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

[QuebecPride]

Are they doing that though? Mete couldn't play in the AHL, was probably too good for the OHL and filled a hole that Montreal desperately needed filling. Juulsen was called up due to injuries. Scherbak only got 3 games in the NHL before this season.

The only guys they really screwed around with early were DLR and McCarron. That was a mistake, but not one they've repeated a ton lately.

They need to run the farm team(s) better in terms of NHL depth AND development, but the yo-yoing isn't that terrible.

Yes they do. They've been doing it for years now. You cite recent examples in Big Mac and De La Rose, but they did the same with Leblanc, Pacioretty (who even requested to stay in the AHL if he didn't receive proper minutes in the NHL). Those are all high draft picks and arguably three out of four of them sufferered because of the unstable environments. Leblanc played 40 games on one of the worst NHL teams and then thought he was an NHLer for life. Big Mac has actually regressed since he turned pro. De La Rose could be a much better offensive threat if he was allowed to develop in the AHL instead of filling the 4th line holes of the Habs. People complained (and with reason) that Hudon could have played in the NHL a year earlier than he did, but they were patient with him and it paid off. Maybe a bit too patient, but whatever.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

Yes they do. They've been doing it for years now. You cite recent examples in Big Mac and De La Rose, but they did the same with Leblanc, Pacioretty (who even requested to stay in the AHL if he didn't receive proper minutes in the NHL). Those are all high draft picks and arguably three out of four of them sufferered because of the unstable environments. Leblanc played 40 games on one of the worst NHL teams and then thought he was an NHLer for life. Big Mac has actually regressed since he turned pro. De La Rose could be a much better offensive threat if he was allowed to develop in the AHL instead of filling the 4th line holes of the Habs. People complained (and with reason) that Hudon could have played in the NHL a year earlier than he did, but they were patient with him and it paid off. Maybe a bit too patient, but whatever.

With Leblanc, injuries was the problem (for the team itself), who was a better option than Leblanc, Dumont? We should have claimed someone on waivers? I don't think calling up Leblanc was an issue here, a multitude of other factors played a part here (his lack of strength/will, the way the management treated him from Sly to MB sending him down early in 2014).

 

[Captain Mountain]

It's worth noting those two guys filled boxes that the others didn't: they had size and could play bottom six roles which are things our organization have coveted a lot and given plenty of auditions in the MB regime. That being said, I stand with montreal that it was foolish to yo-yo them like that.

It was, I just don't think its a recent problem. Poor coaching, not giving young players ice-time in the AHL, not putting young players in a position to succeed in the AHL are much more recent issues than a problem they haven't been that guilty of in recent years.

Yes they do. They've been doing it for years now. You cite recent examples in Big Mac and De La Rose, but they did the same with Leblanc, Pacioretty (who even requested to stay in the AHL if he didn't receive proper minutes in the NHL). Those are all high draft picks and arguably three out of four of them sufferered because of the unstable environments. Leblanc played 40 games on one of the worst NHL teams and then thought he was an NHLer for life. Big Mac has actually regressed since he turned pro. De La Rose could be a much better offensive threat if he was allowed to develop in the AHL instead of filling the 4th line holes of the Habs. People complained (and with reason) that Hudon could have played in the NHL a year earlier than he did, but they were patient with him and it paid off. Maybe a bit too patient, but whatever.

Leblanc wasn't yo-yo'd by the current regime. Nor was Pacioretty. And they haven't been yo-yoing players recently.

 

[QuebecPride]

With Leblanc, injuries was the problem (for the team itself), who was a better option than Leblanc, Dumont? We should have claimed someone on waivers? I don't think calling up Leblanc was an issue here, a multitude of other factors played a part here (his lack of strength/will, the way the management treated him from Sly to MB sending him down early in 2014).

Anybody but your best prospect, especially in a losing cause. Let your jewel develop quietly in the AHL until he is ready. I agree that it was not only because of his premature callup that Leblanc failed, but to me it was the start of his demise. His ankle injury was pretty bad and he should have worked harder to develop his strength.

Leblanc wasn't yo-yo'd by the current regime. Nor was Pacioretty. And they haven't been yo-yoing players recently.

De la Rose and Maccarron haven't been up and down the past three years? What about Pateryn and Beaulieu who were in and out of lineup/up-and the NHL/AHL.

 

[montreal]

Are they doing that though? Mete couldn't play in the AHL, was probably too good for the OHL and filled a hole that Montreal desperately needed filling. Juulsen was called up due to injuries. Scherbak only got 3 games in the NHL before this season.

The only guys they really screwed around with early were DLR and McCarron. That was a mistake, but not one they've repeated a ton lately.

They need to run the farm team(s) better in terms of NHL depth AND development, but the yo-yoing isn't that terrible.

yes they are doing it. Juulsen should never have been called up, the guy records points in 1 game out of his first 26. That's just brutal. A first round pick and he can't score if his life depended on him. So what do they do, as soon as he starts putting up some points they call him up. They should have left him there all year to work on his offense imo.

Mete should have been in the OHL imo.

DLR has been the definition of being yo-yoed, McCarron has been as well. It's a terrible way to develop prospects imo. Beaulieu, Tinordi, shouldn't have been in the NHL at 20 either, the yo-yoing, benching them for every little mistake. I remember when Beaulieu was on the ice for 2 goal against where he looked really bad, next game he's back in the AHL.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

Anybody but your best prospect, especially in a losing cause. Let your jewel develop quietly in the AHL until he is ready. I agree that it was not only because of his premature callup that Leblanc failed, but to me it was the start of his demise. His ankle injury was pretty bad and he should have worked harder to develop his strength.



De la Rose and Maccarron haven't been up and down the past three years? What about Pateryn and Beaulieu who were in and out of lineup/up-and the NHL/AHL.

Although I understand where you're coming from, the pipeline was bare back then (from lack of picks primarly). Look at our AHL team, we didn't have many options as far as not 'rushing' prospects, most of them that were intriguing were in their rookie seasons or flatout not good enough (Nattinen). We had the likes of Enqvist and Palushaj play a lot. The other option was to call up a journeyman like Willsie.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

I'm not sure where this article is best suited, but its a good look at the management failings of Bergevin for Laval:

An age-based look at how NHL teams use their AHL affiliates

Its a good look at how Montreal has failed to use its farm team to develop young talent and how they haven't put their young talent there in the best position to develop.

Bouchard seems like a good start, but just like with coaching changes at the NHL level, Montreal needs a shift in management, development and analysis philosophy in hockey-ops to really see a turnaround.

By the way, interesting read, thanks for posting.

 

[DAChampion]

yes they are doing it. Juulsen should never have been called up, the guy records points in 1 game out of his first 26. That's just brutal. A first round pick and he can't score if his life depended on him. So what do they do, as soon as he starts putting up some points they call him up. They should have left him there all year to work on his offense imo.

Mete should have been in the OHL imo.

DLR has been the definition of being yo-yoed, McCarron has been as well. It's a terrible way to develop prospects imo. Beaulieu, Tinordi, shouldn't have been in the NHL at 20 either, the yo-yoing, benching them for every little mistake. I remember when Beaulieu was on the ice for 2 goal against where he looked really bad, next game he's back in the AHL.

I suspect that they simply don't give a shit about development.

They call up the players the instant that they're hot because their only priority is to win the next regular season game.

 

[Captain Mountain]

yes they are doing it. Juulsen should never have been called up, the guy records points in 1 game out of his first 26. That's just brutal. A first round pick and he can't score if his life depended on him. So what do they do, as soon as he starts putting up some points they call him up. They should have left him there all year to work on his offense imo.

Mete should have been in the OHL imo.

DLR has been the definition of being yo-yoed, McCarron has been as well. It's a terrible way to develop prospects imo. Beaulieu, Tinordi, shouldn't have been in the NHL at 20 either, the yo-yoing, benching them for every little mistake. I remember when Beaulieu was on the ice for 2 goal against where he looked really bad, next game he's back in the AHL.

Benching them for every little mistake is what I see as an issue. Letting Juulsen play out the season in the NHL doesn't seem like a big mistake to me, especially since they let him play and make mistakes. Lets see what they do with Juulsen next season before judging, but Juulsen was never going to be a point producer and acqainting him to NHL speed isn't a mistake.

There's not cookie cutter approach to development. As long as they aren't attacking his confidence and giving him ice-time then I don't see an issue with calling him up.

 

[montreal]

Benching them for every little mistake is what I see as an issue. Letting Juulsen play out the season in the NHL doesn't seem like a big mistake to me, especially since they let him play and make mistakes. Lets see what they do with Juulsen next season before judging, but Juulsen was never going to be a point producer and acqainting him to NHL speed isn't a mistake.

There's not cookie cutter approach to development. As long as they aren't attacking his confidence and giving him ice-time then I don't see an issue with calling him up.

How do you know Juulsen was never going to be a point producer? At 17 he put up 52 pts in 68 games. He's got a big shot and can move the puck. I'm not saying he was going to be a point producer, I'm just saying he has some tools and the whole point of developing a player is to give them time to improve on their weaknesses. Juulsen put up 4 pts in 5 games after such a bad start, why not leave him there for longer to see what happens? Maybe he gains more confidence in his offense and it continues to progress? We'll see what they do with Juulsen next season, just hope it doesn't mess up his game as I'm a big fan of his play.

I agree that there's no cookie cutter approach to development. My problem is that this team has continued to call up 19/20 year olds to the NHL and it's blown up in their face over and over. I don't mind making a mistake, everyone makes them but it's not learning from those mistakes that drive me nuts. So maybe it works out this time but my point is why keep risking it? After it's not worked out so many times, why not just say hey maybe we should use a little more caution this time around with our 1st round picks and putting them in the NHL at 20.

 

[QuebecPride]

By the way, interesting read, thanks for posting.

Agreed.

 

[QuebecPride]

Although I understand where you're coming from, the pipeline was bare back then (from lack of picks primarly). Look at our AHL team, we didn't have many options as far as not 'rushing' prospects, most of them that were intriguing were in their rookie seasons or flatout not good enough (Nattinen). We had the likes of Enqvist and Palushaj play a lot. The other option was to call up a journeyman like Willsie.

Bingo, call-up the vets who will enjoy the extra-pay and the exposure. Kids that are not ready, let them develop in the AHL.

 

[Laurentide]

I suspect that they simply don't give a **** about development.

They call up the players the instant that they're hot because their only priority is to win the next regular season game.

Exactly. We need to stop giving them credit for things they aren't even concerned with. They've always treated the farm team like a penal colony. When they want to punish a guy for making a mistake, they send him to Devil's Island/Alcatraz (a.k.a. Hamilton/St. John's/Laval) If any actual development occurs down there it's purely by accident, never by design.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

A nature vs. nurture argument on a hockey board. Only on the Habs forum.

Funny because in the realm of biology, there isn't much of a debate anymore. It's quite clear that there is an interaction between genes and environment, and when it comes to behavior, between neurons and the environment.

There is no genetic expression without an environmental catalyst.

 

[Sorinth]

Juulsen was never going to be a point producer and acqainting him to NHL speed isn't a mistake.

That's what they said about DLR, McCarron and since we are talking D, Tinordi as well. Sure they aren't going to be big point producers but even 4th liners and bottom pairing guys need be skilled or they will be liabilities. That's why it's important that they develop their offence at the AHL level, because if they can't be offensive guys at the AHL level they will be liabilities at the NHL level no matter how good defensively they might be.

 

[Captain Mountain]

That's what they said about DLR, McCarron and since we are talking D, Tinordi as well. Sure they aren't going to be big point producers but even 4th liners and bottom pairing guys need be skilled or they will be liabilities. That's why it's important that they develop their offence at the AHL level, because if they can't be offensive guys at the AHL level they will be liabilities at the NHL level no matter how good defensively they might be.

Developing offense =/= developing skills.

And for the record, Juulsen showed excellent skills at the NHL level already.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

Developing offense =/= developing skills.

And for the record, Juulsen showed excellent skills at the NHL level already.

As I've mentioned in the past, we risk having Juulsen turn into a Mark Fayne (when he was good) rather than a Bieksa if we don't let him develop some more in the AHL. How many cases are there of guys exploding and learning at the NHL level? There's Garrison that one year and that's it for me.

 

[WinterLion]

yes they are doing it. Juulsen should never have been called up, the guy records points in 1 game out of his first 26. That's just brutal. A first round pick and he can't score if his life depended on him. So what do they do, as soon as he starts putting up some points they call him up. They should have left him there all year to work on his offense imo.

Mete should have been in the OHL imo.

DLR has been the definition of being yo-yoed, McCarron has been as well. It's a terrible way to develop prospects imo. Beaulieu, Tinordi, shouldn't have been in the NHL at 20 either, the yo-yoing, benching them for every little mistake. I remember when Beaulieu was on the ice for 2 goal against where he looked really bad, next game he's back in the AHL.

No, I'm sorry. Juulsen was playing great hockey in Laval and deserved his call up. Points are not everything. There is nothing wrong with bringing players up and playing them in situations where they can succeed. The problem is when you break them by making them play over their heads and give them false expectations. I'm more weary of how Mete was handled, but even with him his skating was so good and he had a chance to regroup with the WJC.

 

[Captain Mountain]

As I've mentioned in the past, we risk having Juulsen turn into a Mark Fayne (when he was good) rather than a Bieksa if we don't let him develop some more in the AHL. How many cases are there of guys exploding and learning at the NHL level? There's Garrison that one year and that's it for me.

Mark Fayne and Kevin Bieksa aren't really comparable.

As for "How many cases are there of guys exploding and learning at the NHL level?", excluding top prospects like Kris Letang or Shea Weber who only played 46 games in the AHL (even though he was a 2nd round pick and Juulsen went in the 1st and didn't put up great numbers in the WHL either), non-exhaustively there are Slavin, Pesce, Faulk, Demers, Manson, Schmidt, De Haan, Spurgeon and Petry that spent limited time in the AHL and grew as players in the NHL.

The better question is, can Montreal develop Juulsen's game at the NHL level? If they can't and he wont be able to make mistakes or get decent minutes or get proper instruction, then send him back. But I'm not convinced that playing Juulsen in the AHL is a requirement.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

Mark Fayne and Kevin Bieksa aren't really comparable.

As for "How many cases are there of guys exploding and learning at the NHL level?", excluding top prospects like Kris Letang or Shea Weber who only played 46 games in the AHL (even though he was a 2nd round pick and Juulsen went in the 1st and didn't put up great numbers in the WHL either), non-exhaustively there are Slavin, Pesce, Faulk, Demers, Manson, Schmidt, De Haan, Spurgeon and Petry that spent limited time in the AHL and grew as players in the NHL.

The better question is, can Montreal develop Juulsen's game at the NHL level? If they can't and he wont be able to make mistakes or get decent minutes or get proper instruction, then send him back. But I'm not convinced that playing Juulsen in the AHL is a requirement.

You brought up a good list of players. Slavin played 14 games, Pesce 7 (and he's good example of a guy who could have played more in the AHL since his offensive game doesn't seem like it'll progress). Faulk played a similar amount as Juulsen but produced a lot more (30 pts in 51 GP). Same for Demers, 100 games and a 33 pts season under his belt. Schmidt is a good example for you, he didn't light it up in the AHL 26 points in 65 G, but still better than NJ. CDH played the equivalent to 1 season in the A and never really developped his offensive game at the NHL level (plus has similar production to Juulsen). Honestly off that list, Josh Manson is your best example off that list and it's still early to determine if his production was a fluke this year, but still, good find. Let's cross our finger but he seems like the exception to the rule here.

As for Fayne:

ASSETS:
Moves the puck efficiently when he is on top of his game. Has excellent size for the NHL game. Uses sound positioning to defend capably.
FLAWS:
Needs to take better advantage of his physical gifts (6-3, 212 pounds) to keep opponents honest. Lacks a major offensive aspect to his game.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

(source THN)

This could very well be NJ if we don't let him develop some more.

 

[Captain Mountain]

You brought up a good list of players. Slavin played 14 games, Pesce 7 (and he's good example of a guy who could have played more in the AHL since his offensive game doesn't seem like it'll progress). Faulk played a similar amount as Juulsen but produced a lot more (30 pts in 51 GP). Same for Demers, 100 games and a 33 pts season under his belt. Schmidt is a good example for you, he didn't light it up in the AHL 26 points in 65 G, but still better than NJ. CDH played the equivalent to 1 season in the A and never really developped his offensive game at the NHL level (plus has similar production to Juulsen). Honestly off that list, Josh Manson is your best example off that list and it's still early to determine if his production was a fluke this year, but still, good find. Let's cross our finger but he seems like the exception to the rule here.

As for Fayne:

ASSETS:
Moves the puck efficiently when he is on top of his game. Has excellent size for the NHL game. Uses sound positioning to defend capably.
FLAWS:
Needs to take better advantage of his physical gifts (6-3, 212 pounds) to keep opponents honest. Lacks a major offensive aspect to his game.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

(source THN)

This could very well be NJ if we don't let him develop some more.

I could honestly go a lot further than that. Especially compared to gestating the AHL for a while.

My original point was that Juulsen playing the NHL this year isn't neccessarily a mistake. I've always been fine with him starting the season in the AHL next year.

I'd be more curious if you have an example of D-men with limited offensive upside that had long, productive careers after spending a lot of time in the AHL like Bieksa. Because Bieksa as a 5th rounder seems like a strange comparable. Plus, Bieksa never developed much of an offensive game either. He had a few 40+ point seasons, but needed PP time to get that done and a lot of that was leeching points.

 

[Sorinth]

Developing offense =/= developing skills.

And for the record, Juulsen showed excellent skills at the NHL level already.

Sure but the skills you need to be a successful NHL player will make it so that when you play at a lower level you will produce offensively.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

I could honestly go a lot further than that. Especially compared to gestating the AHL for a while.

My original point was that Juulsen playing the NHL this year isn't neccessarily a mistake. I've always been fine with him starting the season in the AHL next year.

I'd be more curious if you have an example of D-men with limited offensive upside that had long, productive careers after spending a lot of time in the AHL like Bieksa. Because Bieksa as a 5th rounder seems like a strange comparable. Plus, Bieksa never developed much of an offensive game either. He had a few 40+ point seasons, but needed PP time to get that done and a lot of that was leeching points.

Bieksa is the name I gave because that's the comparable Juulsen had in his draft year. Thomas Hickey is one, Jake Muzzin, Kronwall/Martinez potentially, but yeah I won't lie, after going from 2005-11 drafts, there are not that many cases. I might be in the wrong here.

 

[Sorinth]

Plus, Bieksa never developed much of an offensive game either. He had a few 40+ point seasons, but needed PP time to get that done and a lot of that was leeching points.

I doubt there's a single defenceman that has ever put up 40+ point seasons and not had significant PP time.

 

[montreal]

No, I'm sorry. Juulsen was playing great hockey in Laval and deserved his call up. Points are not everything. There is nothing wrong with bringing players up and playing them in situations where they can succeed. The problem is when you break them by making them play over their heads and give them false expectations. I'm more weary of how Mete was handled, but even with him his skating was so good and he had a chance to regroup with the WJC.

he started off playing great but his play dipped a little and even if it didn't, getting points in 1 out of 26 games for a 1st round pick is brutal. The minute he starts to string together some offense they call him up. The point isn't if it was the right or wrong call, the point is it's backfired several times, why take the risk? Why not just leave him down there until he's dominating. Now the concern is if his offensive game doesn't develop when they could have left him be and see what he ended up doing.

Juulsen was always going to be an NHLer since he was picked, his defensive game is just that good, but if his offensive game doesn't develop it will just be another mistake made at the development level that his organization continues to make.