A letter from Louis Leblanc (in french)

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
11,012
5,504
Second, the damaged thing is such a joke and is amusing. A major part of a players development is on the player. LL spent 3 years in the MTL system and could not make the jump. Are you saying the team did nothing to try to help him improve?

It's not a question of whether they tried to help him but a question of whether the things they did would actually help. For example, they tried to help McCarron by telling him not to focus on offence. That was pretty terrible advice to give him. And given how Lefebvre used Leblanc it's pretty clear they didn't want him to focus on his offensive game.

If the expectation is that every player should have the never die attitude of a Marty St-Louis then you have ridiculous expectations.
 

nhlfan9191

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
19,633
17,427
Whatever the guy never got 30 points in the AHL season who cares. He can't even hack it in the AHL and supposed to believe he had some NHL future. This guy wasn't even as good as Agostino, Ghetto, or Hudon in the AHL and these 3 guys are barely NHLers. 97 points in 234 AHL games. Would you be excited for a player with that state line who isn't a grinding fighter?

A lot of college kids aren’t signing right away . There’s a reason for that. Leblanc was planning on a retirement contract and his career as far as hockey was a complete failure. That wasn’t on us.
 

Habby4Life

Registered User
Nov 12, 2008
3,383
2,922
It's not a question of whether they tried to help him but a question of whether the things they did would actually help. For example, they tried to help McCarron by telling him not to focus on offence. That was pretty terrible advice to give him. And given how Lefebvre used Leblanc it's pretty clear they didn't want him to focus on his offensive game.

If the expectation is that every player should have the never die attitude of a Marty St-Louis then you have ridiculous expectations.
Pure sillyness. “Didnt want him to focus on offensive game”, I don’t know where you guys come up with this garbage. Yeah, MTL drafted a kid in the first round (LeBlanc - skilled) and decided it was best to not focus on offensive game. This must be a joke because it is ridiculous, actually absurd. BTW McCarron’s problem is his skating not offence. Anyone who is awake when watching him at the NHL level can see that. If he could keep up I bet MTL would have no problem with him on 4th line.
 

Harry Kakalovich

Registered User
Sep 26, 2002
6,236
4,321
Montreal
He might not be a "top-end" talent, but he has enough talent to play regular third line at NHL level, at center or RW. His development went bad, especially at AHL level, and the fact that he was called back way too soon by the Habs. Remember DLR or McCarron ?

I agree he had that talent, but a lot of guys do who don't pan out.
 

montreal

Go Habs Go
Mar 21, 2002
57,560
40,540
www.youtube.com
Pure sillyness. “Didnt want him to focus on offensive game”, I don’t know where you guys come up with this garbage. Yeah, MTL drafted a kid in the first round (LeBlanc - skilled) and decided it was best to not focus on offensive game. This must be a joke because it is ridiculous, actually absurd. BTW McCarron’s problem is his skating not offence. Anyone who is awake when watching him at the NHL level can see that. If he could keep up I bet MTL would have no problem with him on 4th line.

If you have a playmaker, what do you think is the best way to develop him as an offensive player?

McCarron's problems are skating, speed, stamina, balance. He's shown good improvement in his skating, speed and stamina this year up until the injury. Many 6'6 forwards have taken longer to develop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cphabs

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
11,012
5,504
Pure sillyness. “Didnt want him to focus on offensive game”, I don’t know where you guys come up with this garbage. Yeah, MTL drafted a kid in the first round (LeBlanc - skilled) and decided it was best to not focus on offensive game. This must be a joke because it is ridiculous, actually absurd. BTW McCarron’s problem is his skating not offence. Anyone who is awake when watching him at the NHL level can see that. If he could keep up I bet MTL would have no problem with him on 4th line.

It was widely reported in McCarron's case, in Leblanc's case I don't remember any similar stories, but you just have to look at the lines Lefebvre used to understand how they didn't care about Leblanc's offensive development.
 

Habby4Life

Registered User
Nov 12, 2008
3,383
2,922
If you have a playmaker, what do you think is the best way to develop him as an offensive player?

