laughton your selective reading overrides the whole article? You do realize 3C's can still score right? Their are 3C's who have posted 40-50 points. But then again I guess you haven't watched any team other than the Canucks?

Hell why would HF post that he is best fit for a 3C then say he can score if they were implying 2C duty? Think about it.

But still don't ignore my request. You are all about whining about how Horvat is so much better than Laughton. Prove it. Am I asking to much of you to back up your own words? If these scouting reports are not relevant what is? Show me. Prove to me that Horvat is amazing and Laughton is a chump who shouldn't be compared.

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.

HF updates the player ratings randomly throughout the NHL season. Both Horvat and Laughton started the season lower ranked and both have seen recent upgrades.

Plus like I said HF is not the only site that has scouting reports IMO its just the most common and most accurate.

Feel free to go on any scouting website they are both within the same range on all of them.

Hell feel free to go to a Flyers forum and say Horvat is easily better than Laughton. It's called homerism. Fans from one team don't need logic or any form of back up they just assume they have the best prospects. Even though scouting reports say otherwise and even draft history favors the Flyers over a sub par Canucks scouting.

I am on a Canucks forum getting flamed for saying a player who has a better scouting report than a Canuck player should be considered a similar talent. I am not even saying Laughton is better but because I even compared Laughton to Horvat I have dishonored some invisible code lol.

If Laughton being compared to Horvat is such a mismatch then prove it to me. Give me 1 spec of fact that makes me believe Horvat is so much better.

[wshdrvvn]

maybe they factor in that laughton has NHL and AHL experience already? and that he's older with more OHL experience as well? perhaps they give him that B rating over Bo's C based on sample size. True you can't base a comparison of draft ranking but its pretty obvious guys picked in the top 10 tend to be more successful then guys picked outside of that. Guys like giroux are the exception.

[Hedman]

Oh... So now that you are apparently on the HF bandwagon... Because they said he can score... even though they clearly say he is suited for a 3C position and is still a lower rank than Laughton your selective reading overrides the whole article? You do realize 3C's can still score right? Their are 3C's who have posted 40-50 points. But then again I guess you haven't watched any team other than the Canucks?

Hell why would HF post that he is best fit for a 3C then say he can score if they were implying 2C duty? Think about it.

But still don't ignore my request. You are all about whining about how Horvat is so much better than Laughton. Prove it. Am I asking to much of you to back up your own words? If these scouting reports are not relevant what is? Show me. Prove to me that Horvat is amazing and Laughton is a chump who shouldn't be compared.

HF updates the player ratings randomly throughout the NHL season. Both Horvat and Laughton started the season lower ranked and both have seen recent upgrades.

Plus like I said HF is not the only site that has scouting reports IMO its just the most common and most accurate.

Feel free to go on any scouting website they are both within the same range on all of them.

Hell feel free to go to a Flyers forum and say Horvat is easily better than Laughton. It's called homerism. Fans from one team don't need logic or any form of back up they just assume they have the best prospects. Even though scouting reports say otherwise and even draft history favors the Flyers over a sub par Canucks scouting.

I am on a Canucks forum getting flamed for saying a player who has a better scouting report than a Canuck player should be considered a similar talent. I am not even saying Laughton is better but because I even compared Laughton to Horvat I have dishonored some invisible code lol.

If Laughton being compared to Horvat is such a mismatch then prove it to me. Give me 1 spec of fact that makes me believe Horvat is so much better.

But except for ratings, it seems that the actual scouting report you posted isn't much up to date at all, proven by my post. You could also go to our prospects, and see that they're listing Jeremy Welsh as a 7.0 C potential. He's far away from being a 7.0 rated player, IMO, which is 2nd line potential, yet that's what he is listed as. But again, hockeyfuture will just wave that crap off with their ridiculous letter-ratings, saying that "he could drop 3 ratings". I wouldn't say it's accurate at all.

But if you are into stuff like that, you should check the hockey news future watch rankings, with their top75 talents. Horvat is listed as number 12, while Laughton is number 15.

[messier's_elbow]

But except for ratings, it seems that the actual scouting report you posted isn't much up to date at all, proven by my post. You could also go to our prospects, and see that they're listing Jeremy Welsh as a 7.0 C potential. He's far away from being a 7.0 rated player, IMO, which is 2nd line potential, yet that's what he is listed as. But again, hockeyfuture will just wave that crap off with their ridiculous letter-ratings, saying that "he could drop 3 ratings". I wouldn't say it's accurate at all.

But if you are into stuff like that, you should check the hockey news future watch rankings, with their top75 talents. Horvat is listed as number 12, while Laughton is number 15.

I bet Jensen isnt even on their list. Filitov was number 1 on their list a few years ago.

[Drouin]

Laughton

Draft season - GP 64, G 21, A 32, P 53 = 0.83 PPG

Post Draft season - GP 49, G 23, A 33, P 56 = 1.14 PPG

Horvat

Draft season - GP 67, G 33, A 28, P 61 = 0.91 PPG

Post Draft season - GP 54, G 30, A 44, P 74 = 1.37 PPG

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.

I wonder why he was "more dominant" .. and yes, being 1 year younger means he WILL evolve more. Just look at the numbers above.. if Horvat is to play in the CHL again next season [highly unlikely] he'd have a better season than Laughton is having this season.

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).

Did you not just post,

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.

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 think Horvat's offensive development wasn't questioned as much as Laughtons.. especially after that great playoff performance

As for HockeysFuture, that whole rating system is BS.

I think both will be good players but Laughton will be forced to play 3rd line mins or switch to the wing due to Philly's center depth.

Horvat will likely get top 6 mins in Vancouver.

IMO, Horvat has the higher ceiling and will be the better player overall.

Even though scouting reports say otherwise and even draft history favors the Flyers over a sub par Canucks scouting.

What does draft history have to do with any of this?

I am on a Canucks forum getting flamed for saying a player who has a better scouting report than a Canuck player should be considered a similar talent. I am not even saying Laughton is better but because I even compared Laughton to Horvat I have dishonored some invisible code lol.

Then you wonder why you're "getting flamed".

[Hedman]

I bet Jensen isnt even on their list. Filitov was number 1 on their list a few years ago.

Well he's not. But to be fair he hasn't been great this season, putting up pretty decent numbers in the AHL. Didn't have a great year in the SHL last season either, he did score more goals than anyone on the team though if i recall right. But seems like he has really picked his game up now, and he looks very promising. You can really see the great potential in him.

[Baka]

It's like I am speaking Japanese in here... Lets revisit the sequence of events...

OP starts topic...

A few Canucks fans naturally assume this is no contest and imply Horvat is out of Laughton's league.

I respond to a Canuck fan who said Laughton is below Horvat and in Gaunce's category.

Yes I did say HF gave Laughton a slight edge as a better prospect but if you read my OP in this...

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.

I never said I would take Laughton over Horvat nor did I say I would take Horvat over Laughton.

Hedman for example (CDC poster) you just helped prove the entire point I was trying to make with your other scout list with Horvat and Laughton at #12 and #15. Aka right in the same category.

Bottom line...

I am saying Laughton and Horvat are close comparable prospects and 1 is not out of the others league.

If you disagree with me then give me a valid reason to change my mind because the only argument I am hearing is....

Horvat is way better because he is 1 year younger and everyone knows that means he is a 100% guaranteed to surpass Laughton in every way because that is how age and player development works..

It's a laughable theory that is sometimes true and just as many times not true. Give me something more concrete.

Why is Horvat the no doubt about it better prospect?

[Drouin]

It's like I am speaking Japanese in here... Lets revisit the sequence of events...

OP starts topic...

A few Canucks fans naturally assume this is no contest and imply Horvat is out of Laughton's league.

I respond to a Canuck fan who said Laughton is below Horvat and in Gaunce's category.

Yes I did say HF gave Laughton a slight edge as a better prospect but if you read my OP in this...

I never said I would take Laughton over Horvat nor did I say I would take Horvat over Laughton.

Hedman for example (CDC poster) you just helped prove the entire point I was trying to make with your other scout list with Horvat and Laughton at #12 and #15. Aka right in the same category.

Bottom line...

I am saying Laughton and Horvat are close comparable prospects and 1 is not out of the others league.

If you disagree with me then give me a valid reason to change my mind because the only argument I am hearing is....

