Sounds like you feel he was in the doghouse and it was the coaches fault - in other words, Maurice reduced his minutes because he is a bad coach. That really isn't true and I think most understand that.
Why were Laine's minutes reduced or low considering he such a good goal scorer - that's really the question isn't it?
From where I was sitting, it looked like PM was working on other parts of Laine's game including his skating, agility, board work, speed, quickness, 200 ' game / Defense, etc.
Maybe the reason he was doing this is because those aspects of his game needed work and since, as you mentioned, they were already winning, why not reduce or limit Laine's minutes and have him work with a 2 way center for a while and maybe some of the stuff that was missing, would improve. And it did.
Keep in mind, he was only 19 at the time and it might not hurt to help him in a few areas of his game that were likely neglected in his Pre-NHL life. Doesn't the coach usually try to round out the kids as part of their growth? Wouldn't Laine at 19 apply?
As for your first point, I caught all the games TY - didn't miss one. I don't understand why you would assume other wise based on my simply asking you a question.
Seemingly some people think Paul Maurice is a great coach and extremely capable especially when he coached an extremely potent NHL team to conference finals, but I'm certainly not one of those people. Sadly the good old saying what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas doesn't really apply what comes down to Stanley Cup. He got really exposed there and still has a long journey ahead of him with lots of things to learn to be a solid anchor for any team that is contending for the Cup.
Wrong. The question is why would you radically reduce Laine's minutes in the begin with. There's a lot more to his game than just the goal scoring. Seems a lot of fans seem to just focus on what his goal totals are, but it was never his shooting ability that carried him to early teenage success in and outside the NHL. Most of the credit goes to having top notch hockey sense and IQ in general. Scoring 36 goals as an 18 year old when missing 9 games and while being physically still extremely raw, isn't something that can be accomplished only by having an elite shooting arsenal. That's not to say he didn't or still doesn't have areas to evolve in. All the youngsters, no matter how gifted make no exception to the rule.
Yeah I've certainly heard the good old conjectures of having to learn all these "new things" being thrown around just in order to make sense to how oddly he was utilized, especially in the first half of the season. First of all, how would it help player to develop better by playing less minutes in his sophomore year than in his rookie year (doesn't just apply to Laine but every other youngster out there)? That just makes absolutely zero sense. Secondly why would any good coach want to expose that player to his weaknesses by playing him with a center that he just cannot find any frequency with? Why not let that youngster get better in the rink by just playing hockey and try aid him as opposed to make things more difficult? There was absolutely no need to try force him to drive a line when he clearly didn't even have the foot speed nor the agility needed to be the playmaker and the goal scorer at the same time. To me these things don't really sound like an ideal way to make someone any better and there certainly was no real need to rush him to excel at every single aspect of the game particularly when it clearly wasn't producing any notable results in 5 vs 5 game. There are plenty of more conventional ways of developing a player (like finding more ideal support cast rather than forcing him to become something he clearly yet wasn't ready). Furthermore aside from the dysfunctional line, for a rookie entering NHL and immediately of the gates finishing in top 5 in goals per game, I simply cannot remember any other even remotely similar instances in the recent history where the coach just decides that the most optimal course for maximum benefit is to cut that player's ice time and have him play quite a large number of 12-13 or 13-14/min matches - a player who's already shown an extra ordinary capability at the highest possible league in the hockey.
No, it really wasn't the "Little or ELL experiment" that made Laine the player he was in the last half of the season, but simply having someone that he could work with and that someone (Stastny) didn't even have to be anything truly special. Lets not forget that both Laine's and Ehler's games looked entirely different even when Little was replaced by Andrew friggin Copp, who certainly isn't a top six center.
Laine would never had even made it to FEL at 15-16 if he did not show commitment to playing defence. He wasn't neglecting these duties and I really don't know where you even came up with the idea (a badly misjudged assumption I would presume). FEL is a professional league and they they don't promote kids from the JrA unless they think those teenagers can be useful and help the team compete. The goal is to win the trophy just like in NHL. All of the youngsters that are brought in to play at pro level are pretty much required to at least try do their best at both ends of the rink and they are being guided along the way. You can count with one or two finger the number of teams that do take in gifted players by promising and providing them an opportunity to play at professional level even when they are not ready. Yet these are exceptions and Tappara certainly doesn't work this way as they are one of the best teams in the league. Anyway, Laine was never the type of a player who's been cheating with defence. Quite the opposite actually, as we could see in the playoffs this year. This whole "learning to play defence" and pointing out to last season's defensive complications in the Jets is a byproduct of the discussion boards. Those difficulties went far beyond one single player and are just tossed around whenever trying to provide excuses for poor player utilization.
Why did I raise the question? When someone's observations differ this much from not only my opinion and assessments but also what other fans have noted, obviously the first thing that comes into mind is perhaps the person hasn't been watching the same games or hasn't tuned in as regularly. And for the record, apart from one game I didn't miss a beat either. Nonetheless, I suppose it would be quite boring if there was no variance in the individual analysis as that would mean there would be less things to discuss about.
.