McCarron's problems are skating, speed, stamina, balance. He's shown good improvement in his skating, speed and stamina this year up until the injury. Many 6'6 forwards have taken longer to develop.

Duh-LL just didn’t have it to make it. To think the org decided to kill his offensive game is laughable. It was/is in thier best interest for 1st round picks to make it.

McCarron is a bust and I would be surprised if he is offered a contract next year.
 

Habby4Life

Registered User
Nov 12, 2008
3,383
2,922
It was widely reported in McCarron's case, in Leblanc's case I don't remember any similar stories, but you just have to look at the lines Lefebvre used to understand how they didn't care about Leblanc's offensive development.

Once again, not correct. McCarron’s problem is he can’t keep up at nhl level. Total BS that they tried to kill LL’s offensive development. Not even close to MTL’s best interest. The kid had issues with injuries and competing/succeeding at the AHL & NHL level. He just wasn’t good enough.
 

Harry Kakalovich

Registered User
Sep 26, 2002
6,236
4,321
Montreal
prospects are looked at based on how they improve/progress. So when an 18 year old leads his team in goals, points, gets named Ivy League rookie of the year it shows he's on a good path and doing well. Just as it did in the USHL were he was the rookie in the league. But it proves my point, you offered an opinion on his play in the USHL and then say you don't even follow the league so how do you know what his numbers mean in context if you don't know the league that well? I don't mean to point the finger at you per say, since it's been something that clearly has gone on at HF since the start. It's just something that frustrates the heck of me since I put in so much time watching these kids in these leagues.

What Leblanc did was impressive, again it's not just the numbers you have to understand, it's the context. There are 60 teams in the NCAA Div I, how many have 18 year olds (and I use the WJC/AHL rules for age) lead their team in goals and points? Add to that it was a very young team and a terrible one. Now in no way does this mean he's going to be a good NHLer, all it means is he's on the right path but you still need more progress.

You bring up Vesey's numbers, he was 21 when he put up those numbers, huge difference as the average age in the NCAA is usually around 21.5 so for an 18 year old especially one that lacks physical maturity like Leblanc did, it's impressive that he could put up the goals and points against kids several years older then him. If Vesey put those numbers up at 18 (which he wasn't even in the NCAA yet) that would be most impressive. Biega was 19 when he led his team and certainly impressive but just because he led his team in scoring at a Sophomore doesn't mean he would be an NHLer just as Leblanc leading his team at 18 would. It's what they do after that but it shows things are headed in the right direction.

I just don't agree with your post at all, he was very impressive in the USHL, NCAA, and Hamilton at 20. He was on pace for one of the best seasons any Hab prospect has had at 20 in the last 15-20 years. But even then it doesn't mean he would be a good NHLer, Hudon had a better 20 year old season and we don't know if he'll ever get back on track in the NHL or not. But it's certainly a great sign and shows he's making the progress you want.

Of course tons of prospects just fail for various reasons, Leblanc maybe just peaked, it could have been the injuries, his confidence could have been wrecked and he never got it back, he didn't progress physically as he should have, it could be all of the above and more. We don't know but things were imo most certainly headed in the right direction, you don't get Rookie of the year and not be doing a very good job. He played well for Team Canada and while that's not the be all end all, it least is a good sign. He was easily one of our best players in Hamilton at 20, I follow the AHL very closely more then any other league and it's certainly a great sign. Then he got injured and things just went south in a hurry after that. I don't agree with how he was used, I thought it was stupid to take one of your best players and push him down to the 3rd line and off the PP when you have one of the worst teams and PPs in the league and you replace him with no talent grinders.

Well we just disagree I guess, unless you are misunderstanding my point.

Brock Boeser dominated the NCAA as an 18 year old. Drouin, Giroux, Voracek, etc dominated the Q as 19 year olds and younger. Jaden Schwartz ripped up the USHL in his draft year and then ripped up the NCAA his first two years.

