Confirmed with Link: Joël Bouchard Named Laval Rocket Head Coach (Confirmed: Daniel Jacob Named Assistant Coach)

[montreal]

i would keep DLR. I think he will have a good year if he gets more ice time with skilled players may even be better than Danault if given a chance

I have liked DLR more then most but I don't think he'll be better then Danault. I said last year when people were crapping all over him that to give it time that he was handled poorly and still might turn into a decent 4th liner for us. I still think he's got a good shot at being a at least a solid 4th liner especially since we stink so he should have plenty of chances to prove himself.

Any candidate for the GM position who tries to get the job by putting forth a plan which includes an actual, protracted and measured rebuilding process isn't getting the job. The fact that he may be completely correct in his assessment and in his preferred method to address the problem won't enter into it. The Habs do not "rebuild". They don't even admit that rebuilding might be a solution. They refuse to even consider it.

If you're a Habs fan you have to accept the fact that your team is hampered by certain absolutes which other teams will never have to deal with: francophone head coach, francophone GM, and rigid adherence to "the way things have always been done here" as a corporate mentality which includes never going the rebuild route.

I agree but this time could be different. If Price sucks again and the Habs are one of the worst teams again, I think MB does get fired at some point. So then Molson will have to look at the team. They won't be able to attract quality UFA's even if they overpay as who would want to join one of the worst teams in the league in back to back years. You would be in a very bad situation with your star player making 10.5M for the following 7 years and after 2 bad ones he would likely be impossible to move and would eat up too much cap space so that's going to greatly impact any GM trying to turn it around.

Then you have Weber getting older, Pac a UFA if not traded, so the next GM likely won't have a choice as the farm system isn't strong and while this draft should improve it a good bit there shouldn't be much help coming from within in the short term.

It's going to be very interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[Habsddicted]

i would keep DLR. I think he will have a good year if he gets more ice time with skilled players may even be better than Danault if given a chance

Are you f***ing serious? For real?

 

[Kriss E]

Yes, that's how it works......excess sodium or refined carbs makes your body retain water, that's fact. I've yet to come across any article that states excess sodium which is found in canned foods, boxed foods, TV dinners make your body repel water. I actually feel it myself, when I'm on the road a lot and I don't always have access to proper food that I want, I eat out or eat junk, I feel the affects and gain a few pounds, mainly water retention due to the high sodium content of the food. I get back home, eat the normal food and WHAMMO, back to my normal weight, I can see it and feel it. I don't know where you are getting your info, I'd like to see this.

Phil Kessel seems to me like a medical condition. And last time I checked he's fast.....Alzner is slow, it is feasible that it's because of his excess weight. I'm not saying it's the one and only solution to make him better but it sure is a start.

No, I meant, you can't look at someone's face and say ''excess water''. Furthermore, those guys sweat a crap load pretty much on a daily basis. I doubt any hockey player has water retention and I seriously doubt any of them eat TV dinners.
Alzner was always slow, this isn't new. Alzner is just another Gorges type. Josh was never slow, he was pretty mobile too, but really, those guys suck.
What will make Alzner decent is if he's pushed down to the bottom pair. Even then, I ain't so sure.

 

[Adam Michaels]

No, I meant, you can't look at someone's face and say ''excess water''. Furthermore, those guys sweat a crap load pretty much on a daily basis. I doubt any hockey player has water retention and I seriously doubt any of them eat TV dinners.
Alzner was always slow, this isn't new. Alzner is just another Gorges type. Josh was never slow, he was pretty mobile too, but really, those guys suck.
What will make Alzner decent is if he's pushed down to the bottom pair. Even then, I ain't so sure.

He looked his best when he was on the 3rd pair with Juulsen. Not that his best was great. But throughout the year, that run as a 3rd pair D with Juulsen, he looked better than any other time during the year.

 

[Kriss E]

He looked his best when he was on the 3rd pair with Juulsen. Not that his best was great. But throughout the year, that run as a 3rd pair D with Juulsen, he looked better than any other time during the year.

Ya, that makes sense. He'd look even better in the AHL.

 

[Adam Michaels]

Ya, that makes sense. He'd look even better in the AHL.

And even much better in another organization. But I would like for Habs to have the balls to do to Alzner what Rangers did with Brendan Smith.

Smith was signed to a 4-year @ 4.35M/year. Before he even finished his first year, they buried him in the minors.

And if Alzner is a real pro, he would become a mentor to the young kids in Laval and help them. As bad as he may be, he still has knowledge of the pro game. If he wouldn't be a pro, either send him home or mutually agree to terminate the contract. But that would be in a drastic situation.

 

[Kriss E]

And even much better in another organization. But I would like for Habs to have the balls to do to Alzner what Rangers did with Brendan Smith.

Smith was signed to a 4-year @ 4.35M/year. Before he even finished his first year, they buried him in the minors.

And if Alzner is a real pro, he would become a mentor to the young kids in Laval and help them. As bad as he may be, he still has knowledge of the pro game. If he wouldn't be a pro, either send him home or mutually agree to terminate the contract. But that would be in a drastic situation.

Ya, we will see. First we need Julien to scratch him. Let's see if that happens first.

 

[angry pirate]

You're engaging in a logical fallacy -- you're assuming that these players could not have made it due to the fact that they did not make it. That's not how things work in the real world. End performance and success is always extremely dependent on development environment. That is one of the most conclusive findings of 20th century psychology, economics, sociology, and physiology.

You're mistaken and attacking a point I didn't make. I was discussing the Habs development through the AHL as a whole when accounting for their individual draft positions. You bring up Morgan Ellis and say about how he dominated Junior and ask what happened? Historically only 3 out of 20 4th round picks play 100 games with only 1 out of those 3 being a top 4 defencemen. He was a 4th round pick for a reason. Would he have developed into an NHL defender in say Nashville? Maybe, but that's an exercise in futility as we'll never know either way if that is the case. What we do know, from TSN's data going back to the 1990 draft is the expectation of success for a given pick from a given round. Sly graduated the average according to their research. I removed players who had injuries or played a significantly short amount of time (ie. Gallagher).

I'm not trying to mount some defense of Sly. His teams were bad. The coach has to bear responsibility for that. At the same time I recognize that MB as well as our 2010/2011 drafts take some responsibility too. Top 100 picks should make up the crux of your AHL team, and we chose to trade most of them. We shouldn't be shocked by the result.

As you stated, we haven't developed a top 6 top 4 player. While the odds have been low that we were going to do this anyway considering where we drafted, I agree that at some point you have to cut bait and move on. Paired with the teams dismal records, firing Sly was the right move.

But that doesn't mean that in one aspect, getting players to the NHL, Sly hasn't been average at. If you want to argue that Average in this league isn't good enough and that we have to be better, than I can get on board. But lets not make up alternative histories, or ignore facts because they are inconvenient for us. Quite frankly, with this management team, we don't have too.

 

[DAChampion]

You're mistaken and attacking a point I didn't make. I was discussing the Habs development through the AHL as a whole when accounting for their individual draft positions. You bring up Morgan Ellis and say about how he dominated Junior and ask what happened? Historically only 3 out of 20 4th round picks play 100 games with only 1 out of those 3 being a top 4 defencemen. He was a 4th round pick for a reason. Would he have developed into an NHL defender in say Nashville? Maybe, but that's an exercise in futility as we'll never know either way if that is the case. What we do know, from TSN's data going back to the 1990 draft is the expectation of success for a given pick from a given round. Sly graduated the average according to their research. I removed players who had injuries or played a significantly short amount of time (ie. Gallagher).

I'm not trying to mount some defense of Sly. His teams were bad. The coach has to bear responsibility for that. At the same time I recognize that MB as well as our 2010/2011 drafts take some responsibility too. Top 100 picks should make up the crux of your AHL team, and we chose to trade most of them. We shouldn't be shocked by the result.

As you stated, we haven't developed a top 6 top 4 player. While the odds have been low that we were going to do this anyway considering where we drafted, I agree that at some point you have to cut bait and move on. Paired with the teams dismal records, firing Sly was the right move.

