Discussion in 'Montreal Canadiens' started by Yoshidas Island, May 2, 2018.
If vejdemo and Evans are one of your best Center prospects you have a REAL problem
This is quite the scenario you've got here...
What happens if he doesn't become a #1C under Bouchard's tutelage?
What conclusion could we draw from that?
If he can turn Vejdemo into a #1C by osmosis...perhaps he could do the same for Evans and Pezzetta
Our best prospects are from the 2017 draft. All the prospects that are going to make the NHL from previous drafts have already graduated:
2016 Sergachev, Mete
2014 Scherbak, Lernout
2013 Lehkonen, Ghetto, DLR, (maybe Reway if he can get back to full health)
2012 Galchneyuk, Hudon
That's a really good list. If Mete, Juulsen and Sherbak become top 4 dmen/top 6 forwards (as I project), we averaged 1 top six forward/1 top 4 dman per draft (Galchneyuk, Sergachev, Scherbak, Juulsen, Mete), plus Hudon and Lehkonen, and Ghetto could establish himself as a top 9 forward.
Guys like Addison, Bitten, McCarron, Audette, Evans, and Vejdemo are just long shots. If one of them happens to make it as a top 6 forward, it's a bonus.
The 2012-2016 drafts are on the road to success (depending on how Scherbak, Juulsen, and Mete pan out). Now it's time to look to the 2017 and 2018 drafts for the next wave of prospects.
We can't draw any conclusions from it. We are left only to marvel at the coincidences the universe presents us.
considering the number of Habs prospects in Europe, this almost sounds sarcastic.
Yeah, Ikonen is really the only other prospect of note in Europe, and he had a very bad October and November. Anyways, although Vejdemo is a long shot, I look forward to seeing what he's got in the A this year. As I mentioned above. The 2012 - 2016 drafts are looking really good. Players like Vejdemo will just be unexpected bonuses if they make it.
My real concerns are a) how good will the prospects from the upcoming draft be, and b) will at least one of the 4 dmen from 2017 (Fleury, Brook, Tzyka, Walford) become a top 4, and if at least one of Poehling and Ikonen will become a top six forward. Or really, in Poehling's case at least a center in the Danault/Eller tier and in Ikonen's case at least a 3rd liner who can get you 40 - 50 points like we hope Lehkonen and Hudon can do.
Ikonen reminds me of Subban and Scherbak in that he's a raw talent. How he will be molded over the next 3 years will be interesting to see. Benoit Pouliot was a raw talent that never became a force. Subban is at the other extreme.
So far I've seen much more from Ikonen. Vejdemo hasn't stood out at development camps. Ikonen has. It will be interesting to see if Ikonen comes again to this year's development camp.
Be serious for a second...
In the scenario you presented, if Vejdemo turns into a #1C under Joel Bouchard...something his potential/ceiling has never indicated he could be in the best case.
Could he not do the same for pretty much any center he (Bouchard) gets his hands on?
And conversely...what conclusions are we to draw if Vejdemo doesn't turn into a #1C, or even an NHL player period?
I'm not being facetious here, i'm just trying ot understand this phenomenon where AHL coaches can turn any player into top line players..
dang, Ikonen undergoing knee surgery. Expected to be out 6 months...
I think this is actually not so charitable to Vejdemo. Vejdemo has some skill, and is a fantastic skater. He's not a top end center prospect, I am not holding my breath for him to be a top line centerman, but he's also not ''pretty much any center.'' There's something to work with, whereas there really isn't for someone like Pezzetta, who you mentioned previously.
I'll answer your converse, but before that I'll pose my own: should Vejdemo actually take such an astronomical step in his development, would you conclude that he would have done so under Sly?
For any one player to not make the NHL is an every day thing, especially for prospects who find themselves in the AHL. For a player to make the show, and make it big is entirely another. The reason why people became so critical of our player development is we had a lot of the every day, and absolutely nothing of the exceptional.
Agreed there's something to work with there...but hoping or expecting Joel Bouchard to turn him into a #1C seems a bit too optimistic for me. If he becomes a regular NHL player period, i'd say Bouchard would have done his job.
Fair enough for Pezzetta...
No I would not...because at root, I don't believe coaches can influence players to that degree, either way.
if Vejdemo turns into a #1C 2yrs from now, i'm not going to draw the conclusion that it's exclusively because of Joel Bouchard's coaching...I mean, what about his coach that he's played the last 4yrs under at Djurgardens?
Does he not get any credit? Or is all of his work usurped by the fact Joel Bouchard coached him for 1yr in the AHL?
I understand what you're getting that...i'm just not a proponent of coaching being able to influence players careers on their own, to this degree.
By all accounts, Vejdemo took a leap in his development this year...is anyone here crediting his coach Robert Ohlsson for it?
I certainly haven't been enamored with our player development, but I also don't think we've done a good enough job at the draft table to be able to put all of the blame on them.
Again, if Michael Pezzetta never becomes an NHL player...i'm not going to blame Joel Bouchard for it.
I'll blame the amateur scouts for passing on Jesper Bratt picked 2 spots after Pezzetta.
I'm not expecting it. I was being a snarky snake in the original post you quoted.
Of course I give his coach credit for what development he achieved in the SHL this year. If anything, the tendency here is to prefer our prospects to be anywhere but Laval. One person seemed to not get the memo that there had been a change of personnel.
