The Development thread

[Whitesnake]

In french, don't have time to translate, if somebody wants to go ahead, thank a lot. But in resume...they've looked at the 37 ex-QMJHL players now in the NHL and their conclusion is that half of those players never played in the QMJHL at 16 years old or never played their 15 year olds in the Midget AAA. What it does seem, and it's not a surprise to me as it's my stance for quite a long time now, and was in discussion with somebody just yesterday about it, you need to be in a league where you play. That whole ''not playing a lot but in a better league is better development'' is crap and untrue.

And that article also dress the Suzuki vs Kotkaniemi comparison with the same type of analysis. Development of kids is rushed. And it's not the way to go. KK in Laval please before it's too late.

Au Québec, la voie qui mène à la LNH n’est pas celle qu’on pense

Click to read more...

 

[ahmedou]

Before everything else, we must've hockey career advisors. That's something very necessary for our players.

 

[HABitual Fan]

It also speaks volumes about the problem in minor hockey here. Too many talented kids don't get to play midget AAA due to politics.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Well, yeah.

Victor Mete played well, but he quickly looked a little overwhelmed. Habs did send him to the world Jrs, but that's it. Kept him around for no reason.

Kk looked good, but nothing overly special and struggled for long periods of time. Shouldn't have been with the team last year. Should have been sent down already this year.

Fleury is doing alright, but he has struggles quite often.

Suzuki might be able to make it through the season without long periods where he looks like an AHLer at best.

There are so many in this organization that don't seem to get it, or they think their job is on the line, so they rush players and hope it pans out to save themselves.

Habs never seem to do what's right in the long run for everyone.

 

[Zam Boni]

What it does seem, and it's not a surprise to me as it's my stance for quite a long time now, and was in discussion with somebody just yesterday about it, you need to be in a league where you play. That whole ''not playing a lot but in a better league is better development'' is crap and untrue.

Au Québec, la voie qui mène à la LNH n’est pas celle qu’on pense

Shouldn't come as a suprise as no one would advocate that line of thinking in any other area.
In order to get better you need to put in the work and the hour, and in hockey I think there is no better way to learn than to play games.
Then you can fine tune technical details during practices.

 

[calder candidate]

It is just commun sense I see it in every sport I’ve played... as long as the competition is strong enough to keep the player from being bored or develop bad habit it is better to get more playing time and dominate vs. barely keeping your head above water.

Just kinda like the team that playing just try to protect it lead end up loosing all momentum. A player holding back and play timid will most likely stall...

 

[abo9]

The problems start way before Midget and the Q. Hockey Quebec's system is not build to encourage kids to play hockey, it's build to make money at the expense of overzealous parents.

For what it's worth my dad coached me and my younger brothers since 2005 until 2 years ago and he's told me that hockey is sick in Quebec since he started dealing with the politics of minor hockey.

 

[calder candidate]

The weird thing is that all the best performing program right now actually use templates develop in Canada by Canadian researchers but all these ideas aren’t being applied in Canada...

Why doesn't Mtl have a any of these specialist on staff to help determine optimal development.

 

[Marshy71]

I wonder how much money is influencing things at the lower levels. Might be an old school view, but kids playing for the love of the game as opposed to potential $$$ is always a big thing for me.

Its a world of instant results now, if it takes time, its the wrong way.

 

[Andrei79]

I'm bumping this thread because I can't believe some people think development doesnt exist.

Both Ferraro and McGuire were talking about how different things can influence how a player ends up playing.

But, it got me thinking about Fleury. He didn't look anywhere near ready at the beginning of last year. He then had the chance to play under Bouchard, play consistently and learn the pro game, the speed of it and the different aspects he needed to add to his game.

Apparently, some posters here think that had he played 12 minutes a game, was benched for multiple games, didnt get any special teams and was called out in the media last year that he'd have ended up being the exact same player this year.

This is supposed to make sense... How ?

I want these young players that need the ice time and to round out their game while translating their offense to do so in the right environment. This management has done a fairly good job surrounding them with good veterans, but its done an awful job rushing them.

 

[BLONG7]

The Habs development for years, has been terrible..........self preservation by Therrien and Bergevin, and now Julien and the Clown, and they always seems to find the wrong way to do it..............almost every time.

 

[Tighthead]

It is just commun sense I see it in every sport I’ve played... as long as the competition is strong enough to keep the player from being bored or develop bad habit it is better to get more playing time and dominate vs. barely keeping your head above water.

It’s never just one thing, but Tiger Woods dominated his junior competition and played two years collegiately. Granted golf affords one a very long career, but whoever was advising him (it wasn’t just his crazy dad) thought that dominating the competition was advantageous.

Other golf phenoms of both genders have tried to accelerate the incubation period with less than stellar results.

He is obviously beyond a generational talent, but it serves as a good example.

You have to play the long game. KK succeeded against very low expectations last year, but at no point was he thriving. It was an anti-development move for a player who remains raw.

I’m not saying they ruined him, but they rushed him. Now that he is struggling, and the comparisons to Tkachuk and Hughes are becoming more incessant, I worry that the team will be even more impatient.[/QUOTE]

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

The Development Thread aka how to blame management for when your draft crushes bust

 

[abo9]

The Development Thread aka how to blame management for when your draft crushes bust

Imo Timmins does a good job at drafting. The 2014-15-16 drafts lacked good drafting positions so it does taint the results and set back the prospect pool. Lots of his prospects do really good in juniors/oversea etc.

However, things always seemed to be deteriorating when arriving in Laval. How many prospects went through Lefebvre to never make it out of the AHL?

It's certainly difficult to untangle drafting and development. But now Timmins had a lot more good picks to play with the last few years, and Bouchard in Laval is supposed to be better than Lefebvre, so we will see.

 

[DAChampion]

Imo Timmins does a good job at drafting. The 2014-15-16 drafts lacked good drafting positions so it does taint the results and set back the prospect pool. Lots of his prospects do really good in juniors/oversea etc.

However, things always seemed to be deteriorating when arriving in Laval. How many prospects went through Lefebvre to never make it out of the AHL?

It's certainly difficult to untangle drafting and development. But now Timmins had a lot more good picks to play with the last few years, and Bouchard in Laval is supposed to be better than Lefebvre, so we will see.

The following players peaked in their first years in the pros:

Leblanc
Tinordi
Beaulieu
Galchenyuk
McCarron
De La Rose
Lehkonen
Scherbak

 

[sandviper]

I’ve coached many years from 7 years old to 15 in two sports.

Talent helps... I don’t think anyone can debate this. Special kids you see early on but at the same time you need to nurture that. Obviously at this age, the stakes aren’t there like the pros, but generally you play well, you are rewarded for it.

I’ve seen coaches cater to their kid’s every whim or cater to influential parents so regardless of performance, they get prime ice time and opportunities and thus end up being entitled.

Why I bring that up is sometimes these kids are difficult to coach because they always had things their way. They don’t like your decision? The sulk or they complain to their parents. A pro won’t do that (well, they will) but replace parent for agent and you get the idea.

However, in terms of development, it is possible to develop kids with less natural talent into decent players. I know this because I’ve developed kids for years. I don’t think I’ve ever “ruined” anyone but I have seen extremely talented kids quit hockey and baseball because they hated the environment.

So, whether you are 10 or 35, these players are still people. They can learn, adapt, grow and they can develop bad habits, get lazy or regress.

End of the day, we need to draft talent. I mean, this is the NHL. These kids have to want it of course, but they also need the right support and development. A good coach can only provide the blue prints to build something. The player has to have the tools and the desire to build it. If they need help, the coach and staff have a responsibility to help, but that player has to listen.

 

[abo9]

The following players peaked in their first years in the pros:

Leblanc
Tinordi
Beaulieu
Galchenyuk
McCarron
De La Rose
Lehkonen
Scherbak

Is not that a development issue then? They were better when they came with the Habs then when they left...

 

[DAChampion]

Is not that a development issue then? They were better when they came with the Habs then when they left...

It's obviously a development issue given that the pattern is so consistent.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Just like anything, you don't throw kids to a higher level when they aren't scoring highly on their current exams.

If your kid gets a C in Math 10, putting them in Math 12 advanced is probably not going to help. They aren't ready for that complexity.

Players shouldn't come up to the NHL unless they've proven they are too good for the level they are at.

 

[Habs Halifax]

The following players peaked in their first years in the pros:

Leblanc
Tinordi
Beaulieu
Galchenyuk
McCarron
De La Rose
Lehkonen
Scherbak

Way to early to say Lehkonen has peaked in his 1st season. The rest I agree with

 

[Habs Halifax]

Evidence for those who think we are rushing our kids... Since the 16 draft and forward and not even including this season (Suzuki, Fleury, Poehling, Primeau), Habs draft picks have played the most NHL games. Ranks like this

Habs: 358 games (10th in draft power)
Devils: 339 games (1st in draft power)
Coyotes: 338 games (11th in draft power)
Flames: 273 games (24th in draft power)
Jets: 242 games (17th in draft power)
Leafs: 227 games (3rd in draft power)
Blackhawks: 206 games (12th in draft power)
Blues: 192 games (23rd in draft power)
Sabres: 184 games (2nd in draft power)
Flyers: 176 games (9th in draft power)
Oilers: 172 games (13th in draft power)
Wings: 169 games (8th in draft power)

 

[Habs Icing]

In french, don't have time to translate, if somebody wants to go ahead, thank a lot. But in resume...they've looked at the 37 ex-QMJHL players now in the NHL and their conclusion is that half of those players never played in the QMJHL at 16 years old or never played their 15 year olds in the Midget AAA. What it does seem, and it's not a surprise to me as it's my stance for quite a long time now, and was in discussion with somebody just yesterday about it, you need to be in a league where you play. That whole ''not playing a lot but in a better league is better development'' is crap and untrue.

And that article also dress the Suzuki vs Kotkaniemi comparison with the same type of analysis. Development of kids is rushed. And it's not the way to go. KK in Laval please before it's too late.

Au Québec, la voie qui mène à la LNH n’est pas celle qu’on pense

WS,

That was an interesting but extremely flawed article. The way that survey was conducted was at fault and the article jumped to a conclusion it had no right to jump to. Let me start off by saying maybe the study came to a correct conclusion but its methods are suspect. Most scientific surveys conduct at least two studies, for example, if you want to know how effective a certain drug is you study the effects of that drug on a group of participants and then study the effect of a placebo or another drug on a similar group.

The survey should have done a similar study with OHL and or WHL players who made it to the NHL and see if the results were the same. I'm not saying this is the case but this study didn't rule out the possibility that Quebec coaches in the lower leagues are not as well trained as in the rest of North America. Let's not forget that Quebec Junior league has on a per capita basis less NHL players than its sister junior leagues in the OHL and WHL.

Maybe the problem is that in Quebec we advance players too early or maybe it's something else. This survey did nothing to prove it one way or another.

 

[Whitesnake]

WS,

That was an interesting but extremely flawed article. The way that survey was conducted was at fault and the article jumped to a conclusion it had no right to jump to. Let me start off by saying maybe the study came to a correct conclusion but its methods are suspect. Most scientific surveys conduct at least two studies, for example, if you want to know how effective a certain drug is you study the effects of that drug on a group of participants and then study the effect of a placebo or another drug on a similar group.

The survey should have done a similar study with OHL and or WHL players who made it to the NHL and see if the results were the same. I'm not saying this is the case but this study didn't rule out the possibility that Quebec coaches in the lower leagues are not as well trained as in the rest of North America. Let's not forget that Quebec Junior league has on a per capita basis less NHL players than its sister junior leagues in the OHL and WHL.

Maybe the problem is that in Quebec we advance players too early or maybe it's something else. This survey did nothing to prove it one way or another.

The way the survey was conducted? That's not a survey. That's looking at facts. I have no idea how you can't say that hockey is a sport that suggest that development should be done slow and steady and that players development happened longer than people want when you have proofs of that every day. Do people think that Cale Makar would be as dominant if he would have been in the NHL at 18? Only exceptionnals are ready to jump in soon. And you don't build a league, no matter the league, thining your league is filled with exceptionals.

And by the way, the article is just saying that AU QUÉBEC....not sure if french is your first language....but it makes no sense to compare the OHL and the WHL when the article talks about OUR DEVELOPMENT IN QUÉBEC.....So I guess what you don't like is how I interpret it 'cause I'm the one generalizing it. Not the article. But again, I have no doubt that seeing what we see in the NHL, that you can't rush players. Makar at 18 wouldn't be Makar at 21. Suzuki at 20 wouldn't be Suzuki at 18. JK was 2 months from being chosen the draft after. He's WAY too young to be in the NHL. And tons of other examples like that and the majority of it.

But the article just state that you shouldn't identify top players at 12 and keep them in AAA for the rest of their minor league career just because you identified them as top players at such a young age. Because development happens way after that. No idea how you can't be against that frankly....

Then, yes, I use that to prove a point that development does indeed happened long after 18 years old in MOST cases. Again, not sure what you have against that either.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Just like anything, you don't throw kids to a higher level when they aren't scoring highly on their current exams.

If your kid gets a C in Math 10, putting them in Math 12 advanced is probably not going to help. They aren't ready for that complexity.

Players shouldn't come up to the NHL unless they've proven they are too good for the level they are at.

This was my problem with Kotkaniemi last year. Habs clearly trying to fill holes with kids too early. It's a trend for sure. Evidence is in post 21 and you can't ignore it. We even have more inserted this season that likely widens our games played lead.

Certainly hope they know what they are doing. Wonder what Timmins has to say about this?

 

[Habs Icing]

The way the survey was conducted? That's not a survey. That's looking at facts. I have no idea how you can't say that hockey is a sport that suggest that development should be done slow and steady and that players development happened longer than people want when you have proofs of that every day. Do people think that Cale Makar would be as dominant if he would have been in the NHL at 18? Only exceptionnals are ready to jump in soon. And you don't build a league, no matter the league, thining your league is filled with exceptionals.

And by the way, the article is just saying that AU QUÉBEC....not sure if french is your first language....but it makes no sense to compare the OHL and the WHL when the article talks about OUR DEVELOPMENT IN QUÉBEC.....So I guess what you don't like is how I interpret it 'cause I'm the one generalizing it. Not the article. But again, I have no doubt that seeing what we see in the NHL, that you can't rush players. Makar at 18 wouldn't be Makar at 21. Suzuki at 20 wouldn't be Suzuki at 18. JK was 2 months from being chosen the draft after. He's WAY too young to be in the NHL. And tons of other examples like that and the majority of it.

But the article just state that you shouldn't identify top players at 12 and keep them in AAA for the rest of their minor league career just because you identified them as top players at such a young age. Because development happens way after that. No idea how you can't be against that frankly....

Then, yes, I use that to prove a point that development does indeed happened long after 18 years old in MOST cases. Again, not sure what you have against that either.

Italian is my first language. French was my second but I learned it on the streets and not in school.

But this has nothing to do with language. It has to do with a scientific method. You talk about facts well the facts that survey uses mean very little if not compared to facts from other leagues. Using our development in Quebec is just navel-gazing. That study would have been more convincing if it compared its findings with those of another league.

And lousy development doesn't just mean advancing players when they're not ready. The decade long mantra in this forum has been that Lefebvre was an incompetent doorknob. Well that is development also. A different type of development from what you mean and from what that article meant. If we go by that article then all those failed Habs's 1st rounders just needed more time with Sylvain.

I'm not saying that article is right or wrong. I'm saying that article proved nothing because it was a flawed study.