Horvat is way better because he is 1 year younger and everyone knows that means he is a 100% guaranteed to surpass Laughton in every way because that is how age and player development works..

It's a laughable theory that is sometimes true and just as many times not true. Give me something more concrete.

Why is Horvat the no doubt about it better prospect?

It's hard to say considering they're both playing in the CHL right now..

Tell me, who would you take? The guy who is younger and doing much better in his post-draft season? The guy who was selected higher than the other in a much deeper draft?

Sure draft order doesn't mean anything, but that's pretty much all you can argue for now.. I guess we can talk when both are in the NHL next season?

[Baka]

It's hard to say considering they're both playing in the CHL right now..

Tell me, who would you take? The guy who is younger and doing much better in his post-draft season? The guy who was selected higher than the other in a much deeper draft?

Sure draft order doesn't mean anything, but that's pretty much all you can argue for now.. I guess we can talk when both are in the NHL next season?

Said that. You can't accurately judge a player on junior stats.

Odd follow up remark you just implied junior play is not an accurate measuring stick for what a player will be in the NHL... then used the junior stats to back Horvat as a the better player? Which is it?

As far as drafts go I still don't get why that is a point of argument. You cannot judge a draft's true depth until after the players have a chance to be NHL players. You cannot truly label a draft as deep or shallow until after the players have had a chance to develop. Aka judging a draft of 18 year olds and 19 year olds now is stupid.

Not to mention even if a draft is deep or shallow does it mean anything for undeveloped players. 2003 was the deepest draft in recent memory. Do you think Zherdev going 4th overall in this draft is a statement to his talent? Or Kostitsyn? Jessiman? Nilsson? Steve frickin Bernier?

Forget about all of that none of it is relevant anymore.

The same way Kris Letang was one an elite prospect despite his draft position a players 18 year old scouting report is often the most inaccurate report and they change as the years go by.

Plus what is the knock of Laughton since you are hung up on junior stats? Horvat scored 74 and 30 goals in 54 games. Laughton scored 87 and 40 goals in 54 games. This is bad for Laughton though? Not to mention how well he just did in the coaches polls.

Ether way like I said I didn't say I would take Laughton or Horvat I just said they are comparable players. I didn't select one or the other because I think they will be close enough that it doesn't make a difference. IMO both will be 2C players with a strong defensive game and a decent offensive game.

And no I wouldn't judge a player entirely by his rookie stats as numerous players can develop at different paces based on the situation they are in. Many of the best players in the NHL today had very average rookie years. Given the Canucks and Flyers team standings Horvat may have a bigger role early on. If Kesler is traded he may even get 2C next year if not he may get time on the wing. Laughton being on Philadelphia has Giroux, Lecavalier, Schenn, and Couturier to fight with for a C position and even if he goes to wing will have to fight Simmonds and ether Schenn or Lecavalier for the 2nd line wing. Odds are if Philly doesn't trade him he may end up on the 3rd line with Read and Couturier to develop his defensive game on the NHL level as the early priority.

Then again Horvat may end up in a high development role with little support with Laughton ends up on a higher line due to inhjury and benefits from strong line mates. Who knows.

Ether way... Only on CDC would someone be in the minority for saying another prospect is comparable to the Canucks best prospect despite scouting reports.

But yes if you really want to keep a tab I would be willing to come back to this after a few years and the players are of age and take the stance that both players should be comparable in production.

[Drouin]

Said that. You can't accurately judge a player on junior stats.

Odd follow up remark you just implied junior play is not an accurate measuring stick for what a player will be in the NHL... then used the junior stats to back Horvat as a the better player? Which is it?

As far as drafts go I still don't get why that is a point of argument. You cannot judge a draft's true depth until after the players have a chance to be NHL players. You cannot truly label a draft as deep or shallow until after the players have had a chance to develop. Aka judging a draft of 18 year olds and 19 year olds now is stupid.

Not to mention even if a draft is deep or shallow does it mean anything for undeveloped players. 2003 was the deepest draft in recent memory. Do you think Zherdev going 4th overall in this draft is a statement to his talent? Or Kostitsyn? Jessiman? Nilsson? Steve frickin Bernier?

Forget about all of that none of it is relevant anymore.