My point is Louis LeBlanc didn't do that anywhere. He never dominated. He did OK - sure he was an impressive player on his teams. He was doing OK - at no point did I say to myself at the time "he won't be an NHLer," but I did start to think "he won't be a first-liner."

Given what we know now - that he was not very effective in the AHL and that he seemingly lacked some sort of resolve to grind out a hockey career - I think it behooves us to look back at those initial years and do a fair re-assessment. And the reality is, he was never by leaps and bounds better in any of the leagues he played in. He was rookie of the year in ivy maybe, but he was not the best 18 year old in the NCAA nor even close to that. He was certainly not one of the most impressive 19 year old in the Q, and he wasn't one of the most impressive 20 year old in the NHL or in the AHL. He was a mediocre 21 year old, and he continued his mediocrity for the rest of his pro hockey career.

Now nobody can say why exactly things worked out the way they did, but what I've written above I believe is pretty much indisputable.
 
Last edited:

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
11,012
5,504
Once again, not correct. McCarron’s problem is he can’t keep up at nhl level. Total BS that they tried to kill LL’s offensive development. Not even close to MTL’s best interest. The kid had issues with injuries and competing/succeeding at the AHL & NHL level. He just wasn’t good enough.

First game of the season before he had his injury he was demoted to the 3rd line with no PP time. This despite last season being one of Hamilton's top offensive players. That's not BS, that's a fact.

This was what was written before Lefebvre's first game
Lefebvre said lines aren’t set in stone, but his three top units to start will have Geoffrion between Quailer and Gallagher, Bournival centring Palushaj and Holland and the hard-skating but low-scoring Boyce between Blunden and Leblanc.

Bulldogs open AHL season Saturday night
 
  • Like
Reactions: cphabs

Harry Kakalovich

Registered User
Sep 26, 2002
6,236
4,321
Montreal
First game of the season before he had his injury he was demoted to the 3rd line with no PP time. This despite last season being one of Hamilton's top offensive players. That's not BS, that's a fact.

This was what was written before Lefebvre's first game


Bulldogs open AHL season Saturday night

Well, it's hard to argue that he should have played ahead of Gallagher so it's between LeBlanc and Holland. I could see Holland beating him out for the 2nd line - Holland was no slouch, but I'm sure LeBlanc could have played his way back up the lineup.
 

Habby4Life

Registered User
Nov 12, 2008
3,383
2,922
First game of the season before he had his injury he was demoted to the 3rd line with no PP time. This despite last season being one of Hamilton's top offensive players. That's not BS, that's a fact.

This was what was written before Lefebvre's first game


Bulldogs open AHL season Saturday night

Big Fn deal. I’m sure the others mentioned moved up and down the line up during the course of the season. Your assertion is ridiculous. LL didn’t have what it takes to be an NHLer. Heck, he couldn’t make it at the AHL level.
 

Habby4Life

Registered User
Nov 12, 2008
3,383
2,922
Well, it's hard to argue that he should have played ahead of Gallagher so it's between LeBlanc and Holland. I could see Holland beating him out for the 2nd line - Holland was no slouch, but I'm sure LeBlanc could have played his way back up the lineup.

Exactly, one lineup proves they tried to kill his offensive game. I bet the others moved up and down the line up based on thier play.
 

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
Warning signs are important and is a valid argument. Are you saying that McCarron poor skating was not a warning sign at the draft and was not important? Of course it is/was, and many stated that at the time he was drafted. It is one of the major reasons he is not in the NHL and will most likely never stick in the NHL. Do you think MTL has tried to help him improve that aspect, of course they have. Does KHL Sherbak have skill, yes, but he is missing something that prevents him staying in the league and many stated he was a high risk pick at the time. Im sure MTL tried to work with him to get over whatever they felt was holding him back. It is in their best interest to do so. NHL is a business and teams (including MTL) work with their prospects to get better but there is a time when they cut bait because the next batch of youth have arrived. The whole not treated fair crap is pure BS. We heard years of how Galchenyuk was treated poorly or mismanaged, just more BS. He went to Ari and they figured out in 9 games he could not play center, its called work ethic and Hockey IQ which he severely lacks.
Again, every prospect has flaws. That proves nothing, and one doesn't excuse the other.
A prospect having a flaw doesn't excuse a piss poor managerial job.
What a stupid argument about Galch. We flipflopped him around for 7 years which, apparently, means nothing. He's supposed to just go to Arizona and excel as a center.
Some people have no logic and rational to them. If you can't even admit Galch was bounced around and it might have affected his development, then you just don't believe in development. You think players are destined to make the NHL, that's it that's all. When a kid is drafted. Doesn't matter what you do with him, it's entirely up to him whether he makes it or not.

Second, the damaged thing is such a joke and is amusing. A major part of a players development is on the player. LL spent 3 years in the MTL system and could not make the jump. Are you saying the team did nothing to try to help him improve? Of course they did. It did not work out. Plenty of players persevere. IE - Desharnais was un-drafted and toiled in the ECHL and went on to play over 400 games. Martin St Louis was told he was to small to play in the NHL by the Flames and went on to become a hall of famer. Alex Burrows, Tim Thomas, Mike Condon, Dan Girardi, all went on to have great careers despite all the obstacles they faced. They are just a few but I could go on and on. If he was "damaged" than it was his fragility that kept him from becoming a NHLer. The NHL is a business and if a guy can't handle adversity than they don't last.
Sure the team tried to help him, does that mean they succeeded? Do you not understand how you can be well intentioned and still be doing the wrong thing?
Again, the idea that one sucks and therefore the team gets a pass for their piss poor job is quite comical.
As for your names...not sure how they fit the bill, if anything they prove my point. You just named a bunch of late bloomers. Take Burrows, perfect example. He had 12pts in 43gp as a rookie, did they send him down the next year? Nope. Was he doing great? No, he was a 4th liner who had 3g in 81gp, not even breaking the 10pt mark. Did they send him down after? Nope. They kept him with the club.
Not sure how you think this works in your favor.

Only guy who persevered through mishandling is Marty St-Louis. But that wasn't what I was asking. I asked to name some players who never made it to the NHL regularly because of his bad development.
Give me names of guys you felt had their careers killed because of bad handling.

He, Tinordi, McCarron, KHL Sherbak were all bad picks with major warning signs during their draft year. The bigger problem is that MTL chose to draft them.
One does not excuse the other. You can draft bad prospects and still be terrible at developing them, something you seem incapable of understanding.
So LL sucked to you, fine, and he was destined to fail, fine, it doesn't make how Sly used him in the AHL not completely stupid.
 
Last edited:

Habby4Life

Registered User
Nov 12, 2008
3,383
2,922
Again, every prospect has flaws. That proves nothing, and one doesn't excuse the other.
A prospect having a flaw doesn't excuse a piss poor managerial job.
What a stupid argument about Galch. We flipflopped him around for 7 years which, apparently, means nothing. He's supposed to just go to Arizona and excel as a center.
Some people have no logic and rational to them. If you can't even admit Galch was bounced around and it might have affected his development, then you just don't believe in development. You think players are destined to make the NHL, that's it that's all. When a kid is drafted. Doesn't matter what you do with him, it's entirely up to him whether he makes it or not.


Sure the team tried to help him, does that mean they succeeded? Do you not understand how you can be well intentioned and still be doing the wrong thing?
Again, the idea that one sucks and therefore the team gets a pass for their piss poor job is quite comical.
As for your names...not sure how they fit the bill, if anything they prove my point. You just named a bunch of late bloomers. Take Burrows, perfect example. He had 12pts in 43gp as a rookie, did they send him down the next year? Nope. Was he doing great? No, he was a 4th liner who had 3g in 81gp, not even breaking the 10pt mark. Did they send him down after? Nope. They kept him with the club.
Not sure how you think this works in your favor.

Only guy who persevered through mishandling is Marty St-Louis. But that wasn't what I was asking. I asked to name some players who never made it to the NHL regularly because of his bad development.
Give me names of guys you felt had their careers killed because of bad handling.


One does not excuse the other. You can draft bad prospect and still be terrible at developing them, something you seem incapable of understanding.
You can have a slow and stupid child, doesn't make how you teach and help him irrelevant. You can also be well intentioned without realizing you're doing things wrong for him.


Ist Paragraph -Galch was babied and given ever opportunity to succeed. The kid is lazy with 0 hockey IQ. All of which followed him to the desert, end of discussion. Yeah flaws matter and some cant overcome even with development. Tinordi, McCarron, LL, KHL Sherbak are more an indication of poor drafting than development.

2nd Paragraph - the players managed all faced obstacles and overcome them. Being sent down is not necessarily a bad thing. Just because you are picked in the first round does not mean you are anointed a NHL roster spot. Your sent down argument is so weak it is pathetic. Burrow's, who cares if they didnt send him down. Perhaps, he showed the Nucks enough other skills (rather than points) to keep him. So you think a first round pick should have a roster spot and never be sent down. Players earn their spots. The point is others IE St Louis, Thomas, Deharn, toiled around the AHL, ECHL, Europe and eventually persevered. Why is that, because they had what it takes to make it.

3rd Paragraph - you missed the point entirely. I don't give a crap about who was mishandled and made it or didn't. The point is he moved on to another organization and crapped out. Others have been in similar situations and persevered. Many have been mishandled and went on to good careers. Heck, there is one on the MTL roster right now (Byron). You and others are fast to claim guys are ruined by MTL because it fits your narrative. Keep reaching for straws.

4th Paragraph - I understand you can draft bad and be bad at developing. However, what you fail to understand that bad drafting makes development increasingly more difficult and results in higher chances of busts occurring. I also understand that sometimes guys just don't make it even when they have talent. It is just the nature of the beast. WTF does "slow stupid child" have to do with development in the NHL. The NHL is a business and team invest in the picks but eventually cut ties because a new set of youth come along.

Finally, good for LL to move on with his life because as a hab fan I haven't given him a second thought until this letter. He was just another bust in a long line of 1st round busts.
 

Fixxer

Registered User
Jul 28, 2016
3,224
1,631
I was watching the french serie Trajectoires. It's kind of a biography of a player. There was something about the Héroux brothers (one drafted by Québec, one drafted by Montreal). Anyway, I just wanted to make a parallel with Leblanc's situation. (French only, sorry) Google Translate...

Alain Héroux, lui, n'a pas donné un seul coup de patin dans la Ligue nationale de hockey.
«J'étais le choix du directeur général Irving Grundman, explique-t-il. Mais Grundman a été remplacé par Serge Savard, et je n'étais pas le choix de Serge Savard. C'est comme ça que ça fonctionne au hockey. Quand la direction du Canadien a changé, les données ont changé pour moi aussi. Ils ne m'ont pas donné ma chance. Je les comprends, je n'étais pas leur choix.»

Google Translate :
Alain Héroux, he did not give a single shot in the National Hockey League.

"I was CEO Irving Grundman's choice," he explains. But Grundman was replaced by Serge Savard, and I was not the choice of Serge Savard. That's how it works in hockey. When the direction of the Canadian changed, the data changed for me too. They did not give me a chance. I understand them, I was not their choice. "

Source : LNH: du rêve à la réalité | Richard Labbé | Hockey
 

Habby4Life

Registered User
Nov 12, 2008
3,383
2,922
With that kind of logic, i'd expect you to believe that the sun literally disappears out of existence every night and stand in awe and complete amazement as lo and behold the sun somehow magically reappears every morning.

Not my fault you struggle to comprehend the rest of the response. Here is a tip, do some back research and read the chain to figure out what is being discussed. Easy to cherry pick, in fact, kind of pathetic.
 

DAChampion

Registered User
May 28, 2011
29,794
20,951
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.





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.


Here's an image of BF Skinner for you to use as an avatar:
avatar_705856385888_128.pnj


I'll write a longer response tomorrow.
 