But as for the bolded, I'm confused: your position is that you don't believe coaches can influence players to that degree, either way. But in the event that Lukas turned into a 1C under Bouchard, you would say that he wouldn't have done that under Sly? Wouldn't it be more coherent for you to say that it would have happened regardless even if Sly were still in charge?
And I don't blame Sly for Beaulieu, specifically, either. The issue of which I've been critical has been a total reluctance to put any blame whatsoever on the development staff. I do assign a healthy portion of blame to Sly et al. both for the total goose-egg, and the ridiculous stories and evidence presented by our AHL following crew (mostly @montreal ) but I have also been extremely critical of our drafting.
Hey man... don't forget DLR
Disappointing pick so far and the news don't get any better after this injury. Hope he don't turn into Collberg or Reway
Got it....I wasn't sure if you were serious or not.
Yes that's what i'm saying.
But perhaps i'm neglecting how inept Sly was as a coach...I often talk about opportunity = development, so whose to say Sly would give Vejdemo a real opportunity to ultimately reach his potential. I have higher hopes that Bouchard will have a fresher approach as it relates to this.
Some players are good enough and motivated enough that no coach, even Sly, can ruin them or derail their career. They just overcome. I know that Gallagher didn't spend much time on the farm before becoming a regular but he's the type of player who would not be deterred by the incompetence of a single coach. He was probably told all his life that he was too small to play this game. I remember seeing him play in junior and even there he was by far the smallest kid on the ice but also the most involved.
Other players, however, need good coaching in order to make it over the hump. How many of those guys we've lost over the last several years due to the incompetence of Therrien and Sly we may never know.
That is much more a reflection of our bad scouting/drafting than one of development. This team hasn't drafted more than a half a handful of top-6 forwards in the last 15 years. It's on Timmins, not on Sly.
Mostly why I think this is the case is from watching euro hockey, specifically Russian hockey. Russian players are brought along very slowly, then all of a sudden at the age of 22 undrafted players become fixtures of the national team and obviously very high level players. Whereas our players arrive in Laval at 19-20 and pretty much stay the same until we trade them for nothing, and we all sit around saying ''it's the drafting!''
Obvious examples of dudes who were either undrafted and became stars, or were drafted late, did nothing, went back home and then became something are Panarin and Dadonov. In the future I expect there to be a trickle of these guys. One candidate is Andrei Kuzmenko who just had a great year in the KHL. Antti Suomela was just signed by the sharks, after leading Liiga in scoring, coming from being a total also-ran as a prospect. A guy like Victor Ejdsell comes to mind as a possible candidate as well.
I saw a lot of raw talent in his first development camp last summer. Was looking forward to seeing him play against his peers, as opposed to me, again.
He's a very different prospect than Lehkonen. Lehkonen is mature for his age, fundamentally sound, and always had some polish to his game and an all around solid game.
With Ikonen, I'm going to give him 3 years. It sounds like he's in the right hands. Let's just hope that raw talent can be molded properly and he's not another Collberg or Benoit Pouliot. It's still very early though. Scherbak's another raw talent, and he was never even invited to the world junior's in both his post draft years. But he seems on the right path.
How can you tell which players were just bad picks and which players were poorly developed?
I mean complain all you want that McCarron was a bad pick, and it's certainly plausible but he was also told by our development staff to not even focus on offence. How is anyone supposed to become a top-6 forward if their told from the get go don't even try?
15 years of being told not to draft talent? Come on. More like 15 years of not being able to identify talent.
I find it hard to believe that the developmental staff, away from the cameras and microphones, instructed McCarron to not even focus on offense.
People, as is typical around here, took a quote from Sylvain Lefebvre, interpreted it the way they wanted it to come off...then passed it off as fact.
He never at any point said that he doesn't want McCarron to focus on offense....what he said was that they're not necessarily expecting offense from him and that while he can chip in offensively, he's going to bring more value at the NHL level with his defensive play and faceoff ability.
Lefebvre was on record saying as much. So it's very easy to believe. It was a direct quote. Lapointe also told him something similar
Are you referring to his quote in this article?
Michael McCarron is adapting to a new approach to his development with a positive outlook
If so, he's actually NOT on "record" as saying they don't want him to focus on offense...that's just a very brief and slanted interpretation of what he said.
“When you look at the stat sheet, you could be disappointed,” said Rocket head coach Sylvain Lefebvre in an interview back in January, “but that’s not necessarily what we are looking for from him. He is capable of getting points, but he is doing good things on the forecheck and with his net presence on the power play. I look to his faceoffs and defensive play as well. Presently, he is playing a style more similar to what he will in the NHL. Everyone would like for him to score more, but the most important remains to build good habits, and that’s presently the case.”
Is this the quote you're referring too? Because I did a search and nowhere did I find Sly going on record as saying they don't want him to focus on offense.
As far as Lapointe...I found this quote
"I think he’s made strides, taken some good steps, but winning more puck battles when he goes in the corners and finishing more checks instead of missing checks is what we need to see. His timing is off still, I find. He wants to be on the puck, but sometimes he gets there and misses a check that turns into him being behind and having to backcheck. I want him to be more stick on puck, creating loose pucks, and I want him to grab those and come out of the corners with those loose pucks. Winning it and coming out of the corners and making plays; that’s what I’m missing from him."
Where is he saying he doesn't want him to focus on offense?
Out of curiosity how many top-6 forwards/top-4 D/starting goalies should have been drafted in the time period?
It wasn't a recent article, I'll try to find it later on but it was a direct quote along the lines of we want him to focus on his defensive game because he isn't going to be a scorer at the NHL level.
Separate names with a comma.