But that doesn't mean that in one aspect, getting players to the NHL, Sly hasn't been average at. If you want to argue that Average in this league isn't good enough and that we have to be better, than I can get on board. But lets not make up alternative histories, or ignore facts because they are inconvenient for us. Quite frankly, with this management team, we don't have too.

And you are mistaken and attacking a point that I didn't make. You're also simultaneously making a high school level error in your use of statistics and probability.

I wasn't praising Morgan Ellis as a "4th rounder", you'll notice that I did not mention Steve Quailer, Jason Missiaen, or Mark MacMillan, none of whom ever showed much promise. I specifically brought up Morgan Ellis. Ellis was not simply a 4th rounder by the time he got in touch with Lefebvre -- he had subsequently played two additional years in the CHL. In those two years he improved substantially, where he got more points and more roles. If a 2010 redraft were performed in 2012, he would have been drafted substantially earlier than 117th overall. 52 points in 60 games is very impressive for a defenseman.

You are not the first member of the hindsight-loving / Bergevin-defense brigade to casually dismiss Ellis as a 4th rounder. But it's intellectually dishonest, because he was seen as far more than a 4th rounder by 2012. He was very highly respected on this forum, and if you go back to forum posts of that time people spoke of Tinordi, Beaulieu, and Ellis as a trio of excellent incoming defense prospects.

Once those two additional years happened, it becomes a logical fallacy to dismiss a player as a 4th rounder. A player's draft rank is a meaningful diagnostic on the day after the draft. Once you have additional years of development or under-development happen, then that has to be taken into account in your probability. Don't even bother debating this as it's basic science.

Moreover, the statistic of "top-100" picks is obviously not as robust as you make it out to be. These weren't random top-100 picks, they were Timmins picks. Timmins had proven himself adept at evaluating talent, both in his time with Ottawa and in his time with Montreal. He did very well with late-round picks back when professionals such as Don Lever were running development. Your pseudoscientific use of statistics ignores that correction factor. Google what a "probabilistic prior" is, you'll learn something, and it will help you make more informed posts in the future.

However, none of them were adequately developed under Lefebvre/Therrien. Lefebvre just had no clue how to develop defenseman. It's been six years now, SIX YEARS, and the only defenseman to make the NHL is Greg Pateryn, and he's only done so because the Stars organization is more adept at evaluating talent. He was playing in the Habs' system for years and they had absolutely no idea that he was an adequate 5/6 dman, they have traded away an infinitude of picks to acquire "depth" 5/6 dman to play in his place.

Morgan Ellis was a good prospect, as were Tinordi, Beaulieu, Pateryn, Nygren, etc. Lefebvre did nothing with them. Thankfully, Lefebvre's interaction with Noah Juulsen is limited to 31 games, otherwise he would have certainly busted as well. However, now that Joel Bouchard is taking over, Juulsen has a good chance to become a top-4 player in the NHL, as long as he stays healthy.

 

[417]

And you are mistaken and attacking a point that I didn't make. You're also simultaneously making a high school level error in your use of statistics and probability.

I wasn't praising Morgan Ellis as a "4th rounder", you'll notice that I did not mention Steve Quailer, Jason Missiaen, or Mark MacMillan, none of whom ever showed much promise. I specifically brought up Morgan Ellis. Ellis was not simply a 4th rounder by the time he got in touch with Lefebvre -- he had subsequently played two additional years in the CHL. In those two years he improved substantially, where he got more points and more roles. If a 2010 redraft were performed in 2012, he would have been drafted substantially earlier than 117th overall. 52 points in 60 games is very impressive for a defenseman.

You are not the first member of the hindsight-loving / Bergevin-defense brigade to casually dismiss Ellis as a 4th rounder. But it's intellectually dishonest, because he was seen as far more than a 4th rounder by 2012. He was very highly respected on this forum, and if you go back to forum posts of that time people spoke of Tinordi, Beaulieu, and Ellis as a trio of excellent incoming defense prospects.

