Prospect Info: Josh Brook II

[SOLR]

We really need Brook to be more than a third pairing d-man at the NHL level. Don’t see him being a top pairing at this point but we badly need him to become a top 4.

Every team needs more top 4 Ds. We can't plan for him to become X, it will or won't happen. I'm still holding small hopes (10-15%) that Juulsen will be able to play, he has played in a top 4 road for us for a few games, so to me, if healthy he could probably grow into it.

 

[DangerDave]

I remember someone on the board telling me to trade Petry so Brook could take his ice time

smh

I'd trade Petry regardless.

Also, Brook has been really good lately.

 

[Tyson]

Brook has been terrific the past few games and he may have turned the corner as a pro. Every player has a learning curve, Brook seems to have started to figure out what being a pro is all about.
Do not rush him.

 

[ahmedou]

Previously, he was impatient. Actually, he's patient. Thanks to the background surrounding him.

 

[MrNasty]

Hoping he is turning it around. The RD position is now our weakest prospect depth position.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

I remember someone on the board telling me to trade Petry so Brook could take his ice time

smh

I remember being told Danault should go too so Poehling could take his ice time haha.

 

[montreal]

We really need Brook to be more than a third pairing d-man at the NHL level. Don’t see him being a top pairing at this point but we badly need him to become a top 4.

I don't think we badly need him to be a top 4, we badly need at least 2 or 3 out of Romanov, Norlinder, Harris, Struble, Brook, Fleury, Mete, Juulsen, Fairbrother to end up in the top 4. If we can get 3 top 4 D from that group we should be in very good shape depending on just how good they are.


In no way am I suggesting this would happen but say in 4-5 years if we had,

Romanov Norlinder
Struble Harris
Mete Juulsen/Brook/Fleury

of course not all of them will hit so it's extremely unlikely before anyone gets too excited to tell me how it's impossible that all those Timmins picks would pan out. My point is just that while getting a top 4 D out of Brook would be huge for us, I don't think it has to be him per say if Romanov, Norlinder and Struble or Harris all reach their ceilings which if course is not going to be easy.

We see how hard it is to find a replacement for Markov. Of course trading Sergachev didn't help as he would look great with Romanov in the future imo but alas MB can't win all his trades and I don't think I would put my money on this one being a win for him when all is said and done.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Good to hear he's starting to pick it up. Would hate for him to be a Beaulieu. The little I saw of him at WJCs he seemed like a smart D so hopefully that isn't an issue and more a question of confidence.

He and Poehling's middling years have definitely shaken the confidence in our prospect pool as they are two fairly good sized pieces of said pool. Especially along with KK's sophomore slump. KK's showing some very solid things in the AHL as a 19 year old so I'm not too worried.

 

[HabsMD97]

I don't think we badly need him to be a top 4, we badly need at least 2 or 3 out of Romanov, Norlinder, Harris, Struble, Brook, Fleury, Mete, Juulsen, Fairbrother to end up in the top 4. If we can get 3 top 4 D from that group we should be in very good shape depending on just how good they are.


In no way am I suggesting this would happen but say in 4-5 years if we had,

Romanov Norlinder
Struble Harris
Mete Juulsen/Brook/Fleury

of course not all of them will hit so it's extremely unlikely before anyone gets too excited to tell me how it's impossible that all those Timmins picks would pan out. My point is just that while getting a top 4 D out of Brook would be huge for us, I don't think it has to be him per say if Romanov, Norlinder and Struble or Harris all reach their ceilings which if course is not going to be easy.

We see how hard it is to find a replacement for Markov. Of course trading Sergachev didn't help as he would look great with Romanov in the future imo but alas MB can't win all his trades and I don't think I would put my money on this one being a win for him when all is said and done.

yeah but those are all LHD, among RHD we only have fleury, brook and Juulsen. Juulsen has been out for 2 years now so i'm not putting much hope into him and I don't like fleury's IQ to be a top 4 d. I guess if more than 2 of our LHD pan out, we can possibly trade one of them for a top 4 RHD, although they are at a premium.

 

[scrubadam]

I remember being told Danault should go too so Poehling could take his ice time haha.

And thats the problem with this board. Every young player is automatically better then NHL players. I swear this board would pump the tires of a AAA peewee player as being better scorer than Ovechkin.

 

[Schwang]

Every team needs more top 4 Ds. We can't plan for him to become X, it will or won't happen. I'm still holding small hopes (10-15%) that Juulsen will be able to play, he has played in a top 4 road for us for a few games, so to me, if healthy he could probably grow into it.

Brook has been very disappointing considering the numbers he put up in the whl.
There are zero offensive defencemen coming for at least a couple years.

 

[montreal]

yeah but those are all LHD, among RHD we only have fleury, brook and Juulsen. Juulsen has been out for 2 years now so i'm not putting much hope into him and I don't like fleury's IQ to be a top 4 d. I guess if more than 2 of our LHD pan out, we can possibly trade one of them for a top 4 RHD, although they are at a premium.

Romanov, Harris and Norlinder all play mostly RD though.

Juulsen was playing well this year, so it sounds like the Habs just want him to be comfortable and get this fixed.

Fleury we'll see, I also worry about his IQ but if he can turn into a solid 3rd pairing D I'll be more then happy.

 

[A55P2]

Fleury should be alright, he's only 21 and going through a rough time. I think his demotion got to him quite a bit. But he's strong and he's fast. He'll have a good year in the AHL next year and I predict he'll end up on the team at some point next year.

 

[Mrb1p]

I remember being told Danault should go too so Poehling could take his ice time haha.

And had they done that, it would've yielded the exact same results.

haha indeed.

 

[DAChampion]

And had they done that, it would've yielded the exact same results.

haha indeed.

You mean for the Habs?

No, they'd probably be drafting higher.

 

[Mrb1p]

You mean for the Habs?

No, they'd probably be drafting higher.

Well sure, and Poehling/Brook/Fleury/Kotkaniemi would have a lot of ice-time and they would've adapted and most likely thrived in their spot.

 

[DAChampion]

Well sure, and Poehling/Brook/Fleury/Kotkaniemi would have a lot of ice-time and they would've adapted and most likely thrived in their spot.

I believe that Poehling was not ready for the NHL.

 

[Mrb1p]

I believe that Poehling was not ready for the NHL.

I don't believe a player is ever really "nhl ready", unless its an exceptional player. I do see players adapt to the NHL and the ice-time they are given though.

 

[DangerDave]

I don't believe a player is ever really "nhl ready", unless its an exceptional player. I do see players adapt to the NHL and the ice-time they are given though.

Yeah for sure but you gotta be careful with that too. I wouldn't want my rookies getting smoked every game.

I know what you mean though. Gotta put the guys in a position to succeed. Suzuki wouldn't be where he is now playing with Thompson on the 4th line all year. He was put in a position to succeed and given more and more of a role. Look at him now

 

[DAChampion]

I don't believe a player is ever really "nhl ready", unless its an exceptional player. I do see players adapt to the NHL and the ice-time they are given though.

IMO, the vast majority of players should be left for sometime at whatever level they need to be at in order to dominate with lots of ice too much, but not dominate too much.

For example what Kotkaniemi is doing now is great, but he should be back up with the Habs by some point next year.

 

[Prairie Habs]

Well sure, and Poehling/Brook/Fleury/Kotkaniemi would have a lot of ice-time and they would've adapted and most likely thrived in their spot.

Yes, because if rookies are struggling on a bubble team with veteran support they would obviously be thriving if thrown into the fire on a bottom feeder.

 

[Mrb1p]

Yeah for sure but you gotta be careful with that too. I wouldn't want my rookies getting smoked every game.