The same way Kris Letang was one an elite prospect despite his draft position a players 18 year old scouting report is often the most inaccurate report and they change as the years go by.

Plus what is the knock of Laughton since you are hung up on junior stats? Horvat scored 74 and 30 goals in 54 games. Laughton scored 87 and 40 goals in 54 games. This is bad for Laughton though? Not to mention how well he just did in the coaches polls.

Ether way like I said I didn't say I would take Laughton or Horvat I just said they are comparable players. I didn't select one or the other because I think they will be close enough that it doesn't make a difference. IMO both will be 2C players with a strong defensive game and a decent offensive game.

And no I wouldn't judge a player entirely by his rookie stats as numerous players can develop at different paces based on the situation they are in. Many of the best players in the NHL today had very average rookie years. Given the Canucks and Flyers team standings Horvat may have a bigger role early on. If Kesler is traded he may even get 2C next year if not he may get time on the wing. Laughton being on Philadelphia has Giroux, Lecavalier, Schenn, and Couturier to fight with for a C position and even if he goes to wing will have to fight Simmonds and ether Schenn or Lecavalier for the 2nd line wing. Odds are if Philly doesn't trade him he may end up on the 3rd line with Read and Couturier to develop his defensive game on the NHL level as the early priority.

Then again Horvat may end up in a high development role with little support with Laughton ends up on a higher line due to inhjury and benefits from strong line mates. Who knows.

Ether way... Only on CDC would someone be in the minority for saying another prospect is comparable to the Canucks best prospect despite scouting reports.

But yes if you really want to keep a tab I would be willing to come back to this after a few years and the players are of age and take the stance that both players should be comparable in production.

I said it's hard to compare because they're both playing in the CHL right now.. don't know how that's an odd follow up?

I never said it WASN'T an accurate measuring stick. The stats don't lie that Horvat has had the better seasons compared to Laughton.

There isn't any knock on Laughton's stats.. they are good. However, this is his 4th season in junior, Horvat's third.

Look at Laughtons third season/post-draft season, they aren't even close to Horvats.

As I said before, Laughton won't get the opportunity in PHI that Horvat would get in VAN due to the center depth.. Giroux, Couturier, Schenn..

Kesler is probably gone after this season, so who does Horvat battle for a spot? Santorelli?

Lol, you keep bringing up scouting reports, why not look at the stats I put out? Sure they are junior stats, but considering that's all we have, I'd say it's more accurate than a scouting report from "HockeysFuture" who are so inaccurate.

If you really want to bring up HockeysFuture, look at this.. http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/81865/team-rankings-columbus-blue-jackets-feature-improved-prospect-pool-after-busy-off-season/

Vancouver is ranked at 26th in prospect depth, Philadelphia is 30th...

But that's out of date? How about a newer one? http://www.hockeysfuture.com/team-rankings/fall-team-ranking-2013-14/page/3

Vancouver 24th, Philadelphia 30th!

We'll see who is laughing when Horvat wins the Calder next season..

But I guess we'll see next season what impact they have..

[Hedman]

It's like I am speaking Japanese in here... Lets revisit the sequence of events...

OP starts topic...

A few Canucks fans naturally assume this is no contest and imply Horvat is out of Laughton's league.

I respond to a Canuck fan who said Laughton is below Horvat and in Gaunce's category.

Yes I did say HF gave Laughton a slight edge as a better prospect but if you read my OP in this...

I never said I would take Laughton over Horvat nor did I say I would take Horvat over Laughton.

Hedman for example (CDC poster) you just helped prove the entire point I was trying to make with your other scout list with Horvat and Laughton at #12 and #15. Aka right in the same category.

Bottom line...

I am saying Laughton and Horvat are close comparable prospects and 1 is not out of the others league.

If you disagree with me then give me a valid reason to change my mind because the only argument I am hearing is....

Horvat is way better because he is 1 year younger and everyone knows that means he is a 100% guaranteed to surpass Laughton in every way because that is how age and player development works..

It's a laughable theory that is sometimes true and just as many times not true. Give me something more concrete.

Why is Horvat the no doubt about it better prospect?

I think you need to understand that Laughton has a clearly advantage being 1 year older than Horvat. Like it or not.

Yet, i believe Horvat has proved more than Laughton, with the example of last years playoffs.

Horvat got top6 minutes in the WJC with a potential 1st overall pick this year, and with one of the most talented prospects ever. Meanwhile, Laughton mostly played on the 3rd line. What's up with that?

I think as player types, they might be similar. But in my mind, there's no doubt Horvat is the better prospect of the 2. I'm not saying Laughton is a bad prospect though, i think he could be a 2nd line center. But again, this is the first season Laughton has really produced. That's a fact and that's impossible to ignore. He might be a offensive "latebloomer". At the same time, he might not. He might just be dominant because he's older than a lot of players. No one knows. But the age obviously gives Horvat the edge here. That, his evolving curve, and even his draft spot, even if you believe it's completely irrelevant. He was drafted 9th overall less than a year ago, and there's a reason why. And he hasn't disappointed anybody, he has lived up to that 9th overall status.

Sure, Laughton might have been listed in a few Coaches Poll. Even Horvat was. Most of the guys on these lists are 4th year players/overagers. If Horvat would play another year in junior, he would be listed on a couple of more categories for sure. I think you're trying to "think outside the box" way too much.

[Henrik Kesler]

Horvat, and it isn't even close.

Laughton also benefited from playing with 2013 draft steal Cole Cassels who had himself one hell of a third season in junior.

[Drouin]

Horvat, and it isn't even close.

Laughton also benefited from playing with 2013 draft steal Cole Cassels who had himself one hell of a third season in junior.

I think it's the other way around..

[JeremyCuddles]

Horvat plays on a stacked London team not sure about Laughton's team but stats aren't a fair indicator of who's better. I'll be bias and say Horvat because the 2013 draft is suppose to be a deep draft and Horvat was drafted 9th overall.

[Herberts Vasiljevs]

Horvat plays on a stacked London team not sure about Laughton's team but stats aren't a fair indicator of who's better. I'll be bias and say Horvat because the 2013 draft is suppose to be a deep draft and Horvat was drafted 9th overall.

Do you even know who the Oshawa Generals are? Lol.

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

Horvat will have a better offensive ceiling and all around game when he gets into the NHL. Its just how it will be. With Henrik and Kesler aging and who knows what Kesler's future holds, Horvat will have better opportunities to explore his offensive capabilities in the NHL as he will gain chances to move into the top six in the future. He probably will spend some time on the third line when he enters in the NHL, but as we hope he can move into a top six and become a Patrice Bergeron/ Ryan O'Reilly. Horvat is going to be that guy that does it all for the team, the heart and soul in the future for the Canucks. His cool demeanour very much reflects Bergeron's and O'Reilly's calming influence they have in the game and on the team.

As for Laughton because of Philly's log jam of centers with Giroux, Lecavalier, Schenn and Couturier; Laughton won't have as many opportunities to seize that type of role as an offensive player and he never has been considered one to begin with. However, many scouts said the same about Kesler and look at him being a premier two way second line center. It is possibly Laughton could do the same, however the opportunity in Philly may not come with stellar players infront of him. He does have some offensive gifts but his forte will be as a shutdown center/winger. His mold really reminds me a lot of Mike Richards, as he has a little bit more sandpaper and bite to his game than Horvat does. Laughton doesn't usually fight but does when called upon which makes him the prototypical Flyer player.

All in all, both players will be really good players in the future. But considering that we have so many centers that have the same style like laughton that are defensively sound and gritty, Horvat possesses an offensive ability that is equally good to his defensive game. And because of biases since he is our player, I choose Bo instead. But i wouldn't mind snagging Laughton away from Philly too.

[Alex Moran]

Horvat and for me it's not particularly close. Laughton is not only a year older, he also gets to play with Dal Colle who's likely a top 5 pick in this draft, while also getting handed most offensive zone starts. Where as Horvat starts most of his shifts in the defensive zone and usually plays with London's 3rd and 4th best wingers.

Gaunce vs Laughton would be a better poll IMO.

[JeremyCuddles]

Do you even know who the Oshawa Generals are? Lol.

No, pretty sure I said I didn't know in my post. Good reading comprehension sir...

[LeanBeef]

Sounds like Kesler vs Richards again.