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
Ist Paragraph -Galch was babied and given ever opportunity to succeed. The kid is lazy with 0 hockey IQ. All of which followed him to the desert, end of discussion. Yeah flaws matter and some cant overcome even with development. Tinordi, McCarron, LL, KHL Sherbak are more an indication of poor drafting than development.
For there to be an end to a discussion, there must be a start. You are entirely closed minded here. You don't even entertained the possibility of Habs doing anything wrong, not even in the slightest.
All you do is shove fingers in your ears and repeat whatever you want.
Poor drafting and bad development can happen simultaneously.
2nd Paragraph - the players managed all faced obstacles and overcome them. Being sent down is not necessarily a bad thing. Just because you are picked in the first round does not mean you are anointed a NHL roster spot. Your sent down argument is so weak it is pathetic. Burrow's, who cares if they didnt send him down. Perhaps, he showed the Nucks enough other skills (rather than points) to keep him. So you think a first round pick should have a roster spot and never be sent down. Players earn their spots. The point is others IE St Louis, Thomas, Deharn, toiled around the AHL, ECHL, Europe and eventually persevered. Why is that, because they had what it takes to make it.
Perhaps he did. Or, perhaps he showed very little that was special and they still opted to stick with him. That's the freaking point. The fact you won't even entertain this as a possibility is telling.
You're the one speaking in extremes here. I have repeatedly mentioned that maybe LL, indeed, was just never going to be good enough. That's entirely possible. Where you and I disagree is how management didn't also screw up.

3rd Paragraph - you missed the point entirely. I don't give a crap about who was mishandled and made it or didn't. The point is he moved on to another organization and crapped out. Others have been in similar situations and persevered. Many have been mishandled and went on to good careers. Heck, there is one on the MTL roster right now (Byron). You and others are fast to claim guys are ruined by MTL because it fits your narrative. Keep reaching for straws.
And some were mishandled and didn't go on to have careers. Duh. Why is this such an impossibility to you?
You think this is destiny or something. Every kid who makes it to the NHL was meant to be. Whoever doesn't, it was just not meant to be.
Development is a hoax. That's your belief here.

4th Paragraph - I understand you can draft bad and be bad at developing. However, what you fail to understand that bad drafting makes development increasingly more difficult and results in higher chances of busts occurring. I also understand that sometimes guys just don't make it even when they have talent. It is just the nature of the beast. WTF does "slow stupid child" have to do with development in the NHL. The NHL is a business and team invest in the picks but eventually cut ties because a new set of youth come along.
They are two entire different matter, and I never denied drafting poorly makes development more difficult, so not sure what you're talking about there. I mean, duh. The lesser the player, the harder you'll have to work with him. Hence, how pushing LL down to a 3rd line role with lesser players and no PP time was probably not the best way to help him develop.
NO. That doesn't mean he would have become a great player had we put him on the top line and 1st unit. Still, it was f***ing stupid. Again, fact you can't even admit that is telling.

As for the ''slow child'', it has nothing to do with the NHL. It's called an analogy.

Finally, good for LL to move on with his life because as a hab fan I haven't given him a second thought until this letter. He was just another bust in a long line of 1st round busts.
Don't think much people ever gave him a second thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: montreal

Grate n Colorful Oz

Hutson Hawk
Jun 12, 2007
35,310
32,163
Hockey Mecca
Here's an image of BF Skinner for you to use as an avatar:
avatar_705856385888_128.pnj


I'll write a longer response tomorrow.

Wow. If you think that, you have no idea what I truly believe, I'm as far from BF Skinner as I am from Richard Dawkins.

Behaviorism holds that you can make anything out of anyone which is far from what I've been saying. There's a whole world of difference between nurturing optimally based on our basic needs (basic needs should hint that we have a biological base that has certain aspects that need to be tended to for optimal development, no?) and thinking biology has no impact.

And please, it's not like I don't know who Skinner is, nor Pavlov, nor John C Watson and so on and so on. I respect you DAC, but you have ways to go if you can't understand the significant difference between what I've been describing and what behaviorism was.

I've been talking about basic needs and nurturing, which in a world where people are informed, would associate this with such seminal works as Marian Cleeves Diamond's, and yet the instinctive knee jerk reaction (cause if you read my text carefully, you'd understand just how far off you are) is to associate this with something extreme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DAChampion

Habby4Life

Registered User
Nov 12, 2008
3,383
2,922
For there to be an end to a discussion, there must be a start. You are entirely closed minded here. You don't even entertained the possibility of Habs doing anything wrong, not even in the slightest.
All you do is shove fingers in your ears and repeat whatever you want.
Poor drafting and bad development can happen simultaneously.

Perhaps he did. Or, perhaps he showed very little that was special and they still opted to stick with him. That's the freaking point. The fact you won't even entertain this as a possibility is telling.
You're the one speaking in extremes here. I have repeatedly mentioned that maybe LL, indeed, was just never going to be good enough. That's entirely possible. Where you and I disagree is how management didn't also screw up.


And some were mishandled and didn't go on to have careers. Duh. Why is this such an impossibility to you?
You think this is destiny or something. Every kid who makes it to the NHL was meant to be. Whoever doesn't, it was just not meant to be.
Development is a hoax. That's your belief here.


They are two entire different matter, and I never denied drafting poorly makes development more difficult, so not sure what you're talking about there. I mean, duh. The lesser the player, the harder you'll have to work with him. Hence, how pushing LL down to a 3rd line role with lesser players and no PP time was probably not the best way to help him develop.
NO. That doesn't mean he would have become a great player had we put him on the top line and 1st unit. Still, it was ****ing stupid. Again, fact you can't even admit that is telling.

As for the ''slow child'', it has nothing to do with the NHL. It's called an analogy.


Don't think much people ever gave him a second thought.

Point 1 - Im not closed minded - you are not grasping what I am saying. I do think the Habs were wrong. I think their drafting/scouting is pretty weak (historically - better recently), actually, pretty freaking bad! Said it numerous times, you just not getting it. I think bad drafting handcuffs development. In MTL's case, Hamilton was a barren desert when it came to prospects. In LL case, just think he was a bad pick and development could not change that. Just because we disagree does not mean closed minded.

Point #2 - IMO, LL didn't show anything worth keeping him around. Thus, he was sent down. Guys should not be kept in MTL if they are not ready or are not going to help the team win. The AHL is where they belong. Once again, I did not say Mgt did not screw up. They did, the drafting/scouting sucked and made it very hard to develop guys into NHLers. Some made it Gally, PK but far too many picks were busts.

Point #3 - Of course, some are mishandled and don't make it to the NHL. I didn't say its an impossibility, thats you pushing that on me. I said in LL's case, I clearly stated that I don't think he was mishandled rather he was a bad pick that could not be saved. In fact, I stated he went on to Anaheim and was quickly dispatched from their system. He then bounced around Europe and dropped out of hockey. There is a heck of a lot more going on than he was potentially mishandled by MTL. Like I said, if he felt he was mishandled and could not overcome that, IMO he was clearly too fragile to make it. In this case, we are talking about LL , not every busted picked.

Point #4 - players need to earn their roles. Also, I stated just because he started on the 3rd line or got no initial PP time, so what. Once again, I'm sure others on the team moved up and down the line up based on their play as did LL. That is pro sports. You make it sound like he never played with anyone with talent, only plugs. Im sure he got PP time or moved around the line up. I'd be willing to bet Gally played with the same guys at some time during his stint. To say he played with plugs or because no pp time he was doomed to fail is ridiculous. I don't think his linemates were written in stone, in fact, Im certain they changed throughout his stint in Hamilton. I think this is pretty obvious.

Slow child - is a bad analogy in the context of this discussion.

We agree to disagree, thats fine. You won't change my opinion and Im sure I wont change yours. Thats fine there is nothing wrong with having a differing opinions, it makes life more interesting.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad