In regards to Skinner it seems like some people here are confusing defensive ability and willingness to play defense. This has troubled me. Because it's not always a matter of effort with being able to play defense. He can't try harder and make it all go away. It can help, but it can't absolve the fact that he's just not as talented in that aspect of the game as he is in others. The good news is that it's not effort in my opinion that's holding him back, which means that as he grows it will become mitigated by him learning. If the effort isn't there (re: Ovechkin) then you're not going to fix it. Skinner being a poor defensive player has nothing to do with his level of conditioning or his effort and far too often all those things are thrown in a big basket together. They're all things that are mutually exclusive from one another that are either aided or made worse by the presence or lack of each individually. Conditioning isn't Skinner's problem. Hustle isn't his problem. He's just not good defensively. It makes you appreciate, to bring this full circle, the players that are able to jump into the league with an already mature defensive game like Lindholm.
Another thing that is odd is when people assume development to be linear and critique the approach as if there is some sort of guideline to develop a player perfectly. It's just not out there. And this is part of the reason that I don't *believe* in the idea of a player being forced to bust. That's an apology for the individual's ability to adapt. Had Lindholm been of the mind to make excuses instead of working on his game, he could have easily had a season worth apologizing for and made a fool of management for believing in his ability to play up. He got hurt a few times. That could have been all it took. Boychuk in his first season under contract for us when he went all through camp with that wrist injury is an example here. The common theme being at the time that it was management that made the mistake of not crafting a perfect situation for him to climb comfortably into. Had he really been NHL material then that adversity probably would have set him back for a little while as he adjusted and turned it into a positive. You find out what you have in a prospect when they face their first bit of adversity. Until then you're largely delaying the inevitable and hoping that the biggest development a player makes is between the ears in learning the type of approach it takes on a daily basis to have NHL success. Lindholm worked well through his challenges because he has it. That innate ability that you want in a kid to be able to face up to challenges and not only overcome them but thrive as a result. There is no second half Lindholm without October-November Lindholm. You couldn't have gotten him from point A to point B without him needing to break it and put it all back together again. The forgotten moments of the season leading to misnomers like post-WJC-Lindholm when in truth his development was already trending positively before then. He had 4 points in 3 games and was getting about 14-15 minutes a game prior to the December 12th game, his last before his departure for the U20s. It wasn't as if we sent him away and he came back as superman. He just used it to continue his momentum of trending positively.
Usage was another big part of his development. They had to learn what they had in him. They wanted him to play the halfwall on the PP because of his smarts and passing ability. In fact they birthrighted it to him from the very first game of the season. It took a while before they realized that Lindholm is much better on the goal line and in front of the net. Especially behind the goal line. Once they stopped telling him where to play and let his play tell them where he needed to be, there was a marked increase in his output from a non-tangible standpoint as well as on the scoresheet. It started to come together a bit more for the whole unit. There was too much time for him to think on the halfwall. Too many options. Being the liaison between the puck going deep and the puck going back to the point is a pretty challenging job and it takes an incredibly mature feel that Lindholm hasn't yet grasped. Putting him on the goal line allowed him to simplify and take the puck to the net and make good things happen without being too concerned about being the engine of the unit. The little things are going to come, but until they do it's important not to force a square peg into a round hole.
I am of the opinion that Lindholm had a tremendous season and even if statistically it could have been better, it was a season like I wanted for him. To get his feet wet, learn that he can play up here, have enough offensive success to not be frustrated with the lack of it, and to continue to progress an already fantastic defensive approach. It will be important to scale expectations realistically with him because the skillset isn't overwhelming and I agree with BleedGreen's uncertainty about his statistical upside. I would be happy with 40 points next season and hopefully a lot more shots on net as his deft hands were certainly on display a number of times this year but not nearly enough as relative to some of our other guys who shot far more than their skill dictated. For Lindholm to only have roughly a shot and a quarter per game it's a miracle he almost hit double digits in scoring with only 70 shots. I want to see that number double next season regardless of how frequently it goes in.
