Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 89,663
- 37,239
Suzuki still had to start on the 4th line to be a better person, wonder how the team does if he's in the top 6 from day 1 like a player with his skill, IQ, confidence and two way game should be imo.
It's funny how he gives Evans the exact situation some of us have called for with other prospects but it's the only time off the top of my head he had a prospect make his NHL debut with 2 top 6 players. So why do that with Evans but no one else, not even Suzuki?
Mete I still don't really know what to make of, he was rushed, now we'll see what the plan is for him.
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.
I don't know how you figure that, no one has said Timmins is exempt from criticism, if they have I haven't seen it. There's a big difference between saying he made mistakes, he's at fault to some degree but let's look at it in the proper context. There is 100% nothing wrong with saying yes he failed but he also had the least amount of picks ANY Hab scout has had since pre 1970. I have always said EVERYONE involved share some blame, I continue to say Timmins has his share of the blame, but I can still point out the how and why's. It does not absolve him of blame, it's just shedding light on things.
So once again, it does NOT mean he's exempt, and I wouldn't call it an excuse since it's not letting him off the hook. He shares blame in this 100%, everyone should agree that he made mistakes. But pointing out that he had very few top 50 picks isn't done to say he's not to blame it's done to say he f***ed up but maybe it wouldn't have been as bad he he had more top 5o picks or when he did have them he was unlucky that '12/'13 were not strong drafts. But even with that said he's still to blame. He had picks, he made them, they most busted. Management, coaching, didn't help these kids which imo made it worse.
There is NO harm whatsoever in pointing out that 2012 draft class is weak. There's nothing wrong with looking at everything and pointing things out that are directly related to the topic. It's crazy to think otherwise.
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.
well if Lefebvre had any track record of success before joining Hamilton we could look at it and say how he had past success but under Timmins it went bad. But since the guy was never a head coach at ANY level before or after we have nothing else to go other then it's telling that one guy got promoted and the other never found another head coaching job.
I don't know where you get this stuff, show me someone that says Timmins is the best in the world.
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.
you don't get tired of repeating the same stuff over and over and over and over? What's the point of it all? Why do you care if people want to blame Lefebvre for sucking at his job, which we all know he did or else he would be a head coach somewhere. Like the time MB held the Hamilton job for him as he waited on NHL offers but of course none came likely because they saw the same crap I saw. Someone that was in over his head without any previous experience at that position and our GM took 6 years to figure out how bad this guy was and was so out of touch with reality and so bad at his job that he was clueless enough to actually believe this guy would have NHL jobs waiting for him.
There's shouldn't be any problem with saying Lefebvre sucked at this job, maybe he's a great assistant coach, and maybe he could be a good head coach some day but he was terrible in Hamilton and that directly impacted the job Timmins and Churla do. Just as MB rushing so many kids to the NHL when they aren't ready has an impact on the job they do.
I just don't see the point of talking for the millionth time that Leblanc or Scherbak or DLR or McCarron or whoever were handled poorly because he did this or that or whatever we have been talking about for the past 8-9 years now. Timmins is to blame he failed, Lebvre is to blame he failed, MB is to blame he failed. The coaching and development is to blame they failed, the players are to blame they failed. Timmins is NOT the best, no one person is to blame. What else is there?
'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....
Last edited: