Trevor Timmins Discussion Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.

Whitesnake

If you rebuild, they will come.
Jan 5, 2003
89,205
36,197
I try and do full-spectrum evaluation of people rather than only seeing the results that are beyond their control.

There's really only one thing that Timmins could have done differently. He could have drafted more Europeans like Lehkonen, and thus bypassed the Lefebvre development issue. It may be fair to blame him for that.

In general the picks were good. Louis Leblanc was the consensus pick at his position, and was an outstanding third line rookie in 2012. He then busted once new management got a hold of him.

Galchenyuk was rated as the top prospect in the entire NHL, was widely lauded for his two-way play and hockey IQ, and was being compared to Hossa and Toews. He had a rookie season on par with those of Tavares and Stamos. He then busted.

The list goes on.

In general, Lefebvre (also Therrien) was an unmitigated disaster. His greatest success story is Gregory Pateryn, and the Habs didn't even realize that he was a decent player. Regardless, it's a terrible result after six years.

Anyway, science gives a way out. If you're right and I'm wrong, then Fleury, Brook, Evans, Poehling, etc will all bust. However, if they do well, then that will vindicate the view that the drafting was fine.

Scouting is a job that are usually beyond their control. Every team of scouts have to give their guys to a Junior coach, to their team own development coordinator, to their AHL coaching team.....to its, Pro coaching team.....Yet, somehow, away from Montreal, eveyrbody is still accountable for their scouting. But in Montreal, we have to do a ful spectrum evaluation of people?

What do you mean by in general the picks were good? For you, the picks are not good ONLY if they are chosen in a position where the consensus didn't tell them to pick that player? And as far as consensus pick....well no. He was the consensus pick because the draft was in Montreal but while he was a 1st rounder....you could have taken somebody else in the 1st round that would have been better. Do the scouts of a team go with consensus? What's the point in having a scouting team if going with the consensus makes it, as you just said, the best pick possible? Galchenyuk? No problem with his pick. Galchenyuk busted? Still having the most points in his draft. And I have NO IDEA why you say that the only way I'm right and you're wrong is if Fleury and Co bust. First, makes on sense to talk about Evans busting. He was a 7th round pick. If he doesn't succeed, he is not busting. He's using the regular path that 7th rounder do. But again, what you are saying makes no sense.

I will repeat this paragraph as it seemed to have been lost in translation and I would really hope that if you have to answer only one thing, it's that one.....Back in the days that Timmins picks were awesome...from 03-07.....when Lefebvre was NOT there, here's what happened:

04-05:
Andrei Kostitsyn played in the farm. Did fine...but was he still the best choice we could have made? Of course not. Development or not.
Cory Urquhart? Wasn't Lefebvre's fault was he? So...bad pick? Bad devleopment?
Max Lapierre? Well could have been a development success....but we are still taking about bottom 6 player
O'Byrne? Well he saw the NHL. But was really dime a dozen....development didn't do nothing for him.
Locke, Stewart?.....Locke was great in the AHL, couldn't pull his weight in the NHL. So you could tell me he was developed so well in the farm and yet...nothing to show for in the NHL. Are we going to remember Corey Locke as a great Timmins pick cause of his AHL success?

05
Nobody is a product of the AHL except....Price. Because of his playoffs success. One of his greatest achievement. But who else? Will people tell me D'Ago and Skost were well develop players? For such a small NHL career? So are you counting both guys as great picks? Did Aubin developed well?

06
How about Carle and Maxwell? Were they f***ed up by Lefebvre? Of course not....so great picks? Or bad development?

07
So how about that superb year? Well 3 guys here are always talked about....McDo, Patch and Subban. Well McDo saw 38 games of farm, Patch saw the farm for 70ish games so yeah, his game might have been a product of the farm and same with Subban. But probably moreso Subban 'cause if I use the way you are seeing things, Pacioreetty was a consensus 1st rounder, but Subban wasn't a consensus 2nd rounder. But Fortier never developed. Yanick Weber was also probably a dev. project..but we are talking about bottom 6. But that year is probably the best draft/development year of our recent history.
 

