The Development thread

[abo9]

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

I was so confused as to why you agreed with me I thought you were the poster I responded to haha.

Hopefully Laval will work better under Bouchard... and we don't add the names of KK and Suzuki to the list

 

[417]

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.

Or....if you're willing to live through their mistakes and let them get accustomed to playing in the NHL.

The problem with the Habs is not recalling players or putting them in the NHL too early, at least not per se, the problem is recalling prospects and not giving them a role or sheltering them to the point where they're not exposed or challenged.

The Kotkaniemi case is a perfect example - his arrow was pointing up right up until the time they acquired Nate Thompson.

For me...players shouldn't come up to the NHL unless the NHL coaching staff is truly ready to trust them in various situations.

It's less about prospects not being ready and more coaches who aren't ready to use prospects.

 

[Whitesnake]

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.

And again...we are here talking about we want hockey to be developed here. The guy who conducted this study is a guy well known in the QMJHL community. Not sure what your point is man. Let those leagues conduct their own study and come with their own conclusion. Again, that study shows that development is not where we think it is. You said it yourself. We don't give enough Q players to the NHL compared to other leagues....so why can't we try to find why? If a system want to improve itself....why can't they make their own study about what's working and what's not working there? I talked about your language not to diss you, but I just can't understand why you bring other leagues when it's time to look at our own league and see what the problem could be.

Also, I'M the biggest advocate about removing Timmins from this team as I think his time is done and we have to move on with different set of fresh eyes. I think that the drafting in itself is not good enough. But development has to be important too. And it's not because we had a crappy coach in the AHL that you have to fast track kids development in the NHL....just remove the bad AHL coach. Which we did.

 

[Whitesnake]

Or....if you're willing to live through their mistakes and let them get accustomed to playing in the NHL.

The problem with the Habs is not recalling players or putting them in the NHL too early, at least not per se, the problem is recalling prospects and not giving them a role or sheltering them to the point where they're not exposed or challenged.

The Kotkaniemi case is a perfect example - his arrow was pointing up right up until the time they acquired Nate Thompson.

For me...players shouldn't come up to the NHL unless the NHL coaching staff is truly ready to trust them in various situations.

It's less about prospects not being ready and more coaches who aren't ready to use prospects.

But it's all about having a REAL PLAN and for coaches to use kids, they need to know if they have to win or develop. If losing this year wouldn't be important and it's all about development, coaches would use kids in all situations. If the idea is to make the playoffs no matter what because we didn't make it 3 out the last 4 years, how can you ask a coach to be happy to live with kids mistakes? That's what a real plan is about.

Habs plan is to do whatever. A little bit, a little bit of that. Go with the flow. Try to everything at the same time. And result will be the same everytime....not making the playoffs, or making it and lose in the 1st round.

 

[417]

But it's all about having a REAL PLAN and for coaches to use kids, they need to know if they have to win or develop. If losing this year wouldn't be important and it's all about development, coaches would use kids in all situations. If the idea is to make the playoffs no matter what because we didn't make it 3 out the last 4 years, how can you ask a coach to be happy to live with kids mistakes? That's what a real plan is about.

Kids aren't any more or any less likely to make mistakes in comparisons to veterans. That's just an antiquated mentality that unfortunately, most NHL coaches have and I find it's bull**** to be honest.

We've watched Nick Suzuki make mistakes this year, just like we've watched Shea Weber make mistakes this year.

Habs plan is to do whatever. A little bit, a little bit of that. Go with the flow. Try to everything at the same time. And result will be the same everytime....not making the playoffs, or making it and lose in the 1st round.

Agreed with this - very frustrating.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Or....if you're willing to live through their mistakes and let them get accustomed to playing in the NHL.

The problem with the Habs is not recalling players or putting them in the NHL too early, at least not per se, the problem is recalling prospects and not giving them a role or sheltering them to the point where they're not exposed or challenged.

The Kotkaniemi case is a perfect example - his arrow was pointing up right up until the time they acquired Nate Thompson.

For me...players shouldn't come up to the NHL unless the NHL coaching staff is truly ready to trust them in various situations.

It's less about prospects not being ready and more coaches who aren't ready to use prospects.

I totally understand what you are saying but there is clear trends of us inserting kids in early. Is it wrong or right? None of us know but some will pretend to know. Personally, I rather evaluate it as a fan moving forward and stay on the fence. It could result in very good development where they learn NHL assignments early in the process or they could struggle and loose confidence.

Right now we have the most games played by our draft picks from 2016 forward and I did this research before the season started so it does not factor in Suzuki, Fleury, Primeau, Poehling. Lets look at the Habs, Devils, and Coyotes in comparison...

Habs
- 358 NHL games played (ranks 1st)
- 129 NHL points (ranks 7th)
- 0.360 pts/game (ranks 14th)
- 10th in drafting power

Coyotes
- 338 NHL games played (ranks 3rd)
- 168 NHL points (ranks 5th)
- 0.497 pts/game (ranks 8th)
- 11th in drafting power

Devils
- 339 NHL games played (ranks 2nd)
- 180 NHL points (ranks 4th)
- 0.531 pts/game (ranks 7th)
- 1st in drafting power

You curious at why I picked these 3 teams? Check out post 21

 

[abo9]

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) (KK, Mete, 2018/2016)
Devils: 339 games (1st in draft power) (Nico Hischier, 2017)
Coyotes: 338 games (11th in draft power) (Clayton Keller, Jacob Chycrun 2016)
Flames: 273 games (24th in draft power) (Matthew Tkachuk, 2016)
Jets: 242 games (17th in draft power) (Patrick Laine, 2016)
Leafs: 227 games (3rd in draft power) (Auston Matthews, 2016)
Blackhawks: 206 games (12th in draft power) (Alex Debrincat, 2016)
Blues: 192 games (23rd in draft power) (Tage Thompson, 2016)
Sabres: 184 games (2nd in draft power) (Mittelstadt, 2017; Dahlin, 2018)
Flyers: 176 games (9th in draft power) (Nolan Patrick, 2017)
Oilers: 172 games (13th in draft power) (Jesse Puljularvi, 2017)
Wings: 169 games (8th in draft power) (Rasmussen,Hronek and Cholowski , 2016/2017)

***You count Sergachev in those games, who's playing for TB and doing really well. Without him we're still in the list though, and looking at the names of the players making the bulk of games, we do not have any comparables.

Also, I wanted to point out that for all those teams, only one or two players are the main "game contributors", and most are "elite" talents or rushed (ala Poolparty, everyone agrees he was rushed by Edmonton). Some argue Mittelstadt also was rushed, and Patrick was a second OA pick.

So the question arises: Is Montreal rushing their players, or are all of them elite?

 

[Habs Halifax]

***You count Sergachev in those games, who's playing for TB and doing really well. Without him we're still in the list though, and looking at the names of the players making the bulk of games, we do not have any comparables.

Also, I wanted to point out that for all those teams, only one or two players are the main "game contributors", and most are "elite" talents or rushed (ala Poolparty, everyone agrees he was rushed by Edmonton). Some argue Mittelstadt also was rushed, and Patrick was a second OA pick.

So the question arises: Is Montreal rushing their players, or are all of them elite?

True but if Sergachev was with the Habs, he's be playing NHL games right?

I'm 50/50 on this development thingy. But the research I have done does support the Habs being premature on our kids. How will it will turn out is anybodies guess. Not going to pretend to know more than NHL management where they have access to more information but I am going to monitor it with what info I do have. I much rather come to an opinion based on research than having a knee jerk reaction type approach

I am curious to see how it looks this summer after this season is done.

 

[417]

I totally understand what you are saying but there is clear trends of us inserting kids in early. Is it wrong or right? None of us know but some will pretend to know. Personally, I rather evaluate it as a fan moving forward and stay on the fence. It could result in very good development where they learn NHL assignments early in the process or they could struggle and loose confidence.

Right now we have the most games played by our draft picks from 2016 forward and I did this research before the season started so it does not factor in Suzuki, Fleury, Primeau, Poehling. Lets look at the Habs, Devils, and Coyotes in comparison...

