Trevor Timmins Discussion (Part 8)

[1909]

So CJ is great with youngsters. I see.

CJ is good with any player- whatever his age - showing willingness to learn and play a 200 f game.

 

[montreal]

Oh come on. If Scherbak is that fragile then any number of things would've derailed his career. He's just not a good example, man.

And now you're just arguing things I'm not even arguing. LIke I said you can say he's a bad coach. Fine. I'm not arguing that right now.

And of course you can see what they did after. Even with these variables you've added doesn't mean you can't use and weigh what they did after in your analysis. To suggest that you CAN'T look at that is silly.

You hate CJ that's fine. I just need better proof that he's mishandled the kids SO badly that he's beneath contempt in that regard. There should be better evidence if he was THAT bad than 20 games of Scherbak and a Galchenyuk who already played 5 pro seasons. lol. come on.

You're arguing a bunch of other things now that are straying from my one pretty clear argument.

so what has Julien done that's so good?

I never once said Scherbak's career was derailed by Julien, what did he do to help him?

what did he do to help Kotka this season before covid?

The point of Scherbak was not the player but how he handled him because it was stupid. If you put him on the 4th line you are wasting everyone's time. It's that simple. You either put him with guys that can score or you don't play him. It's an outdated approach from a dinosaur that at the draft is telling Timmins to get him some beef. Shows you how outdated he is.

Idea here is that they do seem to have handled him poorly, was it enough to COMPLETELY derailed a kid's career from being a NHL player (on any line) to barely a AHL'er. Or it just happened, like it happens to tons of players, that Scherbak reached his ceiling sooner 'cause while he looked great offensively in juniors, he had nothing else going for him. Didn't have a defensive game. Didn't have a physical game that much etc. Whiel there is some teaching at a AHL Level to be done....do you really teach from scrap? Who right now in the NHL was seen as a guy totally inept offensively or defensively and finally made it. And people...don't say Subban....'Cause Subban, in the last year of Juniors was recognized DEFENSIVELY by the coaches of his conference.

The risk with Scherbak was that he was great offensively, and we are going to risk that we can make a player out of him. Scherbak, offensively, improved his numbers every year with Lefebvre. But I guess was never able to catch the rest of the game. As far as putting players on the 4th...I have no problem with that. You do not take a kid and put him in a situation to HAVE to score 'cause you are a 1st rounder and if you don't succeed immediately, you suck. You put him on a 4th...and even if he's not scoring, if he looks better and understands the game better, and does the little things right...he could go up on a lineup. Scherbak never was able to do it. Suzuki didn't have top minutes at first. But he showed he could, and Julien give it to him.

Why does Julien do it for Suzuki....and not for Scherbak? If a guy is outdated for kids....shouldn't it be for all kids?

Scherbak certainly didn't look that bad defensively in the WHL but perhaps he's one of those that don't take to a certain kind of coach. Several players have publicly complained about Lefebvre's style so who knows if a laid back kid like him who was handled so poorly but clearly showed he can dish the puck.

The best example I have is for some reason Lefebvre thought it was a good idea to take the 2 youngest forwards who happened to be the 2 weakest defensively and tie them at the hip on the 3rd line. It was f***ing stupid, I railed over and over for months at how anyone could be in charge and not see how stupid it was. I got a lot of shit for it from a few posters, then what do you know, he finally breaks up the duo and puts Scherbak with Hudon and Terry and they start converting his passes. I'm like wtf took you so long to see something that was just so obvious.

Of course that doesn't mean it caused Scherbak to bust or Julien, maybe the kid just didn't want it bad enough, wouldn't surprise me at all as he didn't seem like a hard worker but the way they handled the kid to me was just stupid.

 

[abo9]

This is cherry-picking, but no way we have seen the best of Suzuki. Kid is too smart and can grow so much more physically. He's only going to get stronger and faster. Best is yet to come.

Had we not said the same about Galchenyuk after 30 goals?
But again, Suzuki is currently the one prospect I'm getting pretty excited about, despite my heavy pessimism

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

so what has Julien done that's so good?

I never once said Scherbak's career was derailed by Julien, what did he do to help him?

what did he do to help Kotka this season before covid?

The point of Scherbak was not the player but how he handled him because it was stupid. If you put him on the 4th line you are wasting everyone's time. It's that simple. You either put him with guys that can score or you don't play him. It's an outdated approach from a dinosaur that at the draft is telling Timmins to get him some beef. Shows you how outdated he is.

.

If you're using Scherbak as one of your prime examples of Julien being so horrendous at player development AND saying he didn't derail his career then don't you see how you're not using good evidence.

So you're arguing that 'Julien's terrible with the kids. A good example is Scherbak who I don't really think had what it takes anyways but Julien did him no favours in the 20 games he played with him'?

Come on, dude. This is just a huge reach.

To be clear, AND FOR THE LAST TIME lol I'm not saying he's great with the kids necessarily but I see no clear evidence of him being as terrible as people say he is.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

So CJ is great with youngsters. I see.

Okay lol I don't know how many times I have to say this but I'm not arguing he's great. Never once.

I want evidence that he's so horrendously bad as people say he is. People parrot it like it's truth and no one can point to me anything that looks like good evidence. Doesn't mean he's great. There's a HUGE chasm between great and the narrative that he's pretty much ruining our kids.

 

[Vachon23]

not on his development but it was f***ing stupid to put a 30 goal scorer on the bottom lines and with DLR. The guy was our 2nd leading scorer the previous year. As i said it's possible off-ice issues were the problem but to me it was very Lefebvre like.

Scherbak, it's not about what these guys are doing now, when you lose your confidence it can be very tough to get back. This is about how they were handled and Scherbak was handled likely the worst i've ever seen.

Technically though when Julien arrived in MTL the 1st move he did was to put Galchenyuk center of the 1st line with Pacioretty and Radulov so he did give him a chance

 

[Vachon23]

the only one to blame for Sherback bust is himself. He never showed the willingness to improve his weakness and he wasn't enough good to relay only on his skills

 

[montreal]

If you're using Scherbak as one of your prime examples of Julien being so horrendous at player development AND saying he didn't derail his career then don't you see how you're not using good evidence.

So you're arguing that 'Julien's terrible with the kids. A good example is Scherbak who I don't really think had what it takes anyways but Julien did him no favours in the 20 games he played with him'?

Come on, dude. This is just a huge reach.

To be clear, AND FOR THE LAST TIME lol I'm not saying he's great with the kids necessarily but I see no clear evidence of him being as terrible as people say he is.

What does that even mean, so he's not great but he's not terrible? That leaves a lot of room there.

I never said any prospect was ruined by any one person, as I just don't believe it comes down to just one person. MB, Lefebvre, MT, Julien, Timmins, the players, I have always said all involved share some % of blame. You just don't hear me use the word ruin from any one person.

Scherbak is a good example. The kid was crushing in the AHL, if he had not been called up and kept up his 1.15 ppg, he was on pace to have the best U-22 season in the AHL since the '05-'06 season. So clearly the kid had skill and was showing something with it. What does Julien do, he puts a playmaker that's young, weak physically, weak defensively and that had missed about a year of development time to injury and he puts him on the 4th line.

Now remember that year Pac was hurt, we didn't even win 30 games. Why not try a Scherbak Galchenyuk Gallagher line? The kid was doing great in the AHL, everyone that watched knows he can dish it so put him with guys that can convert. You want to develop skill, put them in a position to succeed. The season was lost, there was nothing to play for, the kid because he wasn't born 2 days later would need waivers the following season so why not just see what he can do in a good spot?

Julien's problem is his way of thinking is outdated. His treatment of youth is the same as his treatment of skill, you either earn his trust or there's problems as Galchenyuk found out as Domi seems to have found out to some degree from the sound of it.

Maybe Scherbak would never have made it, but when a coach favors no talent grinders like Logan Shaw or Chaput or Froese, or puts Weal on the PP it shows why this team has struggled for years to develop offensive talent.

so call him whatever you want, not terrible with kids, that's what MB and Molson are paying him for to be not terrible, great.

Technically though when Julien arrived in MTL the 1st move he did was to put Galchenyuk center of the 1st line with Pacioretty and Radulov so he did give him a chance

I don't remember the exact details as Julien was only here for 20 some games yet only 2 players had more points then Galchenyuk that year and even the next year he finished 2nd on the team in points. Again we don't know if off ice issues got in the way but things went from good to total shit for him and that just shouldn't happen.

the only one to blame for Sherback bust is himself. He never showed the willingness to improve his weakness and he wasn't enough good to relay only on his skills

I've followed prospects for over 20 years and have never seen so many mistakes with one skilled prospects development. Who the f*** thought that a just days after turning 20 and coming off not one but two major injuries that in the middle of the season they would take a weak defensive forward who was physically weak as well and move him from the wing to the much tougher position while everyone else was in mid-season form.

Just mistake after mistake with him. He was trending to have an outstanding season. In 26 games he was 4 pts shy of putting up half the points he had in his AHL career of 114 games. Now the kid was too laid back and you need a special kind of coach to coax some players like him, the skill was there. It's entirely possible that he just peaked and was never going to do much of anything but there's a reason why the Habs have struggled for so long to develop offensive players in the MB era. Some just want to blame Timmins, some blame development, coaching, the players, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter, we have been going no where and now have to hope that maybe this team can develop offensive talent after failing year after year after year at doing so.

 

[ECWHSWI]

Okay lol I don't know how many times I have to say this but I'm not arguing he's great. Never once.

I want evidence that he's so horrendously bad as people say he is. People parrot it like it's truth and no one can point to me anything that looks like good evidence. Doesn't mean he's great. There's a HUGE chasm between great and the narrative that he's pretty much ruining our kids.

you don't, shown by how how quiclky you discard any example saying they're "anectodal" or something.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

you don't, shown by how how quiclky you discard any example saying they're "anectodal" or something.

Lol uhhh...where did I say that your evidence was anecdotal? Or anyone else’s was? Lol.

I just gave you a logical reply which you didn’t engage with. Lol.

You can’t just make up stuff

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

What does that even mean, so he's not great but he's not terrible? That leaves a lot of room there.

I never said any prospect was ruined by any one person, as I just don't believe it comes down to just one person. MB, Lefebvre, MT, Julien, Timmins, the players, I have always said all involved share some % of blame. You just don't hear me use the word ruin from any one person.

Scherbak is a good example. The kid was crushing in the AHL, if he had not been called up and kept up his 1.15 ppg, he was on pace to have the best U-22 season in the AHL since the '05-'06 season. So clearly the kid had skill and was showing something with it. What does Julien do, he puts a playmaker that's young, weak physically, weak defensively and that had missed about a year of development time to injury and he puts him on the 4th line.

Now remember that year Pac was hurt, we didn't even win 30 games. Why not try a Scherbak Galchenyuk Gallagher line? The kid was doing great in the AHL, everyone that watched knows he can dish it so put him with guys that can convert. You want to develop skill, put them in a position to succeed. The season was lost, there was nothing to play for, the kid because he wasn't born 2 days later would need waivers the following season so why not just see what he can do in a good spot?

Julien's problem is his way of thinking is outdated. His treatment of youth is the same as his treatment of skill, you either earn his trust or there's problems as Galchenyuk found out as Domi seems to have found out to some degree from the sound of it.

Maybe Scherbak would never have made it, but when a coach favors no talent grinders like Logan Shaw or Chaput or Froese, or puts Weal on the PP it shows why this team has struggled for years to develop offensive talent.

so call him whatever you want, not terrible with kids, that's what MB and Molson are paying him for to be not terrible, great.

Wow. You're really going to die on this Scherbak hill.

Lol it does leave a lot of room. That's kind of my point.

I'll try and make this crystal sparkling clear.

If Julien was as terrible with our young players as 95% of the board seems to agree with, you can point to something more substantial than Scherbak and Galchenyuk. You would be able to give me clear and many examples that you could really see if he was TRULY THIS HORRIBLE.

You wouldn't be going back and forth 10 times about Scherbak.

And not just you but all the people that parrot this like it's the most obvious thing in the world but can't give one name where you can say he actually failed them in a real sense without having to use two players who had their chances elsewhere and did NOTHING WITH THEM.

I think things are so polarized on here that if someone wants to make the argument I'm making then they MUST be a huge uncritical CJ fan. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. I'm really arguing this one single point and this point only.

It's one thing if people were just critical of his methods but to just assert he's this bad is another. It's the degree of vitriol that is disproportionate to the evidence.

 

[DAChampion]

Wow. You're really going to die on this Scherbak hill.

Lol it does leave a lot of room. That's kind of my point.

I'll try and make this crystal sparkling clear.

If Julien was as terrible with our young players as 95% of the board seems to agree with, you can point to something more substantial than Scherbak and Galchenyuk. You would be able to give me clear and many examples that you could really see if he was TRULY THIS HORRIBLE.

You wouldn't be going back and forth 10 times about Scherbak.

And not just you but all the people that parrot this like it's the most obvious thing in the world but can't give one name where you can say he actually failed them in a real sense without having to use two players who had their chances elsewhere and did NOTHING WITH THEM.

I think things are so polarized on here that if someone wants to make the argument I'm making then they MUST be a huge uncritical CJ fan. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. I'm really arguing this one single point and this point only.

It's one thing if people were just critical of his methods but to just assert he's this bad is another. It's the degree of vitriol that is disproportionate to the evidence.

Regardless of whether or not you think Scherbak was probably going to have fail, would it not have made sense to give him a legitimate chance to succeed, by putting him in an optimal position?

 

[Habricot]

We seem to forget that the NHL is not a development league.. you pull your weigth or you dont play. The AHL is where you develop players and we have done well when Boucher was there and are doing well now that joel Bouchard is there.. in between these two eras is where we have had issues...

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Regardless of whether or not you think Scherbak was probably going to have fail, would it not have made sense to give him a legitimate chance to succeed, by putting him in an optimal position?

Well I've seen this debate play out about playing young skill guys on top lines right off the hop no question. I think it's a worthwhile debate.

In the case of Scherbak specifically, you have to look at the whole context of his incredibly short career.

When they put him on waivers after a mere 20 games, I thought it was a very rash move. When LA did the same thing in even less games, you realize that it wasn't a rash move at all.

You absolutely have to make the inference that there was something really wrong with work ethic or attitude or whatever. You don't give up on a kid that skilled who had a very strong last season in the AHL that fast if there wasn't something seriously wrong behind the scenes. I feel like we can all be in strong agreement about that.

My guess is that if there is something that wrong with a kid's work ethic, Julien even giving him any playing time was probably a gift. It's safe to say those character issues didn't just develop over night.

So for argument sake lets say my inferences are right (I don't think they should be that controversial seeing how long he lasted in the NHL) do you giftwrap this rookie kid top line minutes with all of that in the background? I don't think a coach can do that. You can't just give skilled kids top line minutes NO MATTER WHAT. Which I think many people are arguing, especially if people still think a kid who played a grand total of 37 NHL games than bolted to the KHL should've gotten more skill to play with and was treated poorly. It can't be much clearer that there was something SERIOUSLY lacking there.

Now the idea is that certain skilled guys can only do well with other skill guys. There is a solid point there. But in the case with these certain players, like 98% of the time a coach can tell what kids can make it which ones won't regardless of where you put them.

Even if these players don't necessarily produce, a coach can see all the behind the scenes stuff that we have ZERO IDEA about. They can see work ethic, attitude, conditioning, etc. They know that, sure even if this young player isn't going to produce playing with 4th liners, he's working hard and doing all the right things. And more often than not when a young skilled rookie plays on a 4th line who actually has a real future, you can see him making things happen or just actually producing. Not always. There are exceptions I'm sure but I'd bet they're exceedingly rare.

 

[montreal]

Wow. You're really going to die on this Scherbak hill.

Lol it does leave a lot of room. That's kind of my point.

I'll try and make this crystal sparkling clear.

If Julien was as terrible with our young players as 95% of the board seems to agree with, you can point to something more substantial than Scherbak and Galchenyuk. You would be able to give me clear and many examples that you could really see if he was TRULY THIS HORRIBLE.

You wouldn't be going back and forth 10 times about Scherbak.

And not just you but all the people that parrot this like it's the most obvious thing in the world but can't give one name where you can say he actually failed them in a real sense without having to use two players who had their chances elsewhere and did NOTHING WITH THEM.

I think things are so polarized on here that if someone wants to make the argument I'm making then they MUST be a huge uncritical CJ fan. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. I'm really arguing this one single point and this point only.

It's one thing if people were just critical of his methods but to just assert he's this bad is another. It's the degree of vitriol that is disproportionate to the evidence.

Kotka is another example, he threw him under the bus several times, and even though the kid seems the happy go lucky type he still took a shot at Julien, that should tell you something imo.

It's not like we had that many prospects that are skilled but had defensive issues since he's been here. I gave my examples, if they aren't enough then so be it. I hate the way he handled Galchenyuk, Scherbak, Kotka, and even Suzuki had to learn to be a better person playing with Thompson while Domi is rumored to not be happy with Julien. But I guess that's not enough to say that maybe he's more then not slightly terrible but decently ok at being average with young players and skilled players he doesn't trust.

The point shouldn't be about to what degree Julien is in regards to young players, since it's not young players that he has issues with, it's skilled players he doesn't trust that are the issue. He clearly trusts Leks, he clearly didn't trust Kotka or others. What does it matter if he's average, below average, bad, terrible, shitty, decent, ok, slightly not terrible, etc.. the point is we have had a lot of problems developing skilled players because MT and Julien both are from the if they don't trust you, or if you make a mistake you sit, which is f***ing stupid and outdated approach imo. Who cares what degree of suckage it ends up being, it's clearly not good enough at some level.

It's harder to say he failed this guy 100% because by the time they get to the NHL and have issues then the problem wasn't fixed where it should have been in the AHL and it shows said player was called up too soon. Julien is there to win games not babysit but at the same time I can't stand how he handles these kids. What would have been the harm to try Scherbak with Galchenyuk, he had no problem doing it with Evans, why him and not any of the others?

We seem to forget that the NHL is not a development league.. you pull your weigth or you dont play. The AHL is where you develop players and we have done well when Boucher was there and are doing well now that joel Bouchard is there.. in between these two eras is where we have had issues...

true to some degree. When your team sucks and it's March and you have nothing to play for, why not try a kid that is over a ppg in the AHL on the top line when you know all he can really do is in the offensive zone. Is it so bad to want to see a skilled player get put with other skilled players to see what they can do? The whole I don't trust him so i'm going to put him on the 4th line and play him with shit grinders for 6-7 mins or whatever is f***ing pointless imo.

That said I agree that we clearly weren't having this problem pre MB era with Boucher (who was hired due to Timmins suggesting it) and now that Bouchard is there we are better off now if only MB would leave the f***ing kids alone in the AHL to work on shit and not call up 20 year olds that are struggling in the AHL. You really can't make this shit up, I can't believe someone in charge of an NHL team can actually be so bad and make so many mistakes. It's like he just doesn't believe or care about development. Just f*** it throw him in the deep end.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Kotka is another example, he threw him under the bus several times, and even though the kid seems the happy go lucky type he still took a shot at Julien, that should tell you something imo.

It's not like we had that many prospects that are skilled but had defensive issues since he's been here. I gave my examples, if they aren't enough then so be it. I hate the way he handled Galchenyuk, Scherbak, Kotka, and even Suzuki had to learn to be a better person playing with Thompson while Domi is rumored to not be happy with Julien. But I guess that's not enough to say that maybe he's more then not slightly terrible but decently ok at being average with young players and skilled players he doesn't trust.

The point shouldn't be about to what degree Julien is in regards to young players, since it's not young players that he has issues with, it's skilled players he doesn't trust that are the issue. He clearly trusts Leks, he clearly didn't trust Kotka or others. What does it matter if he's average, below average, bad, terrible, shitty, decent, ok, slightly not terrible, etc.. the point is we have had a lot of problems developing skilled players because MT and Julien both are from the if they don't trust you, or if you make a mistake you sit, which is f***ing stupid and outdated approach imo. Who cares what degree of suckage it ends up being, it's clearly not good enough at some level.

It's harder to say he failed this guy 100% because by the time they get to the NHL and have issues then the problem wasn't fixed where it should have been in the AHL and it shows said player was called up too soon. Julien is there to win games not babysit but at the same time I can't stand how he handles these kids. What would have been the harm to try Scherbak with Galchenyuk, he had no problem doing it with Evans, why him and not any of the others?



true to some degree. When your team sucks and it's March and you have nothing to play for, why not try a kid that is over a ppg in the AHL on the top line when you know all he can really do is in the offensive zone. Is it so bad to want to see a skilled player get put with other skilled players to see what they can do? The whole I don't trust him so i'm going to put him on the 4th line and play him with shit grinders for 6-7 mins or whatever is f***ing pointless imo.

That said I agree that we clearly weren't having this problem pre MB era with Boucher (who was hired due to Timmins suggesting it) and now that Bouchard is there we are better off now if only MB would leave the f***ing kids alone in the AHL to work on shit and not call up 20 year olds that are struggling in the AHL. You really can't make this shit up, I can't believe someone in charge of an NHL team can actually be so bad and make so many mistakes. It's like he just doesn't believe or care about development. Just f*** it throw him in the deep end.

Well yeah it just seems like a lot of reaching. Your most repeated examples BARELY played under him and were supposed to flourish elsewhere. And both have been irretrievably dog sh*t after leaving.

Your case is stronger if they did anything even close to doing well. Scherbak got 8 bloody games with the Kings! EIGHT. The fact he's even used is just such an enormous reach.

Domi? So I never heard anyone give praise to CJ for Domi having a career season in his first year with us when he's still in the wheel house of a 'young developing player'. Now in his 2nd year when he's LESS in that wheelhouse it's now CJ's fault?

KK and Suzuki look great right now. I'll give you some lee way there and say lets wait and see but right now they're looking damn good. KK? There's at least a case there. I think it's debatable but there's a case there.

Suzuki? lol. No. I'm sorry but he's just gotten better and better.

KK to me is the best example and I still don't think it's that great. Personally, I think he just wasn't in the best shape this second season after that injury. It was pretty clear. Now that he's physically matured, he looks like he's ready to play. Again, I'm more concerned about how a player looks on the ice than some salty interviews personally. I'm not saying those interviews mean nothing but if the player ends up well and is generally tracking well, I'm gonna use that as stronger evidence than a bit of mud flinging.

And yeah why does it always have to be so absolutist? That's my major point. It's always this way on here. Why can't we talk degrees? It's just polarized mud flinging that isn't particularly fun. To me at least.

 

[Archijerej]

Regardless of whether or not you think Scherbak was probably going to have fail, would it not have made sense to give him a legitimate chance to succeed, by putting him in an optimal position?

Scherbak was not an NHL player. It was painfully evident every time he stepped on the ice.

It doesn't work that way. Teams don't just bend over backwards to accommodate shitty players just because they are their former 1st round picks.

Yes, there are examples of players with significant flaws, but also considerable potential. It's likely prudent in their case to show some patience and sorround them properly, even at the expense of immediate results. But Scherbak was not such a case. He was shit.

 

[DAChampion]

Scherbak was not an NHL player. It was painfully evident every time he stepped on the ice.

It doesn't work that way. Teams don't just bend over backwards to accommodate shitty players just because they are their former 1st round picks.

Yes, there are examples of players with significant flaws, but also considerable potential. It's likely prudent in their case to show some patience and sorround them properly, even at the expense of immediate results. But Scherbak was not such a case. He was shit.

Easy to say with retroactive clairvoyance but that's not what people were saying about Scherbak at the time, nor is it what people were saying about Leblanc, Tinordi, Galchenyuk, De La Rose, McCarron.

Meanwhile, how have Andrighetto, Martinson, Ott, King, Deslsuriers, Carr, Terry, Holland, King, Logan Shaw, and Kenny Agostino, worked out?

 

[Archijerej]

Easy to say with retroactive clairvoyance but that's not what people were saying about Scherbak at the time, nor is it what people were saying about Leblanc, Tinordi, Galchenyuk, De La Rose, McCarron.

Meanwhile, how have Andrighetto, Martinson, Ott, King, Deslsuriers, Carr, Terry, Holland, and King worked out?

We're discussing Scherbak, specifically.

I don't much care about what people said about him, I saw him with my own eyes. He was no good as an NHL-level player.

 

[WeThreeKings]

We're discussing Scherbak, specifically.

I don't much care about what people said about him, I saw him with my own eyes. He was no good as an NHL-level player.

Yet, every year he was with Lefebvre, he looked worse and worse as a player.. which is the same thing that happened with McCarron, Leblanc, and De La Rose.

So when discussing Scherbak specifically, it is important to note that his critical years of development within the organization were handled terribly and it was an absolute failure by Bergevin, Therrien and Lefebvre for that entire tenure at development.

 

[CHarlie]

Gotta admit that 2014 other than the first round didn't produce much....Pastrnak 25th went one pic before Scherbak 26th......after that there might have been a handful of impact players selected ie Brayden Point......total crapshoot.

 

[Archijerej]

Yet, every year he was with Lefebvre, he looked worse and worse as a player.. which is the same thing that happened with McCarron, Leblanc, and De La Rose.

So when discussing Scherbak specifically, it is important to note that his critical years of development within the organization were handled terribly and it was an absolute failure by Bergevin, Therrien and Lefebvre for that entire tenure at development.

How is all of this relevant to Julien's development abilities, which were the topic of conversation?

If you're under the impression I'm somehow praising Lefebvre's skills in developing talent, then it's an obvious misunderstanding.

 

[DAChampion]

IMO, the lack of recent young talent on the Habs is due to the lack of picks in 2008-2011, weak drafts in 2012-2014, Lefebvre, and Therrien.

Given that, I've been clear that I would eventually re-evaluate Timmins if things didn't improve. Julien is not perfect but he's better than Therrien. The Habs have had more picks and better picks. And Bouchard is better than Lefebvre.

Here's what I'd like to see in the next year:

• Some inspired drafting of forwards, where the Habs farm system is weakest.
• At the NHL level, progression from Kotkaniemi, Romanov, Evans, and Mete.
• I'll actually be watching a lot of AHL games as it's fun. I'd like to see progression from several of Poehling, Juulsen, Fleury, Brook, Ylonen. If the NCAA season is cancelled I'd also like to see how Harris and Caulfield will do. It will be important to see the Habs prospects get on the score sheet and produce offense, not just Lynch, Dauphin, Jevpalov, Hudon, and those kinds of guys.
• Note: I won't be paying attention to the prospects in Europe and in the NCAA.

I'm sticking to my schedule. If things don't improve significantly by the end of the 2021 season I'll join the anti-Timmins brigade. Conversely, I hope that Timmins skeptics will acknowledge success if things do improve.

 

[montreal]

Well yeah it just seems like a lot of reaching. Your most repeated examples BARELY played under him and were supposed to flourish elsewhere. And both have been irretrievably dog sh*t after leaving.

Your case is stronger if they did anything even close to doing well. Scherbak got 8 bloody games with the Kings! EIGHT. The fact he's even used is just such an enormous reach.

Domi? So I never heard anyone give praise to CJ for Domi having a career season in his first year with us when he's still in the wheel house of a 'young developing player'. Now in his 2nd year when he's LESS in that wheelhouse it's now CJ's fault?

KK and Suzuki look great right now. I'll give you some lee way there and say lets wait and see but right now they're looking damn good. KK? There's at least a case there. I think it's debatable but there's a case there.

Suzuki? lol. No. I'm sorry but he's just gotten better and better.

KK to me is the best example and I still don't think it's that great. Personally, I think he just wasn't in the best shape this second season after that injury. It was pretty clear. Now that he's physically matured, he looks like he's ready to play. Again, I'm more concerned about how a player looks on the ice than some salty interviews personally. I'm not saying those interviews mean nothing but if the player ends up well and is generally tracking well, I'm gonna use that as stronger evidence than a bit of mud flinging.

And yeah why does it always have to be so absolutist? That's my major point. It's always this way on here. Why can't we talk degrees? It's just polarized mud flinging that isn't particularly fun. To me at least.

I don't look at what a player does later, that's the whole point of making mistakes with development, when you call up someone too soon you don't know what impact it will have on their confidence if they struggle. As I say most of these kids were likely the shit in their local leagues at 12, 13, 14, etc... so they were told how great they were, it was easy for them, big fish in a small pond. So as they move up for many they never sucked at hockey before, so you don't know how it's going to impact a kid at 18, 19, 20. For some once they lose that confidence it can be very tough to get back.

Scherbak you don't like the example because of how it ended up or the knocks on him. The problem is it's a very good example, we are talking about a 1st round pick, that while at 21 he was putting up offense that put him on pace for 88 pts, do you know how good that would have been had he been anywhere near that? That team won 24 games, they had 2 goal scorers (Terry, Cracknell) yet he was putting up almost an assist a game.

We had nothing to play for, what would have been the harm to at least throw him with Galchenyuk and see what happens, live with the mistakes cause all that happens is you get a better draft pick. You give him a real chance, see what he can do or don't call him up as the 4th line is just a stupid way to handle him.

The Kings also fired the coach that Scherbak played for, they were terrible they should have at least given him more of a look but who knows where his confidence was at, what was going through his head after sitting in the press box with us for a month, gets sent down gets sick while there and doesn't play well in 5 games.

It could easily be he just didn't have it, didn't want it enough, but for a 1st round pick that was doing great in the AHL that year on a team that had nothing to lose, a forward thinking coach would have at least tired it.

Kotka I will never get behind a coach that throws young players under the bus in a after game presser. What an asshole. He did it to Suzuki to, guess he had to make him a better person too. Of course Suzuki is going to get better, the kid had back to back to back 90+ pt seasons on some not so good teams.

Domi had a great first year, but there is talk about he and Julien but heads, why is that? why was he on the 4th line in the playoffs under Julien but under Muller he was in the top 6?

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

I don't look at what a player does later, that's the whole point of making mistakes with development, when you call up someone too soon you don't know what impact it will have on their confidence if they struggle. As I say most of these kids were likely the shit in their local leagues at 12, 13, 14, etc... so they were told how great they were, it was easy for them, big fish in a small pond. So as they move up for many they never sucked at hockey before, so you don't know how it's going to impact a kid at 18, 19, 20. For some once they lose that confidence it can be very tough to get back.

Scherbak you don't like the example because of how it ended up or the knocks on him. The problem is it's a very good example, we are talking about a 1st round pick, that while at 21 he was putting up offense that put him on pace for 88 pts, do you know how good that would have been had he been anywhere near that? That team won 24 games, they had 2 goal scorers (Terry, Cracknell) yet he was putting up almost an assist a game.

We had nothing to play for, what would have been the harm to at least throw him with Galchenyuk and see what happens, live with the mistakes cause all that happens is you get a better draft pick. You give him a real chance, see what he can do or don't call him up as the 4th line is just a stupid way to handle him.

The Kings also fired the coach that Scherbak played for, they were terrible they should have at least given him more of a look but who knows where his confidence was at, what was going through his head after sitting in the press box with us for a month, gets sent down gets sick while there and doesn't play well in 5 games.

It could easily be he just didn't have it, didn't want it enough, but for a 1st round pick that was doing great in the AHL that year on a team that had nothing to lose, a forward thinking coach would have at least tired it.

Kotka I will never get behind a coach that throws young players under the bus in a after game presser. What an asshole. He did it to Suzuki to, guess he had to make him a better person too. Of course Suzuki is going to get better, the kid had back to back to back 90+ pt seasons on some not so good teams.

Domi had a great first year, but there is talk about he and Julien but heads, why is that? why was he on the 4th line in the playoffs under Julien but under Muller he was in the top 6?

I don't care how bad you think both LA and MTL coaches/orgs were. You can't tell me that 2 NHL teams are going to give up on a kid with his talent THAT EFFING FAST if there isn't something seriously going wrong.

One team? okay. Possibly. Two? No. EIGHT GAMES!!! lol. I can't believe you're trying to convince anyone of this.

And painting it like I'm being stubborn about Scherbak is just ridiculous. I'm giving you KK to an extent because it actually makes some kind of sense. Scherbak doesn't.

20 games with a certain coach isn't going to ruin a kid who actually has what it takes. You keep saying you're NOT saying that Julien ruined him but then you keep bringing this point back up.

There's no way they'd risk putting a Scherbak through waivers that didn't have serious problems behind the scenes. Not after 20 games. Not after how good his last AHL season was. It seemed like utter madness at the time to me. Now you're actually going to try and say what he did after doesn't mean anything.

So if LA had him as a reclamation project and succeeded you wouldn't look at that as evidence you were right? Seriously?