Whitesnake

If you rebuild, they will come.
Jan 5, 2003
89,205
36,197
Scouting is a job that are usually beyond their control. Every team of scouts have to give their guys to a Junior coach, to their team own development coordinator, to their AHL coaching team.....to its, Pro coaching team.....Yet, somehow, away from Montreal, eveyrbody is still accountable for their scouting. But in Montreal, we have to do a ful spectrum evaluation of people?

What do you mean by in general the picks were good? For you, the picks are not good ONLY if they are chosen in a position where the consensus didn't tell them to pick that player? And as far as consensus pick....well no. He was the consensus pick because the draft was in Montreal but while he was a 1st rounder....you could have taken somebody else in the 1st round that would have been better. Do the scouts of a team go with consensus? What's the point in having a scouting team if going with the consensus makes it, as you just said, the best pick possible? Galchenyuk? No problem with his pick. Galchenyuk busted? Still having the most points in his draft. And I have NO IDEA why you say that the only way I'm right and you're wrong is if Fleury and Co bust. First, makes on sense to talk about Evans busting. He was a 7th round pick. If he doesn't succeed, he is not busting. He's using the regular path that 7th rounder do. But again, what you are saying makes no sense.

I will repeat this paragraph as it seemed to have been lost in translation and I would really hope that if you have to answer only one thing, it's that one.....Back in the days that Timmins picks were awesome...from 03-07.....when Lefebvre was NOT there, here's what happened:

04-05:
Andrei Kostitsyn played in the farm. Did fine...but was he still the best choice we could have made? Of course not. Development or not.
Cory Urquhart? Wasn't Lefebvre's fault was he? So...bad pick? Bad devleopment?
Max Lapierre? Well could have been a development success....but we are still taking about bottom 6 player
O'Byrne? Well he saw the NHL. But was really dime a dozen....development didn't do nothing for him.
Locke, Stewart?.....Locke was great in the AHL, couldn't pull his weight in the NHL. So you could tell me he was developed so well in the farm and yet...nothing to show for in the NHL. Are we going to remember Corey Locke as a great Timmins pick cause of his AHL success?

05
Nobody is a product of the AHL except....Price. Because of his playoffs success. One of his greatest achievement. But who else? Will people tell me D'Ago and Skost were well develop players? For such a small NHL career? So are you counting both guys as great picks? Did Aubin developed well?

06
How about Carle and Maxwell? Were they ****ed up by Lefebvre? Of course not....so great picks? Or bad development?

07
So how about that superb year? Well 3 guys here are always talked about....McDo, Patch and Subban. Well McDo saw 38 games of farm, Patch saw the farm for 70ish games so yeah, his game might have been a product of the farm and same with Subban. But probably moreso Subban 'cause if I use the way you are seeing things, Pacioreetty was a consensus 1st rounder, but Subban wasn't a consensus 2nd rounder. But Fortier never developed. Yanick Weber was also probably a dev. project..but we are talking about bottom 6. But that year is probably the best draft/development year of our recent history.

In the end, no matter if Lefebvre was or wasn't there, there were bad picks and good picks, bad development with or without Lefebvre. There's just no way that if Fleury makes it, it means it was all on Lefebvre.

By the way, even if it was, let's pretend that you are right, that it TOTALLY proves it.....well Lefebvre's isn't the problem. Bergevin is. He is the one who kept Lefebvre for so long when we were asking him 3 years ago to fire him. And he's, Bergevin, the one who said at one point, that winning was not important in the AHL, developing was. What a joke of a statement.
 

Whitesnake

If you rebuild, they will come.
Jan 5, 2003
89,205
36,197
Seriously? What were these player’s stats AFTER their first year in the OHL? When drafted? Maybe, just maybe their development increased in the OHL while not having a head coach in the AHL telling them, something to the effect, of being nothing more than a 3rd liner. LMFAO! Lefbreve single handledly set our organization behind another decade.

Since when are the years post draft of any junior player an indication that if good, it means it will translate in the NHL? If true, you wouldn't have enough of 70 teams to fill all those top 6 players.....

Besides, Tinordi's stats were always bad. In the USHL they were bad. In juniors they were bad. Geez, his best offensive season based on opposition was probalby his 1st in the AHL....Tinordi was never chosen to be good offensively. He was solely picked to be tough and play a shutdown role. But when you already settle with that from the day you are drafted, chances are that if you can't get to the absolutely ceiling, it's not too hard to be much worst than what he was chosen for.....

McCareron was fine year 2 and 3...yet, he was so much bigger than the other ones.....So many examples of guys just scoring on being taller and bigger than everyone else. But the guy NEVER had any kind of balance and never was able to figure that part out. WAs it Lefebvre's problem? That the guy never was able to fix his leg and lower body strength. And that in the end, just plateaued like big guys are doing? Remember Hugh Jessiman?

DLR never showed a real offensive instincts to translate in the bigs. It was clear that the Offensive IQ was not there. But another one who benefited from being big but also skating pretty well. At one point, it should have been enough to make a 3rd or 4th line C out of him. Thing is....even a 3rd line C has to have some kind of offensive game. So 4th line C? Sure. No problem with that even today. He was build with what he had. And he could do the job.
 
Last edited:

Whitesnake

If you rebuild, they will come.
Jan 5, 2003
89,205
36,197
You have a good argument on those three, though even they were mismanaged. Meanwhile, Leblanc, Beaulieu, Galchenyuk, Scherbak, had much better tools, and still failed.

Tinordi, De La Rose, and McCarron all looked to be at their best in their first seasons with the Habs organization.

With a player 1st season comes the low expectations. That's the highest ceilings that some can achieve. Then, comes the expectations after a good 1st year...and comes the challenge from other players. A lot of players can't sustain that. And those guys didn't. To Timmins small defense...2013 will never be remembered as a great draft. There were still bettter things to do....but he didn't have a whole lot to choose from. So in a sea of weak prospects....why is it that both McCarron and DLR were surely bad development when almost nobody else did succeed in that draft?
 

Whitesnake

If you rebuild, they will come.
Jan 5, 2003
89,205
36,197
Just wondering......does anybody have enough of 1 season to transform a guy into a development success? Or do you still need a guy to be a great draft pick to do so? Isn't the easiest way to call a development a success story is by taking a kid that was picked in later rounds and have him play 2 or 3 years for you before he becomes a NHL'er? Isn't what a development success story is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bsl

Whitesnake

If you rebuild, they will come.
Jan 5, 2003
89,205
36,197
Cale Fleury RIGHT NOW looked good. He only has 12 games played in the AHL. As much as I love Bouchard....people will tell me that the 12 games we've seen Fleury play is in direct relation to Bouchard's input? Already? Or does Bouchadr have the luxury to work with a very good draft pick?
 

bsl

Registered User
Oct 9, 2009
10,069
3,272
Gallagher, Juulsen, Mete, Brook, Galchenyuk, Sergachev, Lehkonen, Kotkaniemi, Lindgren, DLR.

Dick-all.

Its also convenient to leave out his best hits.

How is Timmins developing?


I dont know. Theres a few problems, too, as draftint 10th overall is a great opportunity, but it is usually wide open.


Leblanc and Tinordi were good picks. Ive followed both players career until their demise, they were both future NHL player until they started to get tossed around by Therrien.

Beaulieu was a nice shot at a good D, but he was not properly developped either and had a severe case of a lack of IQ.

Scherbak had no problems of attitude, but he was badly managed. Sly had him playing center while coming back from injury. On the topic of injuries, Scherback clearly was derailed by injuries. Should Timmins have foresight?
My god the excuses just keep on coming. And they're all lame as hell.