Once those two additional years happened, it becomes a logical fallacy to dismiss a player as a 4th rounder. A player's draft rank is a meaningful diagnostic on the day after the draft. Once you have additional years of development or under-development happen, then that has to be taken into account in your probability. Don't even bother debating this as it's basic science.

Moreover, the statistic of "top-100" picks is obviously not as robust as you make it out to be. These weren't random top-100 picks, they were Timmins picks. Timmins had proven himself adept at evaluating talent, both in his time with Ottawa and in his time with Montreal. He did very well with late-round picks back when professionals such as Don Lever were running development. Your pseudoscientific use of statistics ignores that correction factor. Google what a "probabilistic prior" is, you'll learn something, and it will help you make more informed posts in the future.

However, none of them were adequately developed under Lefebvre/Therrien. Lefebvre just had no clue how to develop defenseman. It's been six years now, SIX YEARS, and the only defenseman to make the NHL is Greg Pateryn, and he's only done so because the Stars organization is more adept at evaluating talent. He was playing in the Habs' system for years and they had absolutely no idea that he was an adequate 5/6 dman, they have traded away an infinitude of picks to acquire "depth" 5/6 dman to play in his place.

Morgan Ellis was a good prospect, as were Tinordi, Beaulieu, Pateryn, Nygren, etc. Lefebvre did nothing with them. Thankfully, Lefebvre's interaction with Noah Juulsen is limited to 31 games, otherwise he would have certainly busted as well. However, now that Joel Bouchard is taking over, Juulsen has a good chance to become a top-4 player in the NHL, as long as he stays healthy.

Do you actually believe this?

That the difference between Noah Juulsen being a bust or being an NHL player with a future...is JUST about who will coach him for a handful of games in the AHL???

You can't seriously believe that...

 

[DAChampion]

Do you actually believe this?

That the difference between Noah Juulsen being a bust or being an NHL player with a future...is JUST about who will coach him for a handful of games in the AHL???

You can't seriously believe that...

In the real world, development goes a long way. It's not "my belief", it's one of the most demonstrated results from 20th century science in the fields of psychology, economics, sociology, anthropology, and so on.

We're not talking "a handful of games", unless Juulsen does get immediately promoted like Gallagher did. We're talking two or three years, that's a very long time, and it's a crucial age and development period.

We have a lot of results from Habs' recent history. We've listed Lefebvre's numerous busts. Pacioretty is a good counter-example from the previous era. He had a long development curve, and would have likely busted under Lefebvre. He needed ice time, and You Boucher gave him ice time.

 

[417]

In the real world, development goes a long way. It's not "my belief", it's one of the most demonstrated results from 20th century science in the fields of psychology, economics, sociology, anthropology, and so on.

How can you demonstrate that Sly's 31 game interaction with Noah Juulsen would of made him a bust had that 31 games been say...a full AHL season?

We're not talking "a handful of games", unless Juulsen does get immediately promoted like Gallagher did. We're talking two or three years, that's a very long time, and it's a crucial age and development period.

We have a lot of results from Habs' recent history. We've listed Lefebvre's numerous busts. Pacioretty is a good counter-example from the previous era. He had a long development curve, and would have likely busted under Lefebvre. He needed ice time, and Don Lever gave him ice time.

Juulsen isn't going to play 2 or 3 years worth of games in the AHL because he's a quality prospect with an NHL future...he played 31 games this year because of injuries, when he played in the NHL, he didn't look out of place not because Sly "only" had 31 games with him.

He looked good because he's a quality prospect.

Morgan Ellis was not a quality prospect, he was a long shot at best the day he was drafted...

Greg Pateryn was also a long shot when he was drafted, he played 163 AHL games under Sly, yet he's a regular NHL Dman today? How come Sly's "bust factor" didn't apply here?

What about Charles Hudon? He played over 200 AHL games under Sly and he was one of our few bright spots this year.

 

[DAChampion]

How can you demonstrate that Sly's 31 game interaction with Noah Juulsen would of made him a bust had that 31 games been say...a full AHL season?


Juulsen isn't going to play 2 or 3 years worth of games in the AHL because he's a quality prospect with an NHL future...he played 31 games this year because of injuries, when he played in the NHL, he didn't look out of place not because Sly "only" had 31 games with him.

He looked good because he's a quality prospect.

Morgan Ellis was not a quality prospect, he was a long shot at best the day he was drafted...

Greg Pateryn was also a long shot when he was drafted, he played 163 AHL games under Sly, yet he's a regular NHL Dman today? How come Sly's "bust factor" didn't apply here?

What about Charles Hudon? He played over 200 AHL games under Sly and he was one of our few bright spots this year.

Ellis was a long shot when he was drafted, but he grew to be a quality prospect by the time he jointed the AHL. Pateryn was going to bust under the Habs, if not for the trade to the Stars he'd be in Europe. Hudon had one good season, that's Sly's greatest result after six years. Good for Sly.

As for Juulsen, I've been quite clear that players who bypass Lefebvre cannot be busted by Lefebvre: look at Gallagher, Lehkonen, and Mete. I'm kind of annoyed that I need to state something so obvious.

 

[417]

Ellis was a long shot when he was drafted, but he grew to be a quality prospect by the time he jointed the AHL.

based on what?

The 52pts in 60 games he put up in his draft year + 2?

I remember when Ellis graduated, he gave some people some hope because he was good during the Memorial Cup...but he was also older than most of his peers.

He was still a prospect who was a long shot at that point...there wasn't much progression in his game from his draft year until he graduated to the AHL.

Pateryn was going to bust under the Habs, if not for the trade to the Stars he'd be in Europe. Hudon had one good season, that's Sly's greatest result after six years. Good for Sly.

Probably...but that's because they didn't know how to use him or have a role for him.

He was one of our better Dmen in the AHL, but every time he got called up...he'd get benched at the slightest mistake, which is a common theme for many of our prospects.

As for Hudon...you missed the point, I wasn't trying to credit Sly for Hudon's solid year. Hudon had a solid year because the coaching staff finally decided to give him a role on the team.

As for Juulsen, I've been quite clear that players who bypass Lefebvre cannot be busted by Lefebvre: look at Gallagher, Lehkonen, and Mete. I'm kind of annoyed that I need to state something so obvious.

It's not obvious at all...I find the notion that a coach can singlehandedly decide the entire fate of a player completely ridiculous.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

And even much better in another organization. But I would like for Habs to have the balls to do to Alzner what Rangers did with Brendan Smith.

Smith was signed to a 4-year @ 4.35M/year. Before he even finished his first year, they buried him in the minors.

And if Alzner is a real pro, he would become a mentor to the young kids in Laval and help them. As bad as he may be, he still has knowledge of the pro game. If he wouldn't be a pro, either send him home or mutually agree to terminate the contract. But that would be in a drastic situation.

I think what sped up that decision was that Smith came out of shape to camp supposedly after getting married. Lets hope Alzner is getting married in the summer

 

[DAChampion]

It's not obvious at all...I find the notion that a coach can singlehandedly decide the entire fate of a player completely ridiculous.

I honestly see it as extremely obvious that development matters, it's hard for me to relate to anybody who thinks that talent is independent of development. That's not how things work. It's like debating a global warming denier or a young earth creationist.

Why do you think that Canada develops more hockey players per capita than other countries?
1) Because Canadians are genetically superior in the attributes necessary to play hockey.
2) Because Canada has a larger development infrastructure for young hockey players, and more Canadian parents put their kids in hockey programs.

Seriously man ... The answer is obviously #2.

What skills have you developed in your life? Were you born with those skills or did you have to develop them over time?

 

[Le Barron de HF]

Also I think a better example would be Dietz instead of Ellis (although the latter actually developed in the ECHL rather than the AHL which says a lot). Dietz had better tools and was one of our late cuts as a young prospect.

 

[417]

I honestly see it as extremely obvious that development matters

Yes...THAT'S obvious.

