A letter from Louis Leblanc (in french)

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

@DAChampion

I've never denied the impact of biology. When Naslund responded to me that genes have a bigger impact on behavior than what people think, I responded by saying that it's like saying painting is colorful. That's far from a denial of biology, wouldn't you think? The entire spectrum of human behaviors are stored in our biology. And we're speaking broadly here, but let's also keep in mind that humans have the most complex and sophisticated behaviors of all living creatures on this planet. This complexity, the degrees to which a lot of our behaviors are expressed are highly mediated by our past and present life experiences through our local and global environment, mixing with our evolutionary drives.

That's quite far from what Watson and Skinner thought.


I mean, I'm really at a loss of words being compared to Skinner.

Ever heard of DW Winnicott? John Bowlby? Gabor Maté?

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

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.

I didn't struggle to understand anything. You're whole argument rests on "he didn't make it because he didn't have it"

This mentality denies a whole world of variables we have no clue about. That's the whole point of the sun analogy, because you're denying a whole part of reality which we just can't see.

So yeah, go on boohoohooing. it suits you well.

 

[Habby4Life]

I didn't struggle to understand anything. You're whole argument rests on "he didn't make it because he didn't have it"

This mentality denies a whole world of variables we have no clue about. That's the whole point of the sun analogy, because you're denying a whole part of reality which we just can't see.

So yeah, go on boohoohooing. it suits you well.

Like I said, read the chain before cherry picking. Maybe then you will be able to bring something of value to the conversation. Although I doubt it.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Like I said, read the chain before cherry picking. Maybe then you will be able to bring something of value to the conversation. Although I doubt it.

I guess you missed the whole conversation about nature vs nurture, might've learned something or two.

 

[Habby4Life]

I guess you missed the whole conversation about nature vs nurture, might've learned something or two.

Haha like others have said, condescending. Weak and amusing!

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Haha like others have said, condescending. Weak

And despite all that's been said about the nature vs nurture debate, all you can bring is this? Talk about a high level of contribution.

 

[Kriss E]

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.

It just doesn't add up. LL had a good rookie year. Comes in at camp, plays just one game, and is cut. Didn't make sense then, doesn't make sense now. But okay, fine, you want to argue he was so bad he needed to be cut right away, this despite doing pretty decent in the previous season here.
The way Lefebvre used him was still completely moronic.

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.

Revisionist history at best. He did not deserve to be sent down as early as they did. It made no sense, especially when we had a guy like White make the team.
If you want to argue that guys are better developed in the AHL, that's fine, I can somewhat agree there. But clearly, from his own words, it didn't feel like that's why he was being sent down. They didn't really explain much of anything to him and, again, the way Sly used him, the way he tried to develop him clearly failed.

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 is you don't know. If you think he was mishandled, well you can't then convincingly say he was just never cut out to make it.
They definitely messed up with him. They also did with Tinordi. BigMac, Hudon and Scherbak, I don't think so. JDLR, I will never understand how they couldn't turn this already very strong defensive center into a legit 4th line one.

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.

You're the one who thinks he was doomed to fail. You think that no matter what, LL was not going to make it as a NHLer, not even as a steady bottom liner. He was destined to fail.
You don't have a big window when it comes to developing kids, and everyone is an unique case.
Some guys need more mental reinforcement, some guys like to be pushed drill sargeant style, others are more solitary style, some need better guys and a ton of opportunity to get going, some can play the same no matter who's on their lines.
There is no one size fit all.
When you looked from the outside, it didn't seem like Sly was doing LL any good. There were many discussions about it back in the days. Saying ''well Gally would have made it anyways!'' means absolutely nothing.
Take Danault, I think his offense goes nowhere if he played on the bottom 6 with grinders or low end guys in a dump and chase defensive system. He would have, at best, probably been another Eller.
Development matters and it influenced LL tremendously. Listening to him speak it's all the more obvious he was the type to need extra care.

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.

Not really though. Slow child needs extra care and attention, LL seems to have been the same way.
Not surprising he got crushed when you put bozos with an old school that can hammer you down if they don't like you.

 

[BeastMode420]

What about Leblanc attitude ? Maybe he was so full of himself ... 5 teams in 5 years. He didn't fit, could have been the case of the nerd who doesn't fit with the jocks.

 

[Kriss E]

What about Leblanc attitude ? Maybe he was so full of himself ... 5 teams in 5 years. He didn't fit, could have been the case of the nerd who doesn't fit with the jocks.