Leblanc and Tinordi were shit picks. Like shit picks for all teams. That's all. Tinordi was dumb and you could knock Leblanc over with a feather. These traits were likely evident by the draft already. And Timmins traded up for for Tinordi. FFS.

And before you say Timmins HAD to draft Leblanc in Montreal, that's crap. It just makes him worse for having no spine if he did not like the pick. 10 years on the job with a hugely wealthy and prestigious organisation. you should be able to assert your opinion, or don't be head scout. It's not romper room. There are other dead serious professionals who will gladly take your job. That excuse tor Timmins is probably the lamest thing I have ever read on these boards.

You said it your self. Beaulieu has a severe lack of IQ. How was that hidden when scouts watched or talked to him? Oh, and there are such thing as pre draft interviews you know. Did you know that by the way? How the f*** is than not on Timmins? Timmins evidently failed to notice low IQ on ice and off with Fischer and Bealieu. Makes me wonder about Timmins IQ actually.

Scherbak has had chance after chance at camps. Never picked it up. Badly managed my ass. Better to say he's injury prone. At least that has some validity.

All first round busts. That is Timmins.
 
Last edited:

BehindTheTimes

Registered User
Jun 24, 2018
7,064
9,291
The poor development schtick is getting old, not one of these "poorly developed kids" was ever on a path to NHL success. They were picks that didn't work out because we were always picking in the 20"s and the number of players projected to go in that range who actually make the NHL are slim. tinordi, leblanc, dlr, mccarron were never good prospects. I think scherby has talent, but whether he can ever harness that into a NHL career is anyone's guess. I don't think the team did anything to harm him though. He was always a talented player that was sort of boom or bust. He might still make it, I think we mismanaged the roster when it comes to DLR, Scherbak and I would sooner have them than Peca, Chaput or that awful Deslaurier, but I don't think they'll amount to much with their new clubs either.
 

bsl

Registered User
Oct 9, 2009
10,069
3,272
I wouldn't put Timmins in the best category, but I wouldn't put him in the worst either. Like most Head Scouts (or Directors of Amateur Scouting) he's had his hits and misses. Now, was he influenced by his GM's for some of those questionable picks? Maybe. Nobody knows. The picks between 2008-2014 probably set this team back a few years. I wouldn't necessarily blame him for the 2nd-7th round picks as those are always somewhat of a gamble, and he has found a few late round players, but his late first round picks were average (even below average) at best. To be one of the best, you have to find NHLers (with talent) even in the 20's with more consistency.

The last few year have been better (since 2015) but I guess we'll see the results in a few years.
As WS said, Habs have to have a great head scout and staff. Its not a bonus. Its an absolute necessity for this team..

Firstly, as WS wrote, it's tough to get UFAs here. Drafting is very important because of this. Especially as if Habs draft well, UFAs will start to take more interest. I suspect in fact that Habs would be a huge draw for UFAs if they truly became a contender, with great drafting and better management. What better place to win a Cup?

I would add that Habs also have huge resources to throw at their head scout and staff. Only the Leafs could pay more. And do. Why settle for OK? Why have a past sell date head scout? Pay for the very best. A lot has changed in scouting the last ten years I would bet. Timmins does not seem to have kept up evidently.

And finally, there's this 'we don't rebuild' idiotic attitude in 2018 with 30 other NHL teams to compete against, and a draft system that evidently and over many years has rewarded rebuilding hugely. And you must have a great draft team during a rebuild. It is not just about getting the number one overall. You need to amass picks in all rounds during a true rebuild and kill it with as many picks as possible. I would hate for Timmins to be the head scout during a serious Habs rebuild. It would likely be a disaster based on his record.

For these reasons I just cannot understand some people here accepting mediocre to bad drafting. Mediocre and bad drafting is simply unacceptable for Habs.
 