Habs
- 358 NHL games played (ranks 1st)
- 129 NHL points (ranks 7th)
- 0.360 pts/game (ranks 14th)
- 10th in drafting power

Coyotes
- 338 NHL games played (ranks 3rd)
- 168 NHL points (ranks 5th)
- 0.497 pts/game (ranks 8th)
- 11th in drafting power

Devils
- 339 NHL games played (ranks 2nd)
- 180 NHL points (ranks 4th)
- 0.531 pts/game (ranks 7th)
- 1st in drafting power

You curious at why I picked these 3 teams? Check out post 21

This is good work, I also saw your previous post...

But you can find many examples of prospects who were left to develop for multiple years in the AHL and who never amounted to much.

The development process is a lot more complex then just specifically looking at when a prospect makes his NHL debut.

 

[Habs Halifax]

This is good work, I also saw your previous post...

But you can find many examples of prospects who were left to develop for multiple years in the AHL and who never amounted to much.

The development process is a lot more complex then just specifically looking at when a prospect makes his NHL debut.

I'm with you on this. None of us can know how it turns out. Prospects can bust playing NHL games or AHL games. Player confidence is the risky part but pretty sure the Habs are monitoring this.

I have decided to stay on the fence on this one lol

 

[Whitesnake]

Kids aren't any more or any less likely to make mistakes in comparisons to veterans. That's just an antiquated mentality that unfortunately, most NHL coaches have and I find it's bull**** to be honest.

True. Yet, if vets make mistakes, you have the feeling, as a coach, that they will be able to get through it. While rookies, no matter if you use them plenty or not, you might think that it would affect them more and more as the game progresses.

But I also agree with you that it is a bit overplayed. Everytime I hear that it was a rookie mistake....I've seen plenty of vets doing rookie mistakes too....

 

[417]

I'm with you on this. None of us can know how it turns out. Prospects can bust playing NHL games or AHL games. Player confidence is the risky part but pretty sure the Habs are monitoring this.

I think they're doing a great job with Fleury and Suzuki this year...I loved what they were doing with Kotkaniemi last year, at least prior to acquiring Nate Thompson.

Once that happened, Kotkaniemi became an afterthought and that's what largely contributed to his struggles this year.

 

[Habs Icing]

And again...we are here talking about we want hockey to be developed here. The guy who conducted this study is a guy well known in the QMJHL community. Not sure what your point is man. Let those leagues conduct their own study and come with their own conclusion. Again, that study shows that development is not where we think it is. You said it yourself. We don't give enough Q players to the NHL compared to other leagues....so why can't we try to find why? If a system want to improve itself....why can't they make their own study about what's working and what's not working there? I talked about your language not to diss you, but I just can't understand why you bring other leagues when it's time to look at our own league and see what the problem could be.

Also, I'M the biggest advocate about removing Timmins from this team as I think his time is done and we have to move on with different set of fresh eyes. I think that the drafting in itself is not good enough. But development has to be important too. And it's not because we had a crappy coach in the AHL that you have to fast track kids development in the NHL....just remove the bad AHL coach. Which we did.

WS,

I'm not saying that the OHL needs to conduct a study. I'm saying the study conducted and mentioned in that article is flawed. They needed to compare the facts they gathered with facts gathered in a different league.

Why? I'm glad you asked. Because the article and you jumped to the conclusion that maybe we're funneling our young players too quickly through the junior pipeline. That may be the case. Then again it may not be. The study proved nothing. And let me give you a possibility that the study did not eliminate. What if the coaches in the younger tiers in Quebec are for the most part Sylvain Lefebvre clones? I'm not saying that is the case. But that study did not eliminate it as a possibility. If the study had compared their findings with the findings of another CHL league, then they could have eliminated that possibility. The only thing the study proved to me was that perseverance pays off.

Now if they would have asked the same questions to NHLers who made it through the OHL and/or the WHL and they had found the same results then yes they are closer to proving their point. But what if they had studied players from the WHL and found early advancement had nothing to do one way or the other with getting to the NHL. Then that would have proven that the problem in quebec lay elsewhere.

Do you see my point?

 

[Whitesnake]

I think they're doing a great job with Fleury and Suzuki this year...I loved what they were doing with Kotkaniemi last year, at least prior to acquiring Nate Thompson.

Once that happened, Kotkaniemi became an afterthought and that's what largely contributed to his struggles this year.

Suzuki is 20. Fleury is 21. It's a world of difference between this and appointing JK at a really early 18 to run a 3rd line at the NHL level.

 

[417]

True. Yet, if vets make mistakes, you have the feeling, as a coach, that they will be able to get through it. While rookies, no matter if you use them plenty or not, you might think that it would affect them more and more as the game progresses.

But I also agree with you that it is a bit overplayed. Everytime I hear that it was a rookie mistake....I've seen plenty of vets doing rookie mistakes too....

It's just a weak cop out for NHL coaches to default to doing what they've been accustomed to doing forever IMO.

I don't think that's an effective way to coach in 2019 - people don't want to hear this but kids are more ready to play in the NHL today then they were before.

The problem, IMO, is not kids readiness...it's coaches readiness, or lack their of.

Of course, this isn't a blanket rule, you have to look at it case-by-case.

 

[Whitesnake]

It's just a weak cop out for NHL coaches to default to doing what they've been accustomed to doing forever IMO.

I don't think that's an effective way to coach in 2019 - people don't want to hear this but kids are more ready to play in the NHL today then they were before.

The problem, IMO, is not kids readiness...it's coaches readiness, or lack their of.

Of course, this isn't a blanket rule, you have to look at it case-by-case.

Well for me, you won't be ready at 18 if you are not an exceptional. No way. Not even in 2019. You have to proof yourself at lower leagues first. And frankly, it's not true that Elite league in Finland is better than the AHL...at least not better for teaching what you have to deal with going to the NHL after....from schedules to size of rink to a omre physical style of play. JK had to learn that first. THey didn't do it.

 

[417]

Suzuki is 20. Fleury is 21. It's a world of difference between this and appointing JK at a really early 18 to run a 3rd line at the NHL level.

Is it though?

Again, depends on the individual...Kotkaniemi strikes me as a very mature young man (not physically obviously). I think we and the coaching staff underestimate what he can handle.

I know we all tend to have recency bias but all of the compliments were giving Nick Suzuki lately, we were doing the same around this time last year with Kotkaniemi.

The commonality between both is that they both had roles on the team, meaningful ice time, CJ let them play through mistakes.

The minute CJ loses that confidence (which if I know CJ, should be just around the end of January/beginning of February when the games become more meaningful) like he did with KK last year...expect to see Suzuki's game trend down just the same.

 

[Censored Toad]

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.

Can't argue with that logic

 

[Censored Toad]

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)

I assume the rest of the teams fall below the wings or did you look at every team?

Thanks for putting this together!

 

[Habs Halifax]

I assume the rest of the teams fall below the wings or did you look at every team?

Thanks for putting this together!

I already had it done this summer when I looked a several other things... It in this sheet but sorted out by a different category. Yes, every other team falls below the Wings.

 

[Whitesnake]

WS,

I'm not saying that the OHL needs to conduct a study. I'm saying the study conducted and mentioned in that article is flawed. They needed to compare the facts they gathered with facts gathered in a different league.

Why? I'm glad you asked. Because the article and you jumped to the conclusion that maybe we're funneling our young players too quickly through the junior pipeline. That may be the case. Then again it may not be. The study proved nothing. And let me give you a possibility that the study did not eliminate. What if the coaches in the younger tiers in Quebec are for the most part Sylvain Lefebvre clones? I'm not saying that is the case. But that study did not eliminate it as a possibility. If the study had compared their findings with the findings of another CHL league, then they could have eliminated that possibility. The only thing the study proved to me was that perseverance pays off.

Now if they would have asked the same questions to NHLers who made it through the OHL and/or the WHL and they had found the same results then yes they are closer to proving their point. But what if they had studied players from the WHL and found early advancement had nothing to do onr way or the other with getting to the NHL. Then that would have proven that the problem lay elsewhere.

Do you see my point?

Well like every study out there, you start with a premisse and you hope it proves your point. Give me whatever study and I'll destroy it. Thing is look throughout the NHL right now. You have the result of every system out there, from North Americans to Europeans. Does every kid reach their peak at 18? Do they all play at 18? Do you not see that they mostly develop later? Unless your name is McDavid, that you do need some development time and that you can't as early as 12 years old close your analysis as to who is great and who is not already? And that even if the WHL or the OHL wouldn't have the same numbers....it might just mean that there are indeed maybe better coaches....but that if they would also open their minds into not judging players until they are much older, they might do a better job?

You look in the NHL right see and you see the impact of development. I have no idea how it's hard to figure hard that this might also be the problem the Q faces. And frankly, even without doing the analysis for the other leagues....why can't it be obvious that if a league does the same thing that the Q does, that it's clearly not the way to go?

Why can't you see that development is indeed a key issue and that 99,9% of the players do need some development time and that obviously it's the case for Québec? If anything, it's not a flawed study...it's an obvious one.

 

[417]

Well for me, you won't be ready at 18 if you are not an exceptional. No way. Not even in 2019. You have to proof yourself at lower leagues first. And frankly, it's not true that Elite league in Finland is better than the AHL...at least not better for teaching what you have to deal with going to the NHL after....from schedules to size of rink to a omre physical style of play. JK had to learn that first. THey didn't do it.

Fair enough - but I don't agree with that.

Ryan O'Reilly wasn't an exceptional at 18yrs old, but he played 81 games as an 18yr old. Even his 2nd year in the NHL, not much progression points wise.

But he got better because his coach wasn't afraid to use him. If you're going to keep him, use him.

If you're not ready to live with mistakes...then agreed, he shouldn't be in the NHL.

 

[Whitesnake]

Is it though?

Again, depends on the individual...Kotkaniemi strikes me as a very mature young man (not physically obviously). I think we and the coaching staff underestimate what he can handle.

I know we all tend to have recency bias but all of the compliments were giving Nick Suzuki lately, we were doing the same around this time last year with Kotkaniemi.

The commonality between both is that they both had roles on the team, meaningful ice time, CJ let them play through mistakes.

The minute CJ loses that confidence (which if I know CJ, should be just around the end of January/beginning of February when the games become more meaningful) like he did with KK last year...expect to see Suzuki's game trend down just the same.

Yes it is 'cause if not, you'd seen plenty of players playing at that age. The guys right now that are doing wonders this year...would they be doing this at 18 years old? You think Makar would be the same at 18? Geez Draisatl would not be the same at 18 that he was at 21. And so on.....Scheifele wasn't Scheifele at 18.

I have no idea why coaches and GM's wouldn't want to ice their best team on the ice. They usually are gunning for keeping their job. My point is that they thought JK was the best option. But it wasn't because he was a great option. It's because we had nothing else.

 

[Whitesnake]

Fair enough - but I don't agree with that.

Ryan O'Reilly wasn't an exceptional at 18yrs old, but he played 81 games as an 18yr old. Even his 2nd year in the NHL, not much progression points wise.

But he got better because his coach wasn't afraid to use him. If you're going to keep him, use him.

If you're not ready to live with mistakes...then agreed, he shouldn't be in the NHL.

I could add the name of Patrice Bergeron there too. But there are no examples that will always be at 100%. Giving me the names of 10-15 guys playing at 18 and not being exceptionals won't cut it. 'Cause at one point, 95% of the cases that proves it kind of outweigh the 5% that don't.

The NHL for me is not a development league for 18 year old UNLESS you have a plan to tank. And you know that I wouldn't have any problem with that. And maybe with the idea that we'd tank, we'd surprise ourselves and do better.

 

[417]

Yes it is 'cause if not, you'd seen plenty of players playing at that age.

Well not really because not every team has room for 18yr olds to play right away, there are contracts to consider.

So I don't think it's as simple as that.

The guys right now that are doing wonders this year...would they be doing this at 18 years old? You think Makar would be the same at 18? Geez Draisatl would not be the same at 18 that he was at 21. And so on.....Scheifele wasn't Scheifele at 18.

Hmm...again, it's case-by-case basis.

Furthermore, does an 18-19 year old HAVE to dominate and put up a PPG for him to develop?

I have no idea why coaches and GM's wouldn't want to ice their best team on the ice. They usually are gunning for keeping their job. My point is that they thought JK was the best option. But it wasn't because he was a great option. It's because we had nothing else.

Well I think that's kind of a slight to the camp Kotkaniemi had last year, he earned his spot on the team...but yes, I also agree that if we had better options, he likely never even comes to North America.

But that doesn't change the fact that for about 60 games, everyone on this board, everyone in the media, thought this guy was 100% right choice.