Sure. Both scenario possible.
Nobody ever suggested LL didn't have some blame to take on either or that he would have never made it anyways. Point here is that management handled him like twits, regardless.

 

[DAChampion]

What about Leblanc attitude ? Maybe he was so full of himself ... 5 teams in 5 years. He didn't fit, could have been the case of the nerd who doesn't fit with the jocks.

Lol someone is projecting their own insecurities.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

Lol someone is projecting their own insecurities.

 

[BeastMode420]

 

[Mikah]

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.

That's an interesting point that is always in everyone's discussion, yet I think it is a huge mistake. Everyone assume (particularly on these boards) that player X would develop the same regardless of the team he was drafted with. So we always completely ignore two very important factors: 1) the player development system, and 2) opportunity within the organisation. That's the whole point of the discussion about LL.

We always hear about why player X that was drafted late in the first or second round and ended up a star player was missed by the scouting staff of so many teams. The thing is, it is probably a combination of factors that eventually favored that particular player in blossoming with that specific team for a whole bunch of reasons. The same player might have ended up an ECHL player with a different team.

Scouting and drafting only goes after the potential of a player. The development system will then bring that potential into reality (and often not).

When you look at the amount of money the teams are spending into scouting, and almost nothing into the AHL and development of these players, it's mind-bogling. I still believe you could fire all the scouting staff and just go with the published rankings for drafting, and spend that money into developing players (coach staff, nutritionists, proper medical support, sport psys, skating instructors, etc..), and probably end up developping NHL players at a much better rate. Just watch some documentaries about life in the AHL. It's not a farm team, it's a pig farm. Honestly, I don't understand how a player can spend 2 months down there and can be expected to compete in the NHL when recalled.

I would not say that Montreal scouting is/was bad. I think it was useless. But I could say that we had years of one of the worse development system in the league and likely wasted several players with potential.

 

[Habby4Life]

That's an interesting point that is always in everyone's discussion, yet I think it is a huge mistake. Everyone assume (particularly on these boards) that player X would develop the same regardless of the team he was drafted with. So we always completely ignore two very important factors: 1) the player development system, and 2) opportunity within the organisation. That's the whole point of the discussion about LL.

We always hear about why player X that was drafted late in the first or second round and ended up a star player was missed by the scouting staff of so many teams. The thing is, it is probably a combination of factors that eventually favored that particular player in blossoming with that specific team for a whole bunch of reasons. The same player might have ended up an ECHL player with a different team.

Scouting and drafting only goes after the potential of a player. The development system will then bring that potential into reality (and often not).

When you look at the amount of money the teams are spending into scouting, and almost nothing into the AHL and development of these players, it's mind-bogling. I still believe you could fire all the scouting staff and just go with the published rankings for drafting, and spend that money into developing players (coach staff, nutritionists, proper medical support, sport psys, skating instructors, etc..), and probably end up developping NHL players at a much better rate. Just watch some documentaries about life in the AHL. It's not a farm team, it's a pig farm. Honestly, I don't understand how a player can spend 2 months down there and can be expected to compete in the NHL when recalled.

I would not say that Montreal scouting is/was bad. I think it was useless. But I could say that we had years of one of the worse development system in the league and likely wasted several players with potential.

I think the last paragraph is very well put. I do believe scouting was bad in the sense that they seemed to ignore obvious red flags. The development system was probably not much better. My thought is that development is made much more difficult with less than stellar scouting. The thing with the nhl is there is always a new crop of kids coming and a prospect is only given a small amount of time to prove themselves before they are pushed aside or moved along. It’s a harsh reality. IMO, on LL it looked like there was more than poor development that hindered his ability to stick in the nhl. Who knows how he would have turned out in another org. I just think there was a lot more going on with LL then we know. He dropped off the Nhl/AHL radar so fast.

Anyway, good post I do think a lot of what you said was correct.

 

[montreal]

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.

I noticed you didn't answer my question, I'd like to hear how you think a skilled player should be developed in the AHL.

McCarron will likely be re-signed, imo he showed enough improvement unless there more to the shoulder injury which I wouldn't expect since I don't recall him having this injury before.

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.

Yes Leblanc was not one of the best prospects in his league, but what does that matter? Duncan Milroy put up 92 pts in the WHL at 17 and then in the AHL didn't get his nose dirty so he was useless. Stats can be very misleading.

It's funny how you say what you wrote is pretty much indisputable but in fact it's just very wrong and spoken like someone that doesn't know what they are talking about as I've said already.

You said Leblanc wasn't the best 18 year old in the NCAA or even close to that. He was 3rd overall in ppg (Ivy league play less games then the rest of the NCAA) for U-19 players.

Elite Prospects - NCAA Stats 2009-2010

He was tied for 6th in points but every player above him played more games.

Leblanc at 20 in the AHL was on pace to have one of the best seasons, (it was a mistake to call him up) but aside from Subban and Hudon, Leblanc was on pace to have one of the best seasons a 20 year old rookie had for one of our AHL teams in the last 15-20 years.

What about Leblanc attitude ? Maybe he was so full of himself ... 5 teams in 5 years. He didn't fit, could have been the case of the nerd who doesn't fit with the jocks.

It's a fair point, at the time there was a poster on this site that said he knew the family and spoke very highly of his character, attitude but of course that doesn't mean it's true and we'll never know how he reacted to the way he was handled and if he had reacted perhaps better if it would of changed anything or not.

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

Yes Leblanc was not one of the best prospects in his league, but what does that matter? Duncan Milroy put up 92 pts in the WHL at 17 and then in the AHL didn't get his nose dirty so he was useless. Stats can be very misleading.

It's funny how you say what you wrote is pretty much indisputable but in fact it's just very wrong and spoken like someone that doesn't know what they are talking about as I've said already.

You said Leblanc wasn't the best 18 year old in the NCAA or even close to that. He was 3rd overall in ppg (Ivy league play less games then the rest of the NCAA) for U-19 players.

Elite Prospects - NCAA Stats 2009-2010

He was tied for 6th in points but every player above him played more games.

Leblanc at 20 in the AHL was on pace to have one of the best seasons, (it was a mistake to call him up) but aside from Subban and Hudon, Leblanc was on pace to have one of the best seasons a 20 year old rookie had for one of our AHL teams in the last 15-20 years.

It's possible I was wrong about his NCAA. Looking at his .74 ppg in the graph you provided (thanks) I see it was 3rd best for U19 in his NCAA year, but it would have been quite a bit lower in the years before and after. But still, maybe he did better than I thought there. In my mind it always seemed like a promising rookie year that sometimes leads to later years of dominating the league like Chris Kreider eventually did in his junior season.

In the AHL his ppg in a low sample was pretty good in 2011-12, but again not earth shattering.

But I'm curious why you don't think it is important to dominate lower levels of competition? You wrote as if that was unimportant and you've said a few times I don't know what I'm talking about because I do think it's important. In my experience watching and following prospects for about 20 years I find it is quite important that they are able to dominate lower levels of competition prior to making the NHL. Obviously we have a different approach to prospects, but why do you think it has no importance and that anyone who thinks dominating lower levels of competition is important doesn't know what they are talking about?

 

[nhlfan9191]

This is the equivalent of me playing high performance and blaming other people for why I didn’t make it. He wasn’t good enough. Plain and simple. Anyone who watched him should agree.

 

[Habby4Life]

I noticed you didn't answer my question, I'd like to hear how you think a skilled player should be developed in the AHL.

McCarron will likely be re-signed, imo he showed enough improvement unless there more to the shoulder injury which I wouldn't expect since I don't recall him having this injury before.



Yes Leblanc was not one of the best prospects in his league, but what does that matter? Duncan Milroy put up 92 pts in the WHL at 17 and then in the AHL didn't get his nose dirty so he was useless. Stats can be very misleading.

It's funny how you say what you wrote is pretty much indisputable but in fact it's just very wrong and spoken like someone that doesn't know what they are talking about as I've said already.

You said Leblanc wasn't the best 18 year old in the NCAA or even close to that. He was 3rd overall in ppg (Ivy league play less games then the rest of the NCAA) for U-19 players.

Elite Prospects - NCAA Stats 2009-2010

He was tied for 6th in points but every player above him played more games.

Leblanc at 20 in the AHL was on pace to have one of the best seasons, (it was a mistake to call him up) but aside from Subban and Hudon, Leblanc was on pace to have one of the best seasons a 20 year old rookie had for one of our AHL teams in the last 15-20 years.



It's a fair point, at the time there was a poster on this site that said he knew the family and spoke very highly of his character, attitude but of course that doesn't mean it's true and we'll never know how he reacted to the way he was handled and if he had reacted perhaps better if it would of changed anything or not.

What would you like. A detailed day to day plan. It’s pretty obvious, learn how to play with & without the puck. Be responsible in your own end, positioning in both off & def zones, the style of play of the big club, face offs. Learn the demands it takes to be pro, nutrition, strength & conditioning. These are just a few. There is a lot to learn in the Ahl. There are numerous skills a guy needs to learn before they jump & stick in the nhl. Very few jump right from junior or college without some kind of AHL seasoning. Is that good enough for you?


IMO, McCarron is a bust, he has been passed by others in the system and there is no need to put more time into the guy. He is not a regular NHLer. Like Sherbak, DLR, and (Hudon - soon) it is time to move him along and call it what it is, a bust

 

[montreal]

In the AHL his ppg in a low sample was pretty good in 2011-12, but again not earth shattering.

But I'm curious why you don't think it is important to dominate lower levels of competition? You wrote as if that was unimportant and you've said a few times I don't know what I'm talking about because I do think it's important. In my experience watching and following prospects for about 20 years I find it is quite important that they are able to dominate lower levels of competition prior to making the NHL. Obviously we have a different approach to prospects, but why do you think it has no importance and that anyone who thinks dominating lower levels of competition is important doesn't know what they are talking about?

Where did I say these things?

I've said you clearly don't know what you are talking about and you admitted you don't follow the USHL and now about being wrong about the NCAA. Then you say for his rookie year was pretty good. If he didn't get called up and kept up his pace that he had in just under half a season, he would easily have led the team in goals and points. Show me how many Hab prospects have led our AHL team in goals and points at 20?

It just drives me crazy, nothing personal to you but I spent so much time watching all these prospects over many years and the entire time at HF I get people that clearly aren't watching, don't know what they are talking about and then want to tell me how wrong I am. It often makes me wonder why bother when many posters just want to stick their head in the sand and say their opinion is right and not be open minded about other opinions. Not saying you here, just in general for as long as i've been on this board it's been this way. I fully give you credit for saying that you don't follow the USHL and needed to take a closer look at his NCAA play which is much more then most would do around here and in years past.

I'm all for dominating at lower levels, as i've always said I hate how we rush prospects as it can have a major impact on their confidence and to me that's very important as for some it can be very hard to get back and for us since we aren't privy to what goes on behind the scenes we can't know what these prospects are made of. That said people will have different definitions of the term dominating and also different opinions on how important it is. We can find many prospects that did in fact dominate and never went on to do much of anything after that for all kinds of reasons. Locke because of lack of speed, skating, size, strength. Milroy, you just don't see that many WHLers put up 92 pts at 17 that just bust so hard.

I follow prospects very closely since the late '90's, the AHL and NCAA are my bread and butter, that's where I spend my most time. I know the leagues well, could have played in the NCAA but went to business school instead, had teammates from my USHS team play there. Talked to them, talked to scouts, coaches, players over the years while working for HF many years ago. I get a lot of NCAA games on tv and i get the AHL tv package every year. I didn't want us to draft Leblanc, I watched him in the USHL because of Kristo, I thought Leblanc was skilled but I didn't like his skating and thought we should look at someone else. But he was impressive in the NCAA, I liked him at the WJC's and I was very impressed with him in Hamilton at 20.

I don't know or understand what happened to him to cause him to look so night and day from one year to the next. I don't think it was a good idea to take a kid that was playing very good hockey and producing as one of our best players, to take him off the top line and PP only to replace him with no talent grinders. It never made sense to me. But that wouldn't be the only reason he busted, just that I don't think it was the right thing to do and who knows how it would have went under different situation like a coach that had actual experience as a head coach before being hired.

I'm all for those that say Leblanc would have busted either way, I just don't get it for people that if they watched him at 16, 17, 18, 20 even and then saw him at 21 and weren't the least be concerned at how badly he regressed and how it at least could have had something to do with how he was handled. It would be one thing if it was just Leblanc, but all of our 1st round picks, from the guy that drafted Subban, McDonagh, Pac, Price, Halak, etc...

Of course there was the injuries, and it's impossible to know what impact they had on him as surely it had something to do with how much his game regressed. But at the end of the day he busted, the coaching staff has been fired and now we have top hope that change brings about success.

 

[montreal]

What would you like. A detailed day to day plan. It’s pretty obvious, learn how to play with & without the puck. Be responsible in your own end, positioning in both off & def zones, the style of play of the big club, face offs. Learn the demands it takes to be pro, nutrition, strength & conditioning. These are just a few. There is a lot to learn in the Ahl. There are numerous skills a guy needs to learn before they jump & stick in the nhl. Very few jump right from junior or college without some kind of AHL seasoning. Is that good enough for you?