Last edited:

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
87,764
53,495
Citizen of the world
Cale Fleury RIGHT NOW looked good. He only has 12 games played in the AHL. As much as I love Bouchard....people will tell me that the 12 games we've seen Fleury play is in direct relation to Bouchard's input? Already? Or does Bouchadr have the luxury to work with a very good draft pick?
Either way it benefits Timmins, doesn't it ?
 

bsl

Registered User
Oct 9, 2009
10,069
3,272
Imagine being in 2009 and posters fervently defending Houles scouting team based on the '98 draft that got Markov, Beauchemin, Ryder and Ribeiro.
Zing! And Zang! Pro ping pong players.
 

Whitesnake

If you rebuild, they will come.
Jan 5, 2003
89,205
36,197
Either way it benefits Timmins, doesn't it ?

Well as of now, it does. Just like at the time of the draft, I said that the Fleury and the Brook picks were great. So I still believe it. Point is he is talking about development as if Timmins started to look bad exclusively because of Lefebvre. Timmins had great picks before and after. Timmins had bad picks before and after.
 

bsl

Registered User
Oct 9, 2009
10,069
3,272
Yes, you are hard headed. I said according to my own prediction that he is and will be a 1st round hit. Not saying he will have as much value as Pastnerak or McAvoy but I do think Poehling will be a middle 2 center.

You don't have to agree. And I'm wondering what your point is? That he is not a guaranteed 1st round hit? Well duh, he is still playing NCAA and a developing prospect. Try telling us something we don't know.

What's your prediction for Poehling? Bust, middle 2C, or 4th line center? Are you too afraid to make a prediction?

LMFOA. Know nothing amateurs, like all of us, defending Timmins with predictions. I don't depend on predictions because I'm not a pro scout. I depend on evidence from the past. This just gets better and better.

Understood but what's your problem with a future prediction? Is it not allowed according to your standards?

Very curious why you assumed my opinion was a guarantee? I question your motives
Ah the old Ad Hominem. Saw that coming.

No. I've seen him play. Both NCAA games and the world juniors last year. I also saw him play in the rookie camp.

What's your opinion of Poehling? Middle 2C, Bust, or 4th line player? Or is your focus at a belittle attempt like the famous ECWHSWI?

No matter how you spin it, Poehling is a 1st round hit at this stage. Can he bust? Will he bust? Well, I guess you guys seem to think so? Is that the narrative you are presenting? So in this case, he can't be considered a 1st round hit? I think Poehling is a grade A prospect and he is developing very well in his draft +1 and 2 years.

2C or 3C. Quote me later if he busts like you say he can.
OK. You win! For what it is worth, and based on very limited knowledge except some youtube clips and the opinions of some other more knowledgeable posters, I predict he will be a good big 3C that struggles to score goals. Not bad for a first round pick, not exactly a home run either.

More importantly, so what. You are arguing one case with predictions while we discuss Timmin's overall body of work the last 15 years.

It's not his fault that Lefebvre was hired for six years.

You can watch the changes in the next two years. All of a sudden guys like Fleury, Poehling, abd Evans will stop busting.
Respectfully disagree. And worse, that will become the go to excuse for Timmins if he stays.

And, what evidence do you have that the new coaching in AHL will in fact be any better? This is a meme around here and I don't buy it.

And I don't really think coaching is that important anyway. Bt the time players are pros, they can run their own teams. Coaches often do more harm than good.

It is silly. Promising A level prospects bust all the time. Is he a more valuable asset based on his development over prospects like Scherbak who look like they are on their last chance or a second round guy like Olafsson, yes but that's all. There's no such thing as a hit before they play any games and most scouts would tell you that. They deem a pick "successful" once the player plays 300 games.
Bang on. However with that criteria, Timmins is massively successful given how many bottom 6 line replaceables he's picked that have played 5 years...

Its crazy tthat people dont realize this. How can you not take two seconds and think a bit ? Humanity will always surprise me.
Maybe you should think about that a bit...

The idea that the cream always rises to the top is one of the core myths of our society. It's something that people need to believe.
OK DA you can stop joking now. I see what you're doing.

It is only with hindsight that people hate the bulk of Timmins' picks. For the most part, they were well-liked by both HFBoards fans and the hockey world until they started busting. Many of them were even tracking well for a long time.

I'm consistent in my views. I think that nearly all players need development, and that the Habs are a development nightmare in part due to Bergevin being a dinosaur, which percolates down. I expect things to change now. If they don't, I will re-evaluate.
Bolded is classic DA. That's fine. You are consistent. However I disagree strongly with your view on hindsight, I think that it is a perfectly valid tool when judging past performances or events. And moreover I think that it is a valid tool to more accurately predict future outcomes. This is exactly why I want Timmins gone.

Would you agree that entering the Vietnam war was a mistake by the Americans? Hindsight is a huge factor in making this judgement. Not the only one, but a very important one. Time can reveal truths that were unknown at the time. Especially when at the time there were already valid arguments against entering the war. Just as at this time there are already valid arguments against retaining Timmins, based for the most part on hindsight.

Without hindsight, there would be zero human progress. It is a fundamental part of how we think and cope with life.

I try and do full-spectrum evaluation of people rather than only seeing the results that are beyond their control.

There's really only one thing that Timmins could have done differently. He could have drafted more Europeans like Lehkonen, and thus bypassed the Lefebvre development issue. It may be fair to blame him for that.

In general the picks were good. Louis Leblanc was the consensus pick at his position, and was an outstanding third line rookie in 2012. He then busted once new management got a hold of him.

Galchenyuk was rated as the top prospect in the entire NHL, was widely lauded for his two-way play and hockey IQ, and was being compared to Hossa and Toews. He had a rookie season on par with those of Tavares and Stamos. He then busted.

The list goes on.

In general, Lefebvre (also Therrien) was an unmitigated disaster. His greatest success story is Gregory Pateryn, and the Habs didn't even realize that he was a decent player. Regardless, it's a terrible result after six years.

Anyway, science gives a way out. If you're right and I'm wrong, then Fleury, Brook, Evans, Poehling, etc will all bust. However, if they do well, then that will vindicate the view that the drafting was fine.
You are stating that Leblanc and Galchenyuk picks 'were good' because they were lauded (by whom by the way) at the time and soon after. This is an invalid argument in support of these picks. And it also would have been invalid at that time, just as some posters here and now calling unproven players good picks is invalid.

You just have to be patient and things will happen. Juulsen is at the NHL level ATM, even though you somehow hold the narrative that he sucks.
Wow. Like Rome burning. That's proactive. I think what you need to do is fire MB and Timmin's asses based on overwhelming evidence of incompetence and complacency and rebuild the team with a new and competent, aggressive management. But that's just me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: endo519

Tanknation

Registered User
Feb 24, 2012
3,029
3,347
Bolded is classic DA. That's fine. You are consistent. However I disagree strongly with your view on hindsight, I think that it is a perfectly valid tool when judging past performances or events. And moreover I think that it is a valid tool to more accurately predict future outcomes. This is exactly why I want Timmins gone.

Would you agree that entering the Vietnam war was a mistake by the Americans? Hindsight is a huge factor in making this judgement. Not the only one, but a very important one. Time can reveal truths that were unknown at the time. Especially when at the time there were already valid arguments against entering the war. Just as at this time there are already valid arguments against retaining Timmins, based for the most part on hindsight.

Without hindsight, there would be zero human progress. It is a fundamental part of how we think and cope with life.
Nicely said
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
87,764
53,495
Citizen of the world
Respectfully disagree. And worse, that will become the go to excuse for Timmins if he stays.

And, what evidence do you have that the new coaching in AHL will in fact be any better? This is a meme around here and I don't buy it.

And I don't really think coaching is that important anyway. Bt the time players are pros, they can run their own teams. Coaches often do more harm than good.
The development and drafting has been fine from 03 to 12.. then it took a dip... then it picked back up... why?

Every player magically stopped developping, and they all regressed, for the ones that were already present. How do you explain that? Weird. What happened in 2012?

Now, I know youre going to tell me these players always sucked and yadda-yadda. Its true, none of them excelled and none of them even looked like top 6er, aside from Scherbak and Hudon, but Hudon is limited.

Can we agree that Timmins is adequate from 03 to 07?

Can we agree that 15/16/17/18, do look good, but its too early to 100% say?

So that leaves us with 2008 to 2014.
In that span, Timmins has made 48 picks, out of those, only five picks still have any value in the league. (Gally, Chucky, Evans, DLR and Lekhonen) 10% convert rate.

From 03 to 07, Timmins had 43 picks and converted on 13 of his picks... which translate to abouts 30% (Didnt count Obyrne or White because they suck.)

What happened?

A few things couldve happened here
A) He got lucky in that span, though Id say its too many picks to just "be" lucky.
B) He, along with scouting staff, lost all ability to scout.
C) Development sucked.
D) a certain combination of all those.

B is unlikely, dont you think ?
C, with a combination of A is the likely scenario.

Lets look at that terrible span from 08 to 14 and the players in question.

Picks who had value at one point

Kristo he was talented, a good shot at a top 6er, Ill never blame TT for a pick like that, but he did outright bust.

Leblanc had value, he was really good for Martin as a rookie, posting up 10 points in 42 games and playing great on the board. A good pick? Maybe not. A top 6 player? Not likely. A third liner though? Why not? .71 PPG in the AHL in 11-12 as a rookie and he never even came close to that after. Why? What happened in that career that caused him to bust like that? Why did his GF seem so upset about his development ? Bust, yes, without a doubt. Bad pick by Timmins? Relatively, yes. Outright 100% bust not even capable of being a 4th liner? Come on.

Tinordi? Terrible pick, moved up too. Outright bust? Not too sure. Why did he rot in the standings for so long? Why did they call him up and down every damn game? Not even a 6th Dman?

Magnus Nygren, is 100% a development failure. He had 100% great numbers and chose to leave because of Lefevre, theres just no excuses for that one.

Thrower and Bozon. Both bad potential, both busted on injuries . blame it Timmins bad luck or not.

Sebastiam Collberg is 100% a bust and on TT.

Martin Reway had a stupid illness but was tracking really well. Id say its not really Timmins fault, but yes, he didnt amount to anything.

McCarron had a great D1, D2 and D3 then was jerked all around and never allowed to develop properly.

Scherback was jerked around left and right, played center, has been left to rot in the standings, looked good while in the top 6, looked bad while in the bottom 6 and somehow he never earned it. I don't care if you dont allow me to call him a mismanaged asset, I know he was, but lets call him a bust.

Jake Evans, Fleury and Vejdemo come in and do good right away... when is the last time weve seen this?

Wow. Like Rome burning. That's proactive. I think what you need to do is fire MB and Timmin's asses based on overwhelming evidence of incompetence and complacency and rebuild the team with a new and competent, aggressive management. But that's just me.
I agree about Bergevin. Hes dumb as rocks. Worst Gm this team ever had.

Timmins is not.

But fire him or dont, I dont care much. Things are not going to get better scouting wise, hes been adequate and I dont see a single head scout that is more than adequate. Unless someone can point me towards one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Great Weal

Phil's Pizza
Jan 15, 2015
52,068
64,492
I agree about Bergevin. Hes dumb as rocks. Worst Gm this team ever had.

Timmins is not.

But fire him or dont, I dont care much. Things are not going to get better scouting wise, hes been adequate and I dont see a single head scout that is more than adequate. Unless someone can point me towards one.
Anaheim Ducks
 

Toene

Y'en aura pas de facile
Nov 17, 2014
4,907
4,842
My god the excuses just keep on coming. And they're all lame as hell.

Leblanc and Tinordi were **** picks. Like **** picks for all teams. That's all. Tinordi was dumb and you could knock Leblanc over with a feather. These traits were likely evident by the draft already. And Timmins traded up for for Tinordi. FFS.

And before you say Timmins HAD to draft Leblanc in Montreal, that's crap. It just makes him worse for having no spine if he did not like the pick. 10 years on the job with a hugely wealthy and prestigious organisation. you should be able to assert your opinion, or don't be head scout. It's not romper room. There are other dead serious professionals who will gladly take your job. That excuse tor Timmins is probably the lamest thing I have ever read on these boards.

You said it your self. Beaulieu has a severe lack of IQ. How was that hidden when scouts watched or talked to him? Oh, and there are such thing as pre draft interviews you know. Did you know that by the way? How the **** is than not on Timmins? Timmins evidently failed to notice low IQ on ice and off with Fischer and Bealieu. Makes me wonder about Timmins IQ actually.

Scherbak has had chance after chance at camps. Never picked it up. Badly managed my ass. Better to say he's injury prone. At least that has some validity.

All first round busts. That is Timmins.

Leblanc wasnt less frail than Kotkaniemi is.

I'm not a huge fan of Timmins, I think he's talented albeit a lil' too gambler for my tastes, but I just find it so weird how we often hear on our good-to-high ceiling prospects how they had a problem between the ears and seemed to be confused about their role (Galchenyuk, McCarron, Beaulieu, Sjerbak, Tinordi, De la Rose, Eller). We've had comments about former players how the communications between players and staff/mgmt are sometimes sparse.

I dont know for you people but to me it screams that the youngsters need better guidance. I know they hire a sports psychologist but how about experts in pedagogy. Studying to become a teacher, I understand pretty well how different students react to different attitudes and methods. Same for athletes.

In the case of AG for example, we saw how he reacted well to postive reinforcement (playing more on the top line for example, producing very well in these occasions). But surprisingly they chose to use a short leash with him? I think there's a problem at this level. It's why I cant wait to see the results with Bouchard and the other new coaches.

Maybe stop doing tons of stupid Habs TV videos where they play Jenga while taking a pop music quiz lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mrb1p

WhiskeySeven*

Expect the expected
Jun 17, 2007
25,154
770
It screams to me that the development coaches are dinosaurs and regressive goons like Lapointe and Boullion and the Habs haven't taken prospect development seriously in years and still don't.

Timmins rarely goes off the board, so I don't see the fuss. We need to capture value with our drafts, not lose it constantly, year after year, like clockwork.

Every team is given 5 picks. Every single one of those potential players is talented enough to play in the NHL, make no mistake. It doesn't serve anybody any good to draft someone whose ceiling is anything but a top6/top4 skater. You can pick up bottom6/bottom2 for free across the league. You can pick up veterans with something to prove or good character guys for very cheap. You don't need to draft prospects with suspect skating and low scoring numbers simply because they have a good frame. You don't need to impose upon speedy wingers a 200 ft game before they start to find their feet and the twine at the pro level (but I can see why you should in the most extreme of cases).

Bah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mrb1p

WhiskeySeven*

Expect the expected
Jun 17, 2007
25,154
770
I wish the Habs drafted more Russians. There's a veritable gold mine of talent out there and in the rest of Europe ripe for the taking in the later rounds. Hire some better, smarter, more worldly coaches and execs to manage their development better. It isn't rocket science. I'd rather take a flyer on the next Kucherov or Datsyuk than draft more pseudo-scrubs from North America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cphabs

HabsWhiteKnightLOL

Registered User
Apr 29, 2017
34,191
45,262
Somewhere on earth in a hospital
I wish the Habs drafted more Russians. There's a veritable gold mine of talent out there and in the rest of Europe ripe for the taking in the later rounds. Hire some better, smarter, more worldly coaches and execs to manage their development better. It isn't rocket science. I'd rather take a flyer on the next Kucherov or Datsyuk than draft more pseudo-scrubs from North America.

No seriously f*** russians in 2018
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->