@Ozymandias ,
If we can raise the level of discussion for a bit,
I recall a clever saying that I read years ago. It went something along the lines of "
when everyone's environment is the same, all variations are genetic. When everyone's genes are the same, all variations are environmental."
But this is actually where I fundamentally disagree. Warning, im gonna digress big time here...; Humanity is in its adolescent stage. Generally, we majorily see everything from the perspective of the ego. We have a serious disregard for social cohesion and social needs. We have replaced religious destiny with genetic destiny. From the infancy of imagination (religion, santa clause), to the self-realization and self-discovery of the most independant stage of our growth, adolescence, where creativity is at its highest (our present culture), where we discover ourselves the most (present day biology), where become the most independant (neoliberalism) because we're at a stage where individuation is at its highest. It's also the age at which we can have the most disregard for our own safety, where we are most likely to become self-destructive, now doesn't that sound all too familiar in relation to our times? And this is fundamentally shown in how the scientific community is obessed in defining our biology as the starting point and denying the very obvious and simple fact that environment is the starting point. RNA was created through the environment. It's a continuum, a process that has always been ongoing, from one organism to the next. It's not just DNA. It's DNA AND this electro-chemical self-organized process, ramping up over time. A process in which we are entirely dependant on our environment, there's no biology without the symbiotic link to environment. What happens when we truly reach adulthood? We become emotionally mature enough (generally speaking) to raise another human being. That demands a better understanding of what you are and your link to your entire environment. When you really become mature, you understand the tiny nature of our existence and the foolishness of our self-aggrandization as sentient beings. When we reach adulthood, we have a better understanding of our own inherent dependance of basic needs that if not met, your biology will falter. We are slaves to our basic needs and our basic needs are met throught the environment, and not having those needs met can lead to a host of detrimental problems that become cyclical and further impact the overall development of fellow beings. As a society, we are not there yet. We're at an age at the end of adolescence where we are trying to balance out needs, merits, capabilities and self-cohesion. What is needed to nurture growth, that's where we need to go as a civilization. That's where we lack the most. That's why I will constantly stress the importance of creating better environments. It's what we need to mature to as a civilization and there is a commonality, a universality to this need. A commonality found even in pro sports, where teens are taken at a time where their brain has not fully matured, so fundamentally, it comes down to what you have already said (i think it was you), you can't change someone's biology, but can only try to do the best with what is already there and try to work on what isn't. I mean, isn't that the whole point of development?
So what is my expectation, well for starters, we're not in 1980. Neither are we in 2000. We're 30 years past the birth of modern day neurobiology. We're starting to have a
preeeetty good idea of some fundamental and basic things about ourselves. Things that should irradicate old traditions, ideas, ideals and POVs. What I expect is that players are nurtured and considered as what they are, a human being that doesn't have its whole brain wired yet. The power that lies in understanding the possibilities this can lead through might be key for certain teams to meet higher standards than others.
We live in some sort of hybrid world (I assume), but there can be a limit to how much environmental manipulation and intervention we can expect. It is certainly the case that hockey is not exhausting its potential talent pool, but there is a limit to what teams can expect to do. Changing a 19 year-old is more difficult than changing a 3 year-old, and moreover, the science on gene-environment interactions is not complete. The teams do not have a complete understanding of the best way to optimize every player, which is separate from them not necessarily having the means to.
How much intervention can we legitimately expect? A lot of your posts in this thread are kind of stating the obvious, as you're arguing against some completely insane opinions. But that's not necessarily a path for you to converge to enlightenment and truth.
As an example, it seems obvious to me that the best way to nurture hockey IQ is to dole out ice time. More game time equals more hockey IQ development. But, there's only so much ice time to go around. If one forward gets 22 minutes a game, then you ave another forward playing 7 minutes a game, or two forwards playing 11:30 a game (etc.).
Leblanc might have had confidence issues. How can a coaching and development staff reasonably help with a player's confidence?
There's always more that can be done. And I think it is obvious that some of the people that were put in place are far from the greatest at knowing how to nurutre players of all types.
