|
|
Post by jkr on May 28, 2015 6:13:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 28, 2015 6:53:05 GMT -5
Nice find. Sums up about everything we've been saying on this board. I'll add one thing. A winning culture in Hamilton breeds a winning culture in Montreal. If the prospects play in a winning environment, under strong direction, as they develop at that level it only leads to the same thing happening at the NHL level. At the very least, it's a head start. Go back to the Vees. Lots of quality prospects went through Halifax. There were successful teams in Halifax, not just because of the talent. They were strong juniors who became strong AHLers who became strong NHLers.
Lefebvre has been handed a plethora of young, quality, prospects and accomplished nothing with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 28, 2015 8:16:04 GMT -5
Pretty scathing assessment ... odd how several of Lefebvre's players did better in their call up with Montreal than they did in Hamilton ... three straight losing seasons in the AHL ... don't want to see this guy in Montreal in any capacity ...
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 28, 2015 8:19:15 GMT -5
Ducharme! Ducharme! Ducharme!
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 28, 2015 8:23:35 GMT -5
I'll be the lone voice of disagreement here.
Louis Leblanc: Completely stagnated under Lefebvre after a promising rookie year, traded and looks like a bust.
Leblanc, now that he is away from the horrendous shackles of Lefebvre, produces at exactly the same rate as under Lefebvre. Under Lefebvre, 70 games, 13 goals, 15 assists. Away from Lefebvre, 71 games, 14 goals, 15 assists. Leblanc may be a bust, but I think that's because they pulled him out of Harvard too soon. From the ages 18-21 Leblanc played on five different teams, six if you include Team Canada. That's too much for a kid trying to develop. I don't think you can pin this on Lefebvre.
Brendan Gallagher: Barely played under Lefebvre, but produced at a higher rate in both points and shots in the NHL than AHL.
"Barely played" as in "Lefebvre can't take credit" yet earlier in the article Gallagher is listed as one of those "talented players" that Lefebvre wasn't able to coach into the playoffs. Can't have it both ways.
Michael Bournival: Was put on the wing for no discernible reason and struggled, was given very little ice time in spite of clearly being one of the best players on the roster. Made the Canadiens out of camp the following year, but has since fallen out of favour.
I think he was put on the wing because he doesn't really project as an NHL center, and that's where the organization thought he had a future. He just doesn't produce. Also had a severe concussion. Still, you can blame Lefebvre for this one if you want.
Patrick Holland: Was put at center for no discernible reason at the same time Bournival was switched to wing. Struggled mightily, took a big step down in year two, and was traded to Winnipeg.
Patrick Holland? Really? Okay. He was traded to Winnipeg, where he's continued to flounder, despite not having the dastardly Lefebvre holding him back. And for goodness sake, he's a 7th round pick!
Nathan Beaulieu: Dominated the AHL for parts of three seasons while generally looking bored, has been NHL ready for a long time but held back by the organization. Finally seems to have cracked through, but always seems to struggle after spending time in Hamilton and needs to work his way out of it.
I don't think he "struggles after spending time in Hamilton". I think he plays like every other 20-21 year old defenseman who jumps to the NHL. The difference between pace and speed between the two leagues is tremendous, so of course there is an adjustment period. Don't we always say "give him a real chance, for 5-10 games, so he can adjust?" Beaulieu was 21 at the start of last year, and was a regular on a fairly deep blueline in the playoffs. This is clearly a win for Lefebvre.
Jarred Tinordi: Has looked NHL ready in essentially every call up, he just needs seasoning at NHL speed, but there has been no discernible improvement from Tinordi in three years. If anything, his game is slowly getting worse as he's encouraged to play more physical, and fight more, leading to injuries.
Tinordi has not "looked NHL ready in essentially every call up" in my opinion. In fact, we've talked a lot about his confidence and self-esteem issues. But by the same token we knew he was going to be a project when he was drafted. I think he's close, personally, and that his development curve, while slow, hasn't really been overly stunted. And, if you say he has "looked NHL ready" then bravo Mr. Lefebvre. As for "encouraged…to fight more". Really? Under the "great coaching of the Hunters", 10 fights. In the AHL under Lefebvre, 7, then 6, and then 4 fights.
Greg Pateryn: Stepped seamlessly into the AHL and played three consistent seasons, slowly improving until he seems to have pushed himself into the position of seventh defenseman in the NHL. You could call this a victory for Lefebvre, but it sure looks like natural progression for a 24-year-old.
Is it "natural progression" for a 24 year old, or coaching? Because if it's "natural progression for a 24 year old" then you can't blame Lefebvre for the progressions, or lack thereof, of Beaulieu, Tinordi, Ellis, Dietz, or Bennett. Because none of them have hit 24 yet. So if it's only "natural" that a 24 year old be where Pateryn is now, that is as a regular NHL defenseman", then you can't blame Lefebvre for any of the others, because they are simply following the "natural progression". Tinordi then, should be a regular by the end of next year, and hasn't been stunted by Lefebvre at all. The truth is, Pateryn has been developed just fine.
Morgan Ellis: Consistently impressive to the eye, but struggles to get ice time under Lefebvre, a common healthy scratch, even spent most of last year in the ECHL, before being called up and playing as the #1 defenseman down the stretch, because that makes sense.
"Impressive to the eye" is an interesting choice of words for an analytic freak, but whatever. So let's see, Ellis being called up and playing as the #1 defenseman down the stretch makes no sense? Could it be perhaