Thanks, Charlie. It seems like no matter what happens, if they stay at #6, the team has two, maybe three, viable options at C.

This draft is a key moment in franchise history. Hit on 4 to 5 players in the entire draft and the Flyers future looks extremely bright. If the organization doesn’t? Add another 5 years to Stanley Cup contender status and the front office will remade.
Briere has an opportunity to establish himself as one of the best GMs in the league.
I have been a fan since ’71 and it has been a long road back to respectability. Good luck Danny.

If Martone is available, please take him!!!

I’ve read people having doubts about Desnoyers’ ceiling. Not sure how true that is, but I am more excited by the elite vision/playmaking of O’Brien than the “does everything well/not elite at anything” of Desnoyers.

While I think that comment about having 7-8 players in Tier 2 may have been a smokescreen, I do think that they will prioritize a C here: they may not expect to get too many cracks this high in the draft in the future, so going after a C makes sense.

My updated draft-day preferences:
1). O’Brien
2). McQueen
3). Hagens

I would also like to see the burn as much of the lower draft capital as needed to move up to the top 15-17 and grab another top 6 F/top 4 D.

The more I read, the more I’m liking Martone. Almost guarantees a C with the next pick.

Does anybody understand Flyers trading two # 1 picks, # 22 and # 31 for Nesbitt, who projects as a 3rd line center? Seems the strategy here is to get as many second and third liners on the roster as possible. Still no 1-C, no 1-D, and no 1-G. Martone has a second liner projection, perhaps could rise to first liner wing, but still not getting those three critical key tentpoles for a Cup contender. I completely do not understand the Nesbitt trade and pick. Does anyone get what that was all about?

Great draft primer, Charlie, with very sound logic! I wish that I had time to read this before the draft! I am happy with the picks of Martone & Nesbitt! Seems like skill as well as size were equally valued.