That extrapolation goes even further - JF Houle is a terrible AHL development coach. Based on what exactly?
When the development specialists in the org (Ramage, Boullion etc) & HuGo provide a specific area of focus for Houle to implement on a given player no fan boy/girl will be privy to such info
Largely based on the treatment of Norlinder and Mysak. Both looked good in camp this year though so I'm not sure we can criticize Houle. Obviously we like to see prospects light it up but if they're improving and graduating into the NHL it doesn't really matter. It's more concerning if the ice time doesn't go up from year to year when the guys have clearly improved and even look good in NHL camps. Like it will be a huge issue if Mysak is only getting fourth line minutes for the second year in a row.
I think Houle dug his own hole in this case as well, as he's directly criticized a few prospects in the media. Even if it's the media changing the narrative, he should know better than to say something like Mysak or Mesar don't offer much or have lots to work on. Marty is obviously the media master manipulator so maybe he could develop Houle's skills.
It also doesn't help that Houle was a nepobaby hire from Bergevin's summer of "destroy the Habs, completely f*** their future cap space and refuse extension". And that he was with Edmonton's AHL team as an assistant for 6 years and zero non-depth NHLers came out of there. And that he was a head coach in the Q for 5 years and no notable NHLers came out of any of the teams he coaches, pretty much only Cedric Paquette. And that he was an NCAA assistant for 7 years at Clarkson where they put out an impressive 0 NHLers.
I think it's also notable that of the guys that Laval graduated, most had played under Bouchard (Ylonen, RHP) previously as well. Norlinder would be the first solely Houle graduate. So statistically speaking, Houle has never solely developed an NHLer except Paquette now going into his 20th year of coaching. So do we credit the organizational structure for the improvement of the prospects or do we credit Houle who has zero background or success in development? It is an interesting debate, because I think that it is a combination of both and Houle has likely improved tremendously from actually getting guidance from management. It's likely he had less input in previous roles and was focused only on winning games since the NCAA isn't a development league, he didn't coach big market Q teams, and Edmonton might be the only team that drafts worse than us (can't even make conference finals after picking 1st overall 4 times, getting two generational players and a bunch of other top 10 picks).
At the same time, management went out of their way not to re-sign most of his six most used players last year, which indicates they weren't happy with how much he over relied on vets. You can clearly see he gives players from Quebec more icetime. Leskinen for example was a #1 AHL dman under Bouchard and looked NHL ready, but under Houle was getting garbage minutes while Beaudin, who couldn't really crack it with Chicago's farm team, came in and got the best minutes with the best zone starts. Madison Bowey also got less minutes despite being a #1 AHL dman in other places and only a year removed from NHL games. This is perfectly acceptable to me for all the AHL vets to be Quebecois. Why do we even need non-Quebecois vets if we're not even developing them into NHLers? It's more unacceptable to see a guy like Mysak get zero minutes as a recent second rounder.
I don't really care if PQ guys get more ice time, Laval is there to make money on top of developing players. I'd rather that sort of thing happen in Laval than Montreal. Obviously this year is the real test for Houle, since he largely has been without notable forward prospects in his first two years and lost most of his D prospects he was supposed to get last year because we were so injured with the big club. He went into the season expecting Xhekaj, Harris, Barron and probably even Guhle for stretches and ended up with only 25 games of Barron. Trudeau and Simoneau ended up with by far the most ice time of the prospects.
Anyways, there are good arguments against Houle and there are good arguments for Houle in Laval specifically. The guys coming out of Laval have looked NHL ready, but at the same time there is no historical argument to support Houle being good at development. It's up to each person to believe whether it's Houle doing well with the Rocket or the organization itself providing the tools for success. Like I said before, I think it's a mix of both. Laval is much closer to Montreal than St. John's or Hamilton were, so I think the staff of the big club are a lot more involved than they used to be. I think that's a big reason why the Marlies have always been good at developing guys for the Leafs and the Moose for the Jets. I also think Houle has guidance for the first time (as well as direct oversight being so close to Montreal) in his career as most organizations are pretty hands off for AHL development and the Q is obviously not a farm league.
We won't know for sure until he's fired and people leak stuff 3-4 years after that.