I know what you mean though. Gotta put the guys in a position to succeed. Suzuki wouldn't be where he is now playing with Thompson on the 4th line all year. He was put in a position to succeed and given more and more of a role. Look at him now

I mean failure breeds success, at some point when you get smoked youll learn to not do that mistake anymore.

IMO, the vast majority of players should be left for sometime at whatever level they need to be at in order to dominate with lots of ice too much, but not dominate too much.

For example what Kotkaniemi is doing now is great, but he should be back up with the Habs by some point next year.

I don't really care what league it is, or what level it is, if theres adversity, I think there's always going to be adaptation from the player. The three situations you wouldn't want to be into IMO, is not playing enough, not playing the right role or being in a level of competition that is too easy.

I don't know of a single player that was brought up in a top 6 role that never panned out. (Well, a player that actually had that upside, at least.)
Players that simmered too long ? Yep. (Jo Drouin comes to mind.)
Players that wasted away on fourth lines ? Yep.
Players that wasted away as grinders ? Yep.

Obviously this is a black and white approach, but generally, Id say its applicable.

Nail Yakupov might be applicable to the first criteria, but the issues were much bigger IMO, coaching, development, handling, the player himself, his entourage.. It was a perfect storm for a bust.

Yes, because if rookies are struggling on a bubble team with veteran support they would obviously be thriving if thrown into the fire on a bottom feeder.

Poehling is struggling because he spent the whole freaking year being yo-yo'd exactly like people said they would do.
Kotkaniemi is struggling because his coach completely shattered his confidence and clearly has a problem with the player.
Fleury is struggling because anytime he made a mistake, he'd get thrown under the bus.
Brook is struggling because of many reasons and he might have been the least ready of the group.

 

[DangerDave]

I mean failure breeds success, at some point when you get smoked youll learn to not do that mistake anymore.



I don't really care what league it is, or what level it is, if theres adversity, I think there's always going to be adaptation from the player. The three situations you wouldn't want to be into IMO, is not playing enough, not playing the right role or being in a level of competition that is too easy.

I don't know of a single player that was brought up in a top 6 role that never panned out. (Well, a player that actually had that upside, at least.)
Players that simmered too long ? Yep. (Jo Drouin comes to mind.)
Players that wasted away on fourth lines ? Yep.
Players that wasted away as grinders ? Yep.

Obviously this is a black and white approach, but generally, Id say its applicable.

Nail Yakupov might be applicable to the first criteria, but the issues were much bigger IMO, coaching, development, handling, the player himself, his entourage.. It was a perfect storm for a bust.



Poehling is struggling because he spent the whole freaking year being yo-yo'd exactly like people said they would do.
Kotkaniemi is struggling because his coach completely shattered his confidence and clearly has a problem with the player.
Fleury is struggling because anytime he made a mistake, he'd get thrown under the bus.
Brook is struggling because of many reasons and he might have been the least ready of the group.

To a certain extent. Confidence is a thing too. Either way, they're good where they are now. We need to move some vets and get em playing in prominent roles when we do call the back up

 

[Mrb1p]

To a certain extent. Confidence is a thing too. Either way, they're good where they are now. We need to move some vets and get em playing in prominent roles when we do call the back up

Confidence is a thing for sure, but these kids are talented, its bound to go their way once in a while. They have NHL level talent and thats a whole other thing.

I'd say its the coachs job to keep their confidence up in those situations.

Then again, the coach has to have his eye set on the right task: developing them.

 

[Andrei79]

Brook has been terrific the past few games and he may have turned the corner as a pro. Every player has a learning curve, Brook seems to have started to figure out what being a pro is all about.
Do not rush him.

I wonder what happened. You're right though, for some guys, they work on a little bit of everything and while they're improving, sometimes it doesn't show until later on. It's definitely clicking for him. He needs more strength and a bit more pace, but the passing, puck carrying, the ability to get shots on net and even positioning have been all very good.