IMO, McCarron is a bust, he has been passed by others in the system and there is no need to put more time into the guy. He is not a regular NHLer. Like Sherbak, DLR, and (Hudon - soon) it is time to move him along and call it what it is, a bust

No, what do you do with a skilled player, do you think putting a playmaker with no talent grinders is a good way to develop talent? Do you think putting one of your best prospects with ECHLers as wingers is a good idea? Or do you think confidence, production aren't important part of development, just they either have it or don't?

McCarron I could see needing another year in the AHL but I don't know if he'll ever make it. I felt DLR was better so that's not saying much. But McCarron has gotten quicker and improved his skating so for that I think he'll be back.

Do you think DLR and Hudon will be in the NHL next year?

 

[Habby4Life]

No, what do you do with a skilled player, do you think putting a playmaker with no talent grinders is a good way to develop talent? Do you think putting one of your best prospects with ECHLers as wingers is a good idea? Or do you think confidence, production aren't important part of development, just they either have it or don't?

McCarron I could see needing another year in the AHL but I don't know if he'll ever make it. I felt DLR was better so that's not saying much. But McCarron has gotten quicker and improved his skating so for that I think he'll be back.

Do you think DLR and Hudon will be in the NHL next year?

The guy didn’t play with plugs his entire AHL stint. Just like others he moved around the line up based on his play. I’d bet Gally played with the same guys at some point during his AHL stint. Did he play with plugs in Anaheim system. There is more to him busting than pointing out his wingers to start a season. And IF that was all it took for him to bust then he was never nhl material

 

[montreal]

The guy didn’t play with plugs his entire AHL stint. Just like others he moved around the line up based on his play. I’d bet Gally played with the same guys at some point during his AHL stint. Did he play with plugs in Anaheim system. There is more to him busting than pointing out his wingers to start a season.

it wasn't just Leblanc I was talking about as Scherbak, McCarron got similar treatment.

I never said that is was the main reason Leblanc busted, and while I've had to go back and read the Hamilton threads I know he was taken off the PP and moved down to the 3rd line and stayed there.

So again, what do you do with a skilled player, do you think putting a playmaker with no talent grinders is a good way to develop talent? Do you think putting one of your best prospects with ECHLers as wingers is a good idea? Or do you think confidence, production aren't important part of development, just they either have it or don't?

 

[Habby4Life]

it wasn't just Leblanc I was talking about as Scherbak, McCarron got similar treatment.

I never said that is was the main reason Leblanc busted, and while I've had to go back and read the Hamilton threads I know he was taken off the PP and moved down to the 3rd line and stayed there.

So again, what do you do with a skilled player, do you think putting a playmaker with no talent grinders is a good way to develop talent? Do you think putting one of your best prospects with ECHLers as wingers is a good idea? Or do you think confidence, production aren't important part of development, just they either have it or don't?

I answered your question. So he moved to the third line, who cares, perhaps his play earned him that spot.

Sherbak and McCarron have had thier chances and just can’t put it together. McCarron skating is holding him back. Sherbak plays like a deer in the headlights. Simply put, two bad picks that just did not work out. Both guys had red flags prior to them being drafted. McCarron foot speed just could not improve enough to be a full time NHLer

 

[montreal]

I answered your question. So he moved to the third line, who cares, perhaps his play earned him that spot.

Sherbak and McCarron have had thier chances and just can’t put it together. McCarron skating is holding him back. Sherbak plays like a deer in the headlights. Simply put, two bad picks that just did not work out.

You didn't, I wasn't talking about Leblanc. I was asking if how would you develop talent if you were the coach in the AHL? Do you think it's a good idea to put your best playermaker with ECHL grinders? This has nothing to do with Leblanc, i'm talking in general.

 

[Habby4Life]

You didn't, I wasn't talking about Leblanc. I was asking if how would you develop talent if you were the coach in the AHL? Do you think it's a good idea to put your best playermaker with ECHL grinders? This has nothing to do with Leblanc, i'm talking in general.

Yes I did. What part of moving up and down the lineup based on your play do you not understand? All pros learn to deal with it and learn from it. Guys earn their spot in the lineup. If their play dictates 3rd line or 4th then so be it. Don’t want to play down the lineup work hard and force your up. All guys play with scrubs at some point. I would put a playmaker with scrubs if his play dictated that. If he is any good he should get the message. Welcome to the pros.