Jump to content

McBeane vs JBott


Gatorman0519

Recommended Posts

On 12/7/2019 at 10:04 PM, Thorny said:

Right, which speaks to the overall development structure. If they aren’t putting guys in the right spot to succeed their development plan is ***** from “go”. 

Wow Bullocks with an “o” is scratched out ? 

That’s if you put any stock in the AHL developing guys that end up being top 4 forwards. 
It’s possible that I may once again have to have neck fusion surgery. If I do, I’m going to spend my rehab going through every teams top four forwards and document how many played more then a half of a year in the AHL.

Anyone want to predict how many? 124 forwards. How many spent more the 40 games in the minors!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tom webster said:

That’s if you put any stock in the AHL developing guys that end up being top 4 forwards. 
It’s possible that I may once again have to have neck fusion surgery. If I do, I’m going to spend my rehab going through every teams top four forwards and document how many played more then a half of a year in the AHL.

Anyone want to predict how many? 124 forwards. How many spent more the 40 games in the minors!

I think the better question is how many top 6 forwards made the NHL full time within 2 years of their draft year.  Between college, Europe, the AHL and overage years in the CHL. modern players have many more development tracks vs the old days.  

Marchand spent 110 games in the minors.  Johnny hockey spent 3 years in college after being drafted. VO spent years in Europe and a season in the AHL before making the NHL.  Yanni Gourde spent years in the AHL and ECHL.  

I think you’ll be surprised at how many routes guys take to the NHL, even top end players. 

The Eichels, McDavids, MacKinnons etc are just better, they just do their development in the NHL.  Look at their stats, most of even the elite, improve as they physically and mentally mature.  Eichel and MacKinnon are great examples of this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tom webster said:

That’s if you put any stock in the AHL developing guys that end up being top 4 forwards. 
It’s possible that I may once again have to have neck fusion surgery. If I do, I’m going to spend my rehab going through every teams top four forwards and document how many played more then a half of a year in the AHL.

Anyone want to predict how many? 124 forwards. How many spent more the 40 games in the minors!

I’d be very interested in the data, but regardless, the argument can still be made they failed Casey from a development standpoint by not putting him in a position to succeed. That is - proper insulation on the roster if he was indeed going to play here, and not thrown to the wolves in a 2C position (or a split with Berglund) that he clearly wasn’t ready for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

I’d be very interested in the data, but regardless, the argument can still be made they failed Casey from a development standpoint by not putting him in a position to succeed. That is - proper insulation on the roster if he was indeed going to play here, and not thrown to the wolves in a 2C position (or a split with Berglund) that he clearly wasn’t ready for. 

No argument here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edmunds was one of the youngest, rawest 1st rounders ever picked and they succeeded with it.

I suspect Mittelstadt may have had a lot of 'I don't mind staying in Minnesota for 4 years unless you sign me right away' behind him, which may have forced the development hand.  It knocked a year off his ELC at minimum.  I don't think he's busted though.  Cozens is following Reinhart's footsteps in WHL development, but with more grit, which lessens Mittelstadt's need to play center.  Playing center I think is a large part of what has held him back all this time, so I think the two are related in that way.

 

 

I really like McBeane and Jbott.  I never liked Whaley.  I understood what Murray was doing, but he took many risks and missed on them all and can't forgive him for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I think the better question is how many top 6 forwards made the NHL full time within 2 years of their draft year.  Between college, Europe, the AHL and overage years in the CHL. modern players have many more development tracks vs the old days.  

Marchand spent 110 games in the minors.  Johnny hockey spent 3 years in college after being drafted. VO spent years in Europe and a season in the AHL before making the NHL.  Yanni Gourde spent years in the AHL and ECHL.  

I think you’ll be surprised at how many routes guys take to the NHL, even top end players. 

The Eichels, McDavids, MacKinnons etc are just better, they just do their development in the NHL.  Look at their stats, most of even the elite, improve as they physically and mentally mature.  Eichel and MacKinnon are great examples of this.

 

The one absolute I will find with every player, they all got older. My contention is that this notion that players need to go through this development process to make them good hockey players is anecdotal. There is no way to prove either side unless you know how to create an alternate universe but I believe that if a player is good enough, both mentally and physically, then it doesn’t matter how he was groomed, he will eventually reach that level.

Of course there are exceptions and players coming over from Europe may need to get acclimated to different rink sizes and such, but my belief is a guy is either good or he’s not and no amount of development will change that.

Edited by tom webster
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, tom webster said:

The one absolute I will find with every player, they all got older. My contention is that this notion that players need to go through this development process to make them good hockey players is anecdotal. There is no way to prove either side unless you know how to create an alternate universe but I believe that if a player is good enough, both mentally and physically, then it doesn’t matter how he was groomed, he will eventually reach that level.

Of course there are exceptions and players coming over from Europe may need to get acclimated to different rink sizes and such, but my belief is a guy is either good or he’s not and no amount of development will change that.

Firmly disagree with this type of fatalistic thought process. There's probably many players that could have made it with better development support who did not just as players who got that development support did make it. 

Let's say Murray brings Olofsson to the AHL in 2016. Let's say that he is just there and doesn't get a ton of development attention and gets called up to the NHL periodically. He gets whatever league minimum dev is. He probably flames out in a year or 2 and goes back to the SHL. Now you reverse that and you got Olofsson of today. I am not saying that works for everyone but development certainly makes a difference and can change a guy from not making it to making it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Firmly disagree with this type of fatalistic thought process. There's probably many players that could have made it with better development support who did not just as players who got that development support did make it. 

Let's say Murray brings Olofsson to the AHL in 2016. Let's say that he is just there and doesn't get a ton of development attention and gets called up to the NHL periodically. He gets whatever league minimum dev is. He probably flames out in a year or 2 and goes back to the SHL. Now you reverse that and you got Olofsson of today. I am not saying that works for everyone but development certainly makes a difference and can change a guy from not making it to making it. 

And I made allowances for European players and of course you have to factor in patience and other contractual concerns. In your example, my belief is he’s the same player. He goes back to Europe, Buffalo loses his rights and if he wants to, he comes back and lights up the NHL. Nothing that happened earlier changes that shot and his drive to become a more complete player doesn’t change. Some guys want it, done just think they do. If they are mentally weak enough to let one guys opinion derail their career, they likely don’t have a career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will add one caveat to the usefulness of the AHL. It allows guys who were always top line players to decide if they love the game enough to become third and fourth liners for a few years. Justin Bailey is a perfect example. If he wanted to he could become a tremendous third and fourth liner for about five years. I don’t think he wants that enough and the AHL will let guys like him figure it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, tom webster said:

And I made allowances for European players and of course you have to factor in patience and other contractual concerns. In your example, my belief is he’s the same player. He goes back to Europe, Buffalo loses his rights and if he wants to, he comes back and lights up the NHL. Nothing that happened earlier changes that shot and his drive to become a more complete player doesn’t change. Some guys want it, done just think they do. If they are mentally weak enough to let one guys opinion derail their career, they likely don’t have a career.

But that's not how everyone is wired or how everyone improves. The idea that development support doesn't matter is flawed imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

But that's not how everyone is wired or how everyone improves. The idea that development support doesn't matter is flawed imo

And you may be right. However, the days of business blindly following the path of “well, that’s the way it’s always been done,” are over. Baseball is already talking about gutting the minors. Organizations want to know what the numbers say is the return on investment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I think you need to substitute “age” for “physical maturity”. Everyone develops physically at different rates but generally men get much physically stronger in their early 20s. 

That said I do believe that coaching and repetition improve skills.  Somethings you can’t teach, but skating, shooting and positioning can all be improved by coaching and repetition.  No one is turning Sam Reinhart into as fast a skater as Jack Eichel, but Sam is a significantly better skater today then when he was drafted.  That isn’t because he is older or more physically developed.  

Development years are the hockey version of school.  While much of hockey is natural talent, learning is part of the process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, 

There were 142 forwards last year that had 40 or more points. That an average of 4.5 forwards per team.  
I’ve looked at 22 of them from 5 different teams and the results are 14 of 22 appeared in the AHL. Of those 14 they averaged 63 AHL games.  Only 4 jumped directly into the NHL, but Bergeron played the lockout year in the AHL. 11 spent one or more years back in the CHL and 11 played in the half a season or more in the AHL.  3 were college kids and 5 were Euros.  On average it took a drafted prospect at least 2 years playing in other leagues before getting a shot to make the NHL.
 

I’ll update this list as I research it more

Edited by GASabresIUFAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...