Confirmed with Link: Luke Richardson Hired as Assistant Coach

[LaP]

Maybe they developped well for Cassidy because Julien let them grow in the AHL? How are you avoiding that?

Actually Boston did not let their prospects grow in the AHL for that long. I'm surprised the AHL myth is still going on. This is one of the strongest myth i have ever seen. Most top players in the league did not play more than one season in the AHL.

Here's the number of games Boston top players played in the AHL :

Lucic : 0
Krejci : 84 games
Bergeron: 68 games
Marchand: 103 games
Seguin: 0
Rask: 102 games
Wheeler: 0
Pastrnak: 28 games
Krug: 63 games
Heinen: 70 games
Debrusk: 74 games
McAvoy: 4 games
Carlo: 7 games
Hamilton: 0
Spooner: 150 games

Spooner is like the only one who spent a significant amount of time in the AHL and i would not call him a top player yet despite his 49 points season. The idea that we must keep all our kids in the AHL for 3 years just because is ridiculous. The fact is in most of the case if a player is not ready after a year and a half in the AHL he never will and he will develop into at best an average middle six player. Kind of players we don't really need cause we already have too much of them.

The teams developing properly let their kid one year max in the AHL (if they are not ready physically) and then the 2nd year they try them seriously to see where they are in their development. Trying seriously means a very minimum of 20 games in the NHL the 2nd season after they turn pro.

The fact that a guy like Scherbak played only 29 games and must go thru waivers is the epitome of bad development. The fact that he will turn 23 next December and we still don't really know what we have is ridiculous at best and unacceptable at worst.

For example Juulsen should be tried seriously this season. He spent a year in the AHL he should be ready to be evaluated seriously for an extended period of time. It's okay if he starts in the AHL but he should be called up if he's doing well there. The presence of guys like Benn and Schlemko should not prevent us from trying Juulsen seriously. Those are perfectly expendable vets.

 

[417]

Actually Boston did not let their prospects grow in the AHL for that long. I'm surprised the AHL myth is still going on. This is one of the strongest myth i have ever seen. Most top players in the league did not play more than one season in the AHL.

Here's the number of games Boston top players played in the AHL :

Lucic : 0
Krejci : 84 games
Bergeron: 68 games
Marchand: 103 games
Seguin: 0
Rask: 102 games
Wheeler: 0
Pastrnak: 28 games
Krug: 63 games
Heinen: 70 games
Debrusk: 74 games
McAvoy: 4 games
Carlo: 7 games
Hamilton: 0
Spooner: 150 games

Spooner is like the only one who spent a significant amount of time in the AHL and i would not call him a top player yet despite his 49 points season. The idea that we must keep all our kids in the AHL for 3 years just because is ridiculous. The fact is in most of the case if a player is not ready after a year and a half in the AHL he never will and he will develop into at best an average middle six player. Kind of players we don't really need cause we already have too much of them.

The teams developing properly let their kid one year max in the AHL (if they are not ready physically) and then the 2nd year they try them seriously to see where they are in their development. Trying seriously means a very minimum of 20 games in the NHL the 2nd season after they turn pro.

The fact that a guy like Scherbak played only 29 games and must go thru waivers is the epitome of bad development. The fact that he will turn 23 next December and we still don't really know what we have is ridiculous at best and unacceptable at worst.

Good post...which is why I don't agree that the AHL is a developmental league.

I don't think that's quite accurate.

Now no more hijacking this Jacob Olofsson thread

 

[Habs Halifax]

Ceci was a "turd" ? Ceci was supposed to be a pretty big prospect at D but he failed to formed him well

Oh no... we got another assistant that is bad at developing young players? When are we going to get someone who is a development guru and we get another Subban or even better... a Karlsson

Coaches can only do so much. Most of their focus is team strategy and positioning. Individual skill and development is on the player.

 

[Andrei79]

Oh no... we got another assistant that is bad at developing young players? When are we going to get someone who is a development guru and we get another Subban or even better... a Karlsson

Coaches can only do so much. Most of their focus is team strategy and positioning. Individual skill and development is on the player.

