A letter from Louis Leblanc (in french)

montreal

Go Habs Go
Mar 21, 2002
57,329
39,838
www.youtube.com
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.

So what if he was one of the teams best players, would you still put him with ECHLers?
 

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
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.
And that always struck me as one heck of dumb strategy.
''So..hmm...that top 6 talent of ours is struggling..Okay, I have an idea..Let's put him between crap players, that'll help him!!! Genius!''.
If your player is visibly lazy, uninterested, disobedient, or the likes, well I get it. You want to punish him so you downgrade him. Fine.
But if your dealing with a guy who's trying, just not quite getting it, or still putting in the effort but is in a bad funk...moving him down the line up is just moronic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sorinth and Fixxer

Habby4Life

Registered User
Nov 12, 2008
3,376
2,919
And that always struck me as one heck of dumb strategy.
''So..hmm...that top 6 talent of ours is struggling..Okay, I have an idea..Let's put him between crap players, that'll help him!!! Genius!''.
If your player is visibly lazy, uninterested, disobedient, or the likes, well I get it. You want to punish him so you downgrade him. Fine.
But if your dealing with a guy who's trying, just not quite getting it, or still putting in the effort but is in a bad funk...moving him down the line up is just moronic.

Moving a guy down the lineup is not moronic. It should motivate, it can also give the guy a chance to play against lesser competition. Just because a guy has skill should not mean he is granted a top line spot no matter what. You think its dumb, I think its dumb to keep playing a guy on a line where is he struggling to succeed. All I keep seeing on here is confidence, confidence, on and on and keeping a guy on a line where he is not succeeding is moronic and must hinder ones confidence - lol. Also, how long do you let them struggle before moving them. Do they play the whole year, 50 games, 30 games?

I agree to disagree!
 
Last edited:

Harry Kakalovich

Registered User
Sep 26, 2002
6,215
4,295
Montreal
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.
For sure there was a sharp drop off from his 20 to his 21 y/o year. That was Lefebvre's first year and didn't he have an all rookie defense corps? I think that was recognized as a pretty big mistake.

I guess you're right. I was incorrect in my statement. What I should have said is that he never dominated anywhere. Personally I think he should have stayed at Harvard. If he was going to go to the Q, he should have gone directly after his draft. If he stays at Harvard and goes on to be a 40-50 point guy, that's very translatable for NHL success.

Anyway - have a good night buddy!
 
  • Like
Reactions: montreal

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
Moving a guy down the lineup is not moronic. It should motivate, it can also give the guy a chance to play against lesser competition. Just because a guy has skill should not mean he is granted a top line spot no matter what. You think its dumb, I think its dumb to keep playing a guy on a line where is he struggling to succeed. All I keep seeing on here is confidence, confidence, on and on and keeping a guy on a line where he is not succeeding is moronic and must hinder ones confidence - lol. Also, how long do you let them struggle before moving them. Do they play the whole year, 50 games, 30 games?

I agree to disagree!

That depends. What are you doing to help him? You just letting him do his thing and hope he bounces just by himself? How closely are you working with him in between games to help him out? Have you tried giving him other good players? More offensive opps? More PP time with different guys?
Just pointing out that someone is struggling doesn't tell you much. Why is he struggling and what have you done yourself, as the one responsible to get the most out of your players and team, to help him out? Is the team really any better by punishing the guy downgrading him?

What does moving him down to a line with grinders and cutting his PP out really going to accomplish here? If we had a bunch of other guys beneath that were hitching for their chance at the top 6 and they were playing really well, then okay, makes sense. That wasn't the case.

I think in very specific situations, demoting makes sense, but this ''hey he's struggling...let's send a message'' is beyond moronic and I seldom recall it actually working.
 

Habby4Life

Registered User
Nov 12, 2008
3,376
2,919
That depends. What are you doing to help him? You just letting him do his thing and hope he bounces just by himself? How closely are you working with him in between games to help him out? Have you tried giving him other good players? More offensive opps? More PP time with different guys?
Just pointing out that someone is struggling doesn't tell you much. Why is he struggling and what have you done yourself, as the one responsible to get the most out of your players and team, to help him out? Is the team really any better by punishing the guy downgrading him?

What does moving him down to a line with grinders and cutting his PP out really going to accomplish here? If we had a bunch of other guys beneath that were hitching for their chance at the top 6 and they were playing really well, then okay, makes sense. That wasn't the case.

I think in very specific situations, demoting makes sense, but this ''hey he's struggling...let's send a message'' is beyond moronic and I seldom recall it actually working.

Its pretty obvious that if you moved a guy down (especially a prospect) that the coaching staff would be working with him to improve his game. It is in the orgs best interest to work with the prospects (practice, film, etc) and to think that wasnt happening just makes no sense. Yes, many times a team is better move a guy down who is struggling. Not so much at the A level but in the NHL winning is crucial and if a guy isnt cutting it or hurting the team than making a move is a priority. IMO, moving a guy down and working with him is not necessarily punishment. If the guy has a good attitude and wants to improve it should be a serious motivation. If he takes it as punishment as pouts then he is a problem period. Do you think sitting a guy in the press box does not send a clear message. It sure does, and it has worked many times. It has also failed but so does any technique.

IMO - enough said on this topic. I said my piece, I get yours and I don't think its necessary to continue to hash this out. Its been a good discussion.
 

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
Its pretty obvious that if you moved a guy down (especially a prospect) that the coaching staff would be working with him to improve his game. It is in the orgs best interest to work with the prospects (practice, film, etc) and to think that wasnt happening just makes no sense. Yes, many times a team is better move a guy down who is struggling. Not so much at the A level but in the NHL winning is crucial and if a guy isnt cutting it or hurting the team than making a move is a priority. IMO, moving a guy down and working with him is not necessarily punishment. If the guy has a good attitude and wants to improve it should be a serious motivation. If he takes it as punishment as pouts then he is a problem period. Do you think sitting a guy in the press box does not send a clear message. It sure does, and it has worked many times. It has also failed but so does any technique.

IMO - enough said on this topic. I said my piece, I get yours and I don't think its necessary to continue to hash this out. Its been a good discussion.

1) You would assume that ya, it's obvious they tried. Of course. A bad teacher can try to teach, if he's bad, it's not gonna help. That's where the criticism on Sly comes from. It's pretty obvious he was a crap coach too.

2) Chiarelli moved Hall for Larsson, pretty sure he had the organization's best interest at heart when he did that. It doesn't mean anything. 99% of the moves GMs and Coaches make are with the intent of improving. That doesn't mean anything.

3) I think it depends who's not cutting it? Not as simple as you make it seem. Live and die with your best players. That's my philosophy. Sometimes it makes sense, others not so much. When it comes to LL at the time, it didn't make all that much sense.

4) Sure, let's move on. I'm on flight to Bangkok anyways! Cheers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sorinth

ECWHSWI

TOUGHEN UP.
Oct 27, 2006
28,604
5,423
1) You would assume that ya, it's obvious they tried. Of course. A bad teacher can try to teach, if he's bad, it's not gonna help. That's where the criticism on Sly comes from. It's pretty obvious he was a crap coach too.

2) Chiarelli moved Hall for Larsson, pretty sure he had the organization's best interest at heart when he did that. It doesn't mean anything. 99% of the moves GMs and Coaches make are with the intent of improving. That doesn't mean anything.

3) I think it depends who's not cutting it? Not as simple as you make it seem. Live and die with your best players. That's my philosophy. Sometimes it makes sense, others not so much. When it comes to LL at the time, it didn't make all that much sense.

4) Sure, let's move on. I'm on flight to Bangkok anyways! Cheers!
people forgot who was his coach in the AHL.
 

BehindTheTimes

Registered User
Jun 24, 2018
7,063
9,287
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.


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 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.


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.


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.


I think it made perfect sense to send him down. He was never very good while he was here and the team was coming of a putrid season and players like LL were part of the problem, the team tried to address it by going in a different direction. You act like he was so good his rookie year that his position with the team should have been a foregone conclusion, but this is revisionist history.
 

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
I think it made perfect sense to send him down. He was never very good while he was here and the team was coming of a putrid season and players like LL were part of the problem, the team tried to address it by going in a different direction. You act like he was so good his rookie year that his position with the team should have been a foregone conclusion, but this is revisionist history.
Euh..no. That's your interpretation and only because you want to paint LL in such a poor light.
What I said was giving him just one pre-season game was stupid. He had shown enough as a rookie to warrant being used for more than one measly exhibition game. That is quite the freaking stretch from ''his position with the team should have been a foregone conclusion''.
Matter of fact, I also said LL could have become a flop even if given every possible opportunity.

To sum it up. LL had a good rookie year. Enough to earn more than just 1 preseason game the next year. But fine, cut him if you want. Whenever he's in the AHL though, delegating him to 3rd line role with guys like Blunden and cutting out his PP time was predictably not going to help him, and it didn't.
Doesn't mean he would have become a star or even a regular AHLer had they not, but that's what they should have found out instead of playing this old demotion game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oryxo

BehindTheTimes

Registered User
Jun 24, 2018
7,063
9,287
Euh..no. That's your interpretation and only because you want to paint LL in such a poor light.
What I said was giving him just one pre-season game was stupid. He had shown enough as a rookie to warrant being used for more than one measly exhibition game. That is quite the freaking stretch from ''his position with the team should have been a foregone conclusion''.
Matter of fact, I also said LL could have become a flop even if given every possible opportunity.

To sum it up. LL had a good rookie year. Enough to earn more than just 1 preseason game the next year. But fine, cut him if you want. Whenever he's in the AHL though, delegating him to 3rd line role with guys like Blunden and cutting out his PP time was predictably not going to help him, and it didn't.
Doesn't mean he would have become a star or even a regular AHLer had they not, but that's what they should have found out instead of playing this old demotion game.

I'm not trying to paint him in such a poor light, he was never an NHL quality player imo, including his rookie season, he struggled on a team that was struggling. Just because management kept him around either because of lack of depth or some other misguided notion doesn't mean he was performing well. To sum it up, LL did not have a good rookie year, he survived on a team that was drowning.
 

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
I'm not trying to paint him in such a poor light, he was never an NHL quality player imo, including his rookie season, he struggled on a team that was struggling. Just because management kept him around either because of lack of depth or some other misguided notion doesn't mean he was performing well. To sum it up, LL did not have a good rookie year, he survived on a team that was drowning.
Revisionist history, either that or your playing semantics.
LL did just fine as a 3rd liner in his rookie.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->