What do you expect? Every kid should start top 6 and top 4? So Suzuki looked great as the season progressed...but it's despite Julien and not because of him? Geez man, this is tough to follow. So Mete was rushed..but Suzuki was held down? What the heck is a good usage of a kid? When are they rushed and when are they not? I don't get this man. Isn't given kids 4th line duties by slowly getting them in a lineup not rushing them? Isn't it the good way? Would you prefer top 1st line right of the bat...but then if they would do badly, we would be able to say how rushed they were?
Evans vs Suzuki? Well maybe age? Evans more pro experience? Evans had been playing 6 years now with men. It was Suzuki 1st year...as talented as he is.
The whole ''rush'' thing is bogus for me. This is an hindsight evaluation. When Leblanc looked great during his 1st year, who in here were saying that his usage sucked and that we had to be careful not to rush him? To send him back down? Who was saying that for Galchy? Everybody loved it and thought it was the start of something. Just like we're doing with Suzuki and JK. Is JK rushed? Call it now. 'Cause if not, it will be another hindsight.
No where did I say every player has to be top 6/top 4. This team has proven they struggle to develop skill under the MT/Julien eras. If you have a skilled playmaker, you don't put him with Thompson, if you want to develop his offensive game. It's not Julien's job per say as this stuff should have been done in the AHL if we had a coach that knew what he was doing. But that said you don't put Galchenyuk or Scherbak on the 4th line cause they are wasted there. Guys like DLR, McCarron, etc.. it's fine to put them on the 4th line because that's their upside
The Habs stunk, Pac was injured, Scherbak was on pace for the best U-22 season in the AHL in over 10 years why not try him with Galchenyuk and Gallagher? What would it have hurt, either they click or we get a better draft pick. But not for our dinosaur of a coach, you have to try to win 2-1 with grinders.
Suzuki was coming off over 300 pts in the OHL since his age 17 season and completely dominated the OHL playoffs, likely the best junior league in the world right now. We are talking a high end player here, not saying he's Crosby or McDavid, but why put him on the 4th line when he clearly is looking like he's a 1st line talent already.
Mete was rushed he should have been in the OHL and then the AHL to work on his offensive game. Being rushed is not bogus, it doesn't mean they won't make it, it's saying they weren't ready. Kotka was clearly rushed or else Julien wouldn't have had to shelter him his entire rookie year. Some of us wanted him to stay in Liiga one more year like the Nucks did with Petterson. Fans will quick to tell us how wrong we were until this year in the regular season, then not so much.
For the AHLers the thing to look at is how they play, the weaknesses in their game and how they improve there. Did Beaulieu improve on his weaknesses from start of year to the end, did DLR, McCarron, Leblanc, Tinordi, etc... Look at Brook and Evans, how much they progressed from the start of the year to the end, we'll see if that continues or not but that's what you want to see. Not prospects making the same mistakes then getting called up.
Also I wasn't for Galchenyuk making the team in his first year and I pointed out how fans that were giddy over Kotka after his rookie year need to remember that Galchenyuk was improving every year until Julien and something turned to shit for him which we know there are rumors of off ice so who knows if that is what did it. I seem to recall many didn't want Leblanc called up because we sucked but I believe I was ok with it since he was doing so well in Hamilton. I didn't think he would turn to shit the next season but I also don't get paid to make those calls.
And again...true. There is nothing wrong with that. He should have done more. But he didn't have a lot. Point being....if he needs what everybody else needs, I guess he's not amongst the best. Then, again, if everything you say is true about context, I guess context is needed for Lefebvre also. And while you did say that we have nothing else to look at as far as Lefebvre coaching is concerned, I guess we won't know if he's able to do more with a better team.
So my only and final question about it is that...if it's acceptable to say that 2012-2013 was weak and Timmins couldn't make miracles, why should we have expected for Lefebvre to make something out of Fucale or McCarron? Weak is weak isn't it? For everybody? Yes, Lefebvre should have been able to do more than close to nothing. But I will never be convinced that we missed a top player because of his ineptitude. Fillers? Yes. But Timmins had a good name not because of O'Byrne and Lapierre, but because of Price, McDonagh, Pacioretty and Subban.
who said anything about missing out on a top player? You seem to just add stuff that I don't see anyone saying. Leblanc on was pace for 20 pts as 20 year old rookie in the NHL, Beaulieu showed he could produce in the NHL, McCarron was starting to show he could produce as a 20 year old rookie in the AHL, Tinordi may finally have turned into what many of us thought he would.
Lefebvre mishandled players, I don't care how weak of prospects some were, a good coach should be able to help at least some of these kids improve, instead just about all of them regressed. It blows my mind how anyone can even try to defend what a shit show he was. For 8 years I have been saying how terrible a job he did, it's just flat out insane that I continue to repeat myself over and over and over after having watching almost every game every year. How many people can say they spent that much time watching those games but yet every year for all 8 years they keep telling me how they know better then me.
Surely. But it doesn't give people the right to invent things about Lefebvre. DaChampion was talking about how Lefebvre was not doing things to improve the kids...while I provided him a link to an article that were saying how he was with Scherbak. Video interviews. Even the benefits of healthy snacks and etc. But he was riding the rookies hard and was not accepting half-ass efforts. Maybe too hard on certain kids who couldn't take it. Should, I guess, have been able to adapt to each kid. Seems to me he had one-way for everybody.
As far as Timmins, well you haven't been around...while you were. Timmins being the best was often discussed. Timmins being top 5 was OFTEN discussed. My problem with those analysis is that it's almost impossible to come to that idea for 2 reasons. Most head scouts were replaced during Timmins time in Montreal. So maybe that team or this team had a poorer record...but maybe the head scout that brought most of the bad results from this or that team was replaced and his replacement is doing much better. Then, while it's great to take context into consideration as far as low number of picks, or bad draft years...I will tell you that when it's time to make comparisons...NOBODY will ever look at context for other teams. Surely, The Rangers head scout sucked....though nobody will mention how they never had 1st rounders to work with from 2013 to 2016 inclusively. 2 of those years without even 2nd rounders. Etc.
what do you mean I haven't been around? I've been here just about every day for 20 years. People talked about Timmins being one of the best pre MB era when we had Price, Subban, Pac, etc... I never saw anyone in the past several years after the shit show of '08-'15 call him the best. I just can't figure out where you get some of the stuff you say. Like people just putting all the blame on Lefebvre, or saying Timmins is the best, or that all prospects should be in the top 6/4. None of these are true now and if anyone says that just tell them that it was agreed by us that it's not the case. Maybe finally we can move on from some of these topics.
'Cause the lazy thing to do is to blame Lefebvre. Easiest thing ever. Easy thing to say that Lefebvre couldn't come out with being able to transform every single Timmins picks. Less lazy to say that after reviewing it...he actually had 20% to work with. And that in the end, you might have a case with 4 players out of every draft pick Timmins gave him. Teh day that people started to add the D'Agostni and the Sergei Kostitsyn in the list of great picks by Timmins is the day, I guess we could add Andrighetto in the list of great achievements by Lefebvre.
And again, I don't think your problem with my point of views is that i'M repeating myself....but the fact that you don't agree with me. I mean...do we really have to look at every post of every member including yourself about things that are being repeated? I mean...this is just a hockey forum. And it's a Montreal Canadiens forum. I could talk to you about robotics to be sure that I'm not going to repeat myself but there's actually no point to this....
So if your point is that everybody has a role in how much we sucked? I agree. If your point is to say that maybe with better picks, Lefebvre would have done better....but with a greater AHL coach, Timmins would have looked better, I agree. So if my entire stance isn't directed at you...well it's not.
I know one thing. This team sucks. For 25 years now. And the 1 and ONLY guy who is still here since Timmins came on board is....Timmins. At one point, when are you held accountable for lack of results....
no no no no no. First off again, where the f*** do you come up with this stuff? Where do you see ANYONE saying that Lefebvre couldn't come out with being able to transform every single Timmins picks? Where did you get that, cause NO ONE would ever say that an AHL coach needs to hit on EVERY prospect. That's insane. You just keep putting extremes that no one is saying or I need new glasses cause I just don't see it.
2nd, f*** no, I don't care about what's easy, I call it how I see it. Again do you have any idea how much f***ing time and money I spent to watch just about every AHL game. Why do you think I railed against Lefebvre so much for long that I had someone stalking me. I love our AHL teams, I have been following them very closely since the Citadell days. I called out every thing I saw from every AHL coach including my 2 favorites in Boucher and Bouchard. It has nothing to do with easy, cause it's what i saw.
3rd again I don't recall ever seeing anyone saying D'Agostini or Sergei Kostitsyn were GREAT picks. Where they solid picks, for sure, ask any NHL scout if they would be more then happy if 2 picks at 190th OA or later combine for almost 700 NHL games and almost 200 points. I bet most if not all would say very happy. So what does that make them, great picks no, good picks to me yes, to most NHL scouts I bet the answer would be yes.
4th I don't care about your stance or your opinions or any other posters on Lefebvre unless they watched the same amount of games over the years that I did. I know what I saw, I was right about him. I don't get personal, my point is how many years after he's gone do we need to talk about to what degree Lefebvre was shitty. It's 3 years now that he's gone, nothing we say will change what happened, you and I and some others have been talking about him for going on 9 years. You don't get tired of typing all this shit out, trying to remember what he did to each prospect over 6 years and how it impacted them? What's the point of it? He's gone, it's long over, it's not and never was all his fault and no one i have seen say it was and if they do we can just tell them they are wrong.