FWIW, Richardson really does seem like he has a very good track record at development (they had an article on him on the Athletic, and on Ramage).

Him, Bouchard, Ducharme, Ramage... I like these hires.

 

[Laurentide]

60% of Ottawa citizens can only speak English, as opposed to the 1.5% of unilingual French speakers.

The largest chunk of bilingual citizens comes from native French speakers, as is usual in Canada.

So statistically? No, he probably doesn't speak much, if any, French.

Aside from people working in the federal civil service most citizens in Ottawa are likely unilingual English speakers like most other native-born Ontarians. This will likely change over time as more and more people enroll their kids in French immersion programs. But even at that the numbers might not move much. I have a teenaged nephew who has done all his schooling in French immersion. He's doing well in school so I assume he must be pretty fluent in French but there's no way to verify it because he pretty much refuses to speak a word of French except when he's required to do so in class. And once he's finished high school it's unlikely that he'll ever use it again. It's not like he's itching to move to Quebec for university or anything like that.

 

[Habs Halifax]

FWIW, Richardson really does seem like he has a very good track record at development (they had an article on him on the Athletic, and on Ramage).

Him, Bouchard, Ducharme, Ramage... I like these hires.

Pretty sure if Bouchard, Ducharme, Ramage were hired at the same time as Sly back in 2012, they would also have a poor track record. Sometimes the prospects are just not good. Sly was a bad coach but who did he fail to develop? McCarron, Tinordi, Leblanc? Sorry, I'm not on that "development" bandwagon. Not even Babcock could develop those guys into anything better then who they are.

I support the hires of Bouchard and Ducharme. But this is more about better hockey guys who have good coaching skills and can implement better coaching strategies that results in team wins. Creating a winning culture helps development but your not going to turn Bitten into a Gallagher type. Forget about it.

 

[Andrei79]

Pretty sure if Bouchard, Ducharme, Ramage were hired at the same time as Sly back in 2012, they would also have a poor track record. Sometimes the prospects are just not good. Sly was a bad coach but who did he fail to develop? McCarron, Tinordi, Leblanc? Sorry, I'm not on that "development" bandwagon. Not even Babcock could develop those guys into anything better then who they are.

I support the hires of Bouchard and Ducharme. But this is more about better hockey guys who have good coaching skills and can implement better coaching strategies that results in wins. Creating a winning culture helps development.

Your second paragraph contradicts your first.

 

[Habs Halifax]

QUOTE="Andrei79, post: 148221715, member: 185875"]Your second paragraph contradicts your first.[/QUOTE]

Key word. Helps. Go back and re-read. I added more too it.

- Will Bouchard turn Bitten into Gallagher?

- Will Bouchard turn Fleury into Ekholm?

- Will Bouchard turn Evans into Bergeron?

- Has Sly destroyed McCarron so much that it's too late for Bouchard to help his game? The one area Bouchard might help is moving him to RW to begin with cause his skating is not good enough to be a center.

Development is 90% on the players. A coach can only do so much and his job is to facilitate an environment for the player to succeed. Bouchard will be much better at this vs Sly and he will also be better at creating a winning culture.

What do you really expect from Bitten, Fleury, and Evans? Do you think Bouchard changes their ceiling level vs Sly that much? Like I said, I'm not on the lack of development bandwagon.

 

[scrubadam]

Actually Boston did not let their prospects grow in the AHL for that long. I'm surprised the AHL myth is still going on. This is one of the strongest myth i have ever seen. Most top players in the league did not play more than one season in the AHL.

Here's the number of games Boston top players played in the AHL :

Lucic : 0
Krejci : 84 games
Bergeron: 68 games
Marchand: 103 games
Seguin: 0
Rask: 102 games
Wheeler: 0
Pastrnak: 28 games
Krug: 63 games
Heinen: 70 games
Debrusk: 74 games
McAvoy: 4 games
Carlo: 7 games
Hamilton: 0
Spooner: 150 games

Spooner is like the only one who spent a significant amount of time in the AHL and i would not call him a top player yet despite his 49 points season. The idea that we must keep all our kids in the AHL for 3 years just because is ridiculous. The fact is in most of the case if a player is not ready after a year and a half in the AHL he never will and he will develop into at best an average middle six player. Kind of players we don't really need cause we already have too much of them.

The teams developing properly let their kid one year max in the AHL (if they are not ready physically) and then the 2nd year they try them seriously to see where they are in their development. Trying seriously means a very minimum of 20 games in the NHL the 2nd season after they turn pro.

The fact that a guy like Scherbak played only 29 games and must go thru waivers is the epitome of bad development. The fact that he will turn 23 next December and we still don't really know what we have is ridiculous at best and unacceptable at worst.

For example Juulsen should be tried seriously this season. He spent a year in the AHL he should be ready to be evaluated seriously for an extended period of time. It's okay if he starts in the AHL but he should be called up if he's doing well there. The presence of guys like Benn and Schlemko should not prevent us from trying Juulsen seriously. Those are perfectly expendable vets.

Good post and agree.

Players that spend a ton of time in the AHL are their because they aren't fast enough for the NHL. Its a young league and more and more young players are making the jump within 2/3 years of being drafted.

I also think at a point playing in the AHL is a detriment. If you play against worse competition than you aren't going to improve. Playing in the AHL for 5 years isn't all of a sudden going to make you better, and probably just make you think and react to the game at AHL speed and not NHL speed.

Good prospects/young players that can contribute at the highest level will do so quickly. I think if you are playing in the AHL for 3/4 years its more than likely you max out at a 3/4th liner. There are of course exceptions but another year in the AHL for Big Mac is not going to turn him into Getzlaf, more than likely Deslauries or Chris Terry.

 

[Andrei79]

Your second paragraph contradicts your first.

Key word. Helps. Go back and re-read. I added more too it.

- Will Bouchard turn Bitten into Gallagher?

- Will Bouchard turn Fleury into Ekholm?

- Will Bouchard turn Evans into Bergeron?

- Has Sly destroyed McCarron so much that it's too late for Bouchard to help his game? The one area Bouchard might help is moving him to RW to begin with cause his skating is not good enough to be a center.

Development is 90% on the players. A coach can only do so much and his job is to facilitate an environment for the player to succeed. Bouchard will be much better at this vs Sly and he will also be better at creating a winning culture.

What do you really expect from Bitten, Fleury, and Evans? Do you think Bouchard changes their ceiling level vs Sly that much? Like I said, I'm not on the lack of development bandwagon.

You're holding two positions that don't make much sense together.

On one hand, development is almost all on the player, yet on the other, a winning culture helps something that doesn't really exist, which is influencing that development through coaching.

And, it seems you think that there are posters who think players like De La Rose, Leblanc or McCarron could have become some of the very best NHLers.

I'll just clarify something: that's not the case. When speaking of development, part of it is also bringing low upside players to their upside. For the players mentioned, that would have been a regular NHL position, even if on the 3rd and 4th lines producing 15-25 points. They certainly showed they had that upside at a young age and I'm not even talking their draft years. I'm talking their first pro seasons.

 

[Habs Halifax]

You're holding two positions that don't make much sense together.

On one hand, development is almost all on the player, yet on the other, a winning culture helps something that doesn't really exist, which is influencing that development through coaching.

And, it seems you think that there are posters who think players like De La Rose, Leblanc or McCarron could have become some of the very best NHLers.

I'll just clarify something: that's not the case. When speaking of development, part of it is also bringing low upside players to their upside. For the players mentioned, that would have been a regular NHL position, even if on the 3rd and 4th lines producing 15-25 points. They certainly showed they had that upside at a young age and I'm not even talking their draft years. I'm talking their first pro seasons.

Yes, Development is 90% on the player and a coach can only do so much to help in his development. His job is to facilitate an environment for the player to succeed. His other job is to create a winning culture which also has an effect on development. All this equals to 10% max in the development factor of player. It's not substantial. It's up to the player to train hard and tap into their ceiling potential based on their skills and assets.

As far as DLR, Leblanc, McCarron. What do you think they could of turned into if we had a better "development" coach? More than 10% better than who they are today?

 

[Andrei79]

Yes, Development is 90% on the player and a coach can only do so much to help in his development. His job is to facilitate an environment for the player to succeed. His other job is to create a winning culture which also has an effect on development. All this equals to 10% max in the development factor of player. It's not substantial. It's up to the player to train hard and tap into their ceiling potential based on their skills and assets.

As far as DLR, Leblanc, McCarron. What do you think they could of turned into if we had a better "development" coach? More than 10% better than who they are today?

I don't agree with your statistics.

For one, they're baseless. There's no data and you can't really prove that number in any way. It's a number you invented our of thin air. There are some teams that keep producing great NHLers (like the Lightning) that also happen to invest significant time into the development of their players, especially offensively. Some will say that's drafting, but at some point there's some players there that weren't exactly highly touted players or players like the Red Wings used to draft that just had no exposure.

There are also some players, and I mean players even from this teams great history, that have come out and said that they wouldn't have been NHLers or close to the players they were without their development coach (I'm thinking Claude Ruel here, amongst others). So, we even have anectodal evidence from people who actually went through it that disagree with your premise.

I also don't understand how you can put such a set value on something as dynamic and variable as a persons potential. How about this: some players will get to that potential regardless of circumstances and some need the proper environment. From there, players fall somewhere in that spectrum with some needing more and some needing less.

As for your question... come on. The answer is word for word in my post. There's no ambiguity either or anything implied or indirect either. I even wrote the kind of production I would expect.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I don't agree with your statistics.

For one, they're baseless. There's no data and you can't really prove that number in any way. There are some teams that keep producing great NHLers (like the Lightning) that also happen to invest significant time into the development of their players, especially offensively. Some will say that's drafting, but at some point there's some players there that weren't exactly highly touted players or players like the Red Wings used to draft that had no exposure.

There are also some players, and I mean players even from this teams great history, that have come out and said that they wouldn't have been NHLers or close to the players they were without their development coach (I'm thinking Claude Ruel here, amongst others). So, we even have anectodal evidence from people who actually went through it that disagree with your premise.

I also don't understand how you can put such a set value on something as dynamic and variable as a persons potential. How about this: some players will get to that potential regardless of circumstances and some need the proper environment and players fall in a vast spectrum between those two extremes.

As for your question... come on. The answer is word for word in my post. There's no ambiguity either or anything implied or indirect either. I even wrote the kind of production I would expect.

Well, you can disagree and I respect this but you say my statistics are baseless with no proof. You got any proof on your opinion?

You make reference to the Lightning. Did you measure how many total picks, how many top 10 picks, and how many top 100 pick they had vs the Habs in the same time frame?

Who did the Lightning develop? Can I have names?

 

[admiralcadillac]

Actually Boston did not let their prospects grow in the AHL for that long. I'm surprised the AHL myth is still going on. This is one of the strongest myth i have ever seen. Most top players in the league did not play more than one season in the AHL.

Here's the number of games Boston top players played in the AHL :

Lucic : 0
Krejci : 84 games
Bergeron: 68 games
Marchand: 103 games
Seguin: 0
Rask: 102 games
Wheeler: 0
Pastrnak: 28 games
Krug: 63 games
Heinen: 70 games
Debrusk: 74 games
McAvoy: 4 games
Carlo: 7 games
Hamilton: 0
Spooner: 150 games

Spooner is like the only one who spent a significant amount of time in the AHL and i would not call him a top player yet despite his 49 points season. The idea that we must keep all our kids in the AHL for 3 years just because is ridiculous. The fact is in most of the case if a player is not ready after a year and a half in the AHL he never will and he will develop into at best an average middle six player. Kind of players we don't really need cause we already have too much of them.

The teams developing properly let their kid one year max in the AHL (if they are not ready physically) and then the 2nd year they try them seriously to see where they are in their development. Trying seriously means a very minimum of 20 games in the NHL the 2nd season after they turn pro.

The fact that a guy like Scherbak played only 29 games and must go thru waivers is the epitome of bad development. The fact that he will turn 23 next December and we still don't really know what we have is ridiculous at best and unacceptable at worst.

For example Juulsen should be tried seriously this season. He spent a year in the AHL he should be ready to be evaluated seriously for an extended period of time. It's okay if he starts in the AHL but he should be called up if he's doing well there. The presence of guys like Benn and Schlemko should not prevent us from trying Juulsen seriously. Those are perfectly expendable vets.

So the suggestion is that Mccavoy, Heinen, DeBrusk could have used even less time in the minors?

Or is your post confirming that Julien doesn't actually refuse to let young guys get a chance?

 

[Andrei79]

Well, you can disagree and I respect this but you say my statistics are baseless with no proof. You got any proof on your opinion?

I'm not the one who's citing any number or percentages here.

I have opinions on the subject and those opinions are supported by case reports (like Claude Ruel) and actual evidence from other ventures where development and environmental factors have proven to have a significant effect on outcomes.

If I brought numbers into the equation, I'd be speaking out of my ass, because there are none for hockey. But I can definitely make deductions that what's generally true in likewise ventures is generally true for hockey, especially when we at least have some anectodal evidence that supports it.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I'm not the one who's citing any number or percentages here.

I have opinions on the subject and those opinions are supported by case reports (like Claude Ruel) and actual evidence from other ventures where development and environmental factors have proven to have a significant effect on outcomes.

If I brought numbers into the equation, I'd be speaking out of my ass, because there are none for hockey. But I can definitely make deductions that what's generally true in likewise ventures is generally true for hockey, especially when we at least have some anectodal evidence that supports it.

Well, this is my point. If you brought out names, you would realize that a coach can only do so much with development and it's mostly on the players. 90/10... whatever. Pick your breakout. 95/5, 85/15, 80/20. Whatever you like. It's something like this and yes, it's my opinion.

I'm not on the lack of development bandwagon. I look into the circumstances behind our inability to produce quality NHL players and it has a lot to do with the 2008-2011 draft picks. It has taken years to recover from the ripple effects of those 4 terrible years where we only have Gallagher to show for it. I don't like Sly but for different reasons than most on these boards. Sly was just a bad coach and his record speaks for itself. I think he got a short stick in 2012 but I don't see much coaching skills where he got the best of his players. One playoffs in 6 years and that had a lot to do with Lindgren.

I have seen so many posters treating Hudon, Scherbak, Juulsen, DLR, Mete, Lehkonen like they will turn into Leblanc, Tinordi types. It was a war I had on these boards about 2 seasons ago cause there was a "lack of development bandwagon" and the music and party was going wild. Sly was going to destroy them! lol.

 

[S Bah]

Laval's record

I'm not the one who's citing any number or percentages here.

I have opinions on the subject and those opinions are supported by case reports (like Claude Ruel) and actual evidence from other ventures where development and environmental factors have proven to have a significant effect on outcomes.

If I brought numbers into the equation, I'd be speaking out of my ass, because there are none for hockey. But I can definitely make deductions that what's generally true in likewise ventures is generally true for hockey, especially when we at least have some anecdotal evidence that supports it.

Laval's success this upcoming season will verify the changes in philosophy(Winning hockey effects development.) how does playing in a losing atmosphere help in development? Not competing in playoff hockey, prepare a player for the battles for supremacy, highly unlikely!!!... Sly & the Family Stone they weren't competing, obviously under the watchful eyes of Montreal & Laval fans for 1 year, was enough to recognize the Failure in their farm team.

 

[Laurentide]

We also have to allow for the personal biases of the coaches and GM's involved. There are guys who will languish in the AHL for all or most of their careers who, in another organization with a different coach or GM philosophy, would be considered good enough to be an everyday NHL player, even if it was on the bottom six or bottom pair. Nicholas Deslauriers was the Habs' player of the month last December. If he were in another, better organization, or even an organization with fewer injuries to contend with than the Habs did, he may not have ever been called up from the farm all year, let alone be given enough opportunities to win a player of the month award. Conversely, another team might be able to find a regular spot on their bottom six for McCarron even though the Habs don't seem to want him there.

Again, we must not make the mistake of believing that guys like Bergevin or Therrien are unique. Plenty of NHL GM's and coaches have biases and sometimes make decisions based not on objective facts but rather on those petty prejudices.

Don Cherry's playing career in the NHL lasted only one game but by most accounts he was a good enough player for his era that he could have been a regular NHL player. The reason he never became one was because he had a big mouth in an era when big mouths were not tolerated. Back then, if you talked out of turn or talked back you would be punished and teams had the power to ruin your career. Cherry was essentially blackballed from ever getting back to the NHL because he couldn't keep his yap shut, not because he didn't have the talent to play at the NHL level. He just wasn't good enough to be indispensable to his team. His teams could afford to live without him so they decided to do that.

 

[Adam Michaels]

FWIW, Richardson really does seem like he has a very good track record at development (they had an article on him on the Athletic, and on Ramage).

Him, Bouchard, Ducharme, Ramage... I like these hires.

Evans credits Ramage for making him want to sign with Montreal. Aside from the fact he felt that the Habs were the only team to have enough confidence in him to draft him. But having someone like Ramage follow up on him and always making him feel like the organization value him, he chose to sign.

In The Athletic article you mention, Poehling, Brook, and Ikonen, among others talk about what Ramage pretty much does for the organization when he follows up on the prospects after they're drafted.

 

[montreal]

Pretty sure if Bouchard, Ducharme, Ramage were hired at the same time as Sly back in 2012, they would also have a poor track record. Sometimes the prospects are just not good. Sly was a bad coach but who did he fail to develop? McCarron, Tinordi, Leblanc? Sorry, I'm not on that "development" bandwagon. Not even Babcock could develop those guys into anything better then who they are.

I support the hires of Bouchard and Ducharme. But this is more about better hockey guys who have good coaching skills and can implement better coaching strategies that results in team wins. Creating a winning culture helps development but your not going to turn Bitten into a Gallagher type. Forget about it.

There's no way for any of us to know one way or the other what would of happened to any player if instead of hiring a rookie head coach in Lefebvre they actually hired someone with a proven track record. It could have gone better, worse or about the same. But for me as someone that watched most of their games every year I would look at the decisions being made and to me they were questionable ones that impacted their development.

To me I happen to disagree strongly, I think a very good head coach can do wonders for a player, but he's not going to turn Dale Weise into Tim Kerr but if he does his job he helps him reach his expected level or close to it. Hockey is so much mental, you must instill confidence and get the players to buy into what you are saying. Put them in positions to succeed so that their confidence is stoked while also teaching them how to improve on their weaknesses.

Look at Beaulieu, the kid made the same mistakes over and over and over and over. Now maybe you can't fix someone who can't think the game. But when he was playing with Gonchar his game seemed to work so much better. So maybe with a better coach, better development where they don't bring him up at 20 when he's not ready, don't bring him up again at 21 when he's not ready, don't have MT bench him for every little mistake then send him down the next day. Now in no way am I saying that anyone could turn Beaulieu into Ray Bourque but clearly Beaulieu had skills, skating and mobility that should have turned him into a decent bottom pairing D imo.

You can say well that's just one case. But take a look at the organization. Go back to the Guy Boucher days, the Randy's, Don Lever. What is the same since then? Timmins. And we can clearly see that in the past, under said coaches, we developed much better. So did Timmins ability to find talent just take a major dive, or could it be that he did the same job but that the development was in fact a part of what went wrong. I'm not just talking Lefebvre, I brought up in another thread about how management rushed too many 19/20 year olds to the NHL when they weren't dominating the AHL then they made mistakes because they weren't put in the best positions, then they got sat, then they got put in the press box for days on end, then they got sent down and then they struggled in the AHL. rinse, repeat over and over. Clearly when things aren't working, repeating the steps is not a good idea imo.

Now maybe Lefebvre isn't at fault, maybe it's just the players. But ask yourself, if you were a playmaker, what do you think would be best for your development? If you were a 20 year old rookie in the AHL and was one of the best players on the team, get called up to the NHL and put up solid numbers with limited TOI. If the next year your coach takes you off the top line and the PP and replaces you with no talent grinders, do you think that would help or hurt your development?

 

[EXPOS123]

Given that Lefebvre struck out trying to find employment elsewhere last year and so far hasn't found anything again this year, tells me all I need to know about what kind of coach he was. When your entire coaching staff that you let go at both the pro and minor levels (Therrien, Lefebvre, Daigneault, Lacroix,Carriere) can't find jobs in North America, that just goes to show how bad they were at their jobs.

 

[Andrei79]

Well, this is my point. If you brought out names, you would realize that a coach can only do so much with development and it's mostly on the players. 90/10... whatever. Pick your breakout. 95/5, 85/15, 80/20. Whatever you like. It's something like this and yes, it's my opinion.

I'm not on the lack of development bandwagon. I look into the circumstances behind our inability to produce quality NHL players and it has a lot to do with the 2008-2011 draft picks. It has taken years to recover from the ripple effects of those 4 terrible years where we only have Gallagher to show for it. I don't like Sly but for different reasons than most on these boards. Sly was just a bad coach and his record speaks for itself. I think he got a short stick in 2012 but I don't see much coaching skills where he got the best of his players. One playoffs in 6 years and that had a lot to do with Lindgren.

I have seen so many posters treating Hudon, Scherbak, Juulsen, DLR, Mete, Lehkonen like they will turn into Leblanc, Tinordi types. It was a war I had on these boards about 2 seasons ago cause there was a "lack of development bandwagon" and the music and party was going wild. Sly was going to destroy them! lol.

I didn't understand why you were talking about names here.

I just noticed you edited your post in regards to the Lightning.

I'm not sure what you want here ? You want me to literally list a bunch of names so you can dissect each one to show me it wasn't development ?

No thanks. I'll just let you go through their lineups in recent years. It's filled with 2nd, 3rd,6th rounders and overagers that far exceeded expectations and players who were left to develop in the AHL with some great, great coaches.

Heck, we just signed one to a 1.3M/year contract and everyone, me included, seems hyped about a guy with 10 NHL games last year, who wasnt even resigned because of their depth. But, that's just one example, there are other similar teams in the last 2 decades.

 

[montreal]

Given that Lefebvre struck out trying to find employment elsewhere last year and so far hasn't found anything again this years.

I could have sworn I saw him flipping burgers at McDonalds. I wasn't sure if it was him but then I saw him mix up his burgers and fries and thought that must be him.

 

[Andrei79]

I could have sworn I saw him flipping burgers at McDonalds. I wasn't sure if it was him but then I saw him mix up his burgers and fries and thought that must be him.

He told bacon it'll never be crispy and threw it in a McFlurry.

 

[Kriss E]

Yes, Development is 90% on the player and a coach can only do so much to help in his development. His job is to facilitate an environment for the player to succeed. His other job is to create a winning culture which also has an effect on development. All this equals to 10% max in the development factor of player. It's not substantial. It's up to the player to train hard and tap into their ceiling potential based on their skills and assets.

As far as DLR, Leblanc, McCarron. What do you think they could of turned into if we had a better "development" coach? More than 10% better than who they are today?

Where is the source for your random "90%" number? Your ass or your neighbour's?

I don't know a single person who has taken part of any sport seriously talk about how unimportant coaches are to development. The only people I know who say this are internet posters who most of the time don't even work out.

A coach is essentially a mentor and a teacher. Giving me a good coach isn't going to turn me into Barry Bonds. Heck, giving me the best steroids wouldn't even do that. But a bad coach can be poisonous and Sly definitely seem to have been one.
Anybody say good things about this clown? Any players being impressive coming out of the AHL?
The guy has done nothing. Nobody has ever said McCarron could be Cam Neely if it weren't for Lefebvre, those are strawman brought forth by some just for the sake of arguing.
Could McCarron be a good 3rd or 4th liner though? Yea, absolutely he could. Leblanc not good enough to make it? Disagree.
A guy like Kristo, sure, he wasn't talented enough. But those other guys were good enough to be regular bottom liners.

Of course, the kids themselves have to do the bulk of the work, but proper coaching helps a lot.