But development is about MUCH more than just the identity/ability of the AHL coach. There are tons of prospects league-wide who develop just fine despite coming across journeymen AHL coaches.

So i'm sorry, that doesn't take for me...it's an underdeveloped theory you got here.

it's hard for me to relate to anybody who thinks that talent is independent of development. That's not how things work. It's like debating a global warming denier or a young earth creationist.

That's quite the reach you've got there.

I never said talent is independent of development...what I said was that development is more than just the identity/ability of the AHL coach.

Why do you think that Canada develops more hockey players per capita than other countries?
1) Because Canadians are genetically superior in the attributes necessary to play hockey.
2) Because Canada has a larger development infrastructure for young hockey players, and more Canadian parents put their kids in hockey programs.

Seriously man ... The answer is obviously #2.

What does any of this have to do with the identity of the AHL coach?

Absolutely nothing.

What skills have you developed in your life? Were you born with those skills or did you have to develop them over time?

What does this have to do with anything? Sorry man...you're talking about irrelevant things, my skills are irrelevant to the point i'm making.

 

[WeThreeKings]

If you wanna use Morgan Ellis as a talking point..

Morgan Ellis was dying in the AHL under Sly.. then they moved him to the ECHL.. where he received better coaching than he got under Lefebvre. He came back to the AHL the next season and had a 42 pt season, beating his previous best of.. 10. He even earned a 3 game call up to the NHL following that.

It took another coach in another league to put Ellis back on track. Who knows what would have happened if he had received competent coaching in the first place.

You have three types of prospects:
Players who will make it no matter what.. the type of coaching they receive will certainly help determine how likely they are to round out as a player and reach their upside.

Players who won't make it no matter what.. they just don't have the skills/brain.

And players who require good development and coaching to reach their potential. Those are generally the types of prospects you are getting outside of the first two rounds of the draft, barring some luck and some steep development curves. This is where Lefebvre has proven to be awful.

 

[DAChampion]

Yes...THAT'S obvious.

But development is about MUCH more than just the identity/ability of the AHL coach. There are tons of prospects league-wide who develop just fine despite coming across journeymen AHL coaches.

So i'm sorry, that doesn't take for me...it's an underdeveloped theory you got here.


That's quite the reach you've got there.

I never said talent is independent of development...what I said was that development is more than just the identity/ability of the AHL coach.


What does any of this have to do with the identity of the AHL coach?

Absolutely nothing.


What does this have to do with anything? Sorry man...you're talking about irrelevant things, my skills are irrelevant to the point i'm making.

Lefebvre was not the only problem with the Habs' development. They also had bad assistant coaches at both the AHL and NHL level, they didn't promote players properly, and they didn't distribute ice time properly. It was a general catastrophe.

There may be lots of other players who develop under journeymen coaches, but I'll bet good money that the good coaches have a better track record. Moreover, Lefebvre isn't a mediocre journeyman, he's plausibly the very worst AHL coach of the past six years.

The other points are of course valid you're just somehow not following and I'm not sure why. Perhaps someone else can do a better job of explaining them to you.

 

[417]

Lefebvre was not the only problem with the Habs' development. They also had bad assistant coaches at both the AHL and NHL level, they didn't promote players properly, and they didn't distribute ice time properly. It was a general catastrophe.

You're also forgetting an important factor...

They didn't draft enough players to graduate tot he AHL AND, they drafted poorly. I've gone through the excercise of listing the players that have graduated to the AHL under Bergevin/Lefebvre...it's not pretty.

There may be lots of other players who develop under journeymen coaches, but I'll bet good money that the good coaches have a better track record. Moreover, Lefebvre isn't a mediocre journeyman, he's plausibly the very worst AHL coach of the past six years.

Then why do NHL coaches keep getting recycled? Why aren't more NHL teams dipping down to their farm teams to hire these great development coaches?

Can you even name me the best coaches in the AHL? Could you even name me 10 AHL head coaches and/or their resumes as far as developing NHL players?

The other points are of course valid you're just somehow not following and I'm not sure why. Perhaps someone else can do a better job of explaining them to you.

Yeah...if you or someone can explain to me what my own skills that i've developed in my 37yrs on this earth have to do with the Habs AHL affiliate coach...

Please, fill me in.

 

[Captain Mountain]

How can you demonstrate that Sly's 31 game interaction with Noah Juulsen would of made him a bust had that 31 games been say...a full AHL season?


Juulsen isn't going to play 2 or 3 years worth of games in the AHL because he's a quality prospect with an NHL future...he played 31 games this year because of injuries, when he played in the NHL, he didn't look out of place not because Sly "only" had 31 games with him.

He looked good because he's a quality prospect.

Morgan Ellis was not a quality prospect, he was a long shot at best the day he was drafted...

Greg Pateryn was also a long shot when he was drafted, he played 163 AHL games under Sly, yet he's a regular NHL Dman today? How come Sly's "bust factor" didn't apply here?

What about Charles Hudon? He played over 200 AHL games under Sly and he was one of our few bright spots this year.

I'm pretty sure we can pull up similar sentiments from here when Louis LeBlanc looked good when he got 42 games in the NHL.

Juulsen's play this year was encouraging, but he isn't a lock.

Pateryn was also so good for the Habs that the team decided to trade him and a 4th for Jordie Benn. I'm not sure we can praise Pateryn's development if the team didn't think much of him.

Hudon had 30 points. He wasn't "one of the few bright spots". He was a decent middle six forward. And his development was never exactly consistent with Sly yanking around his ice-time and shuffling him all over the line-up so he could play his AHL grinders more.

 

[Runner77]

Pateryn was also so good for the Habs that the team decided to trade him and a 4th for Jordie Benn. I'm not sure we can praise Pateryn's development if the team didn't think much of him.

Pateryn says more about the Habs' failed pro scouting and their flawed player assessment. That they couldn't figure out that Pateryn was a better asset than Benn is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason we've been acquiring tons of deadwood over the last two years -- the same individuals touting bunk are unable to reliably establish what type of assets they have on hand.

 

[417]

I'm pretty sure we can pull up similar sentiments from here when Louis LeBlanc looked good when he got 42 games in the NHL.

You can probably also look up my comments at the time that said those 42 games were meaningless since they came in a lost season on an AWFUL team.

Louis Leblanc was a 2nd line player on the the in those 42 games...the team sucked, had no pressure to win.

Meh...I was never all that impressed with Leblanc. He was a bust the day he was drafted IMO.

Juulsen's play this year was encouraging, but he isn't a lock.

I didn't say it was a lock...he'll likely make the team or spend another half season in the AHL though.

If he does go down to the AHL, don't expect he'll be something he's not simply because he'll be coached by Bouchard instead of Lefebvre.

Pateryn was also so good for the Habs that the team decided to trade him and a 4th for Jordie Benn. I'm not sure we can praise Pateryn's development if the team didn't think much of him.

I didn't praise his development...in fact, I criticized their handling of him at the NHL level.

Hudon had 30 points. He wasn't "one of the few bright spots". He was a decent middle six forward. And his development was never exactly consistent with Sly yanking around his ice-time and shuffling him all over the line-up so he could play his AHL grinders more.

It was his first full NHL year on a crappy team...yes, he was a bright spot to me. One of the few.

 

[Leon Lucius Black]

Pateryn says more about the Habs' failed pro scouting and their flawed player assessment. That they couldn't figure out that Pateryn was a better asset than Benn is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason we've been acquiring tons of deadwood over the last two years -- the same individuals touting bunk are unable to reliably establish what type of assets they have on hand.

Pateryn is more because of the dinosaurs we've had at head coach in the NHL. We saw under Therrien and now Julien, young players have solid stretches of hockey then have a bad game or two and don't see ice time while veteran plugs continue to play no matter how bad they are.

Guys like Pateryn and even Carr won't be more than bottom six/bottom pairing guys, but even in that role they can be productive and signed cheap. Instead of having to trade for guys like Shaw/Alzner for those roles, assets and money could've been used on actual impact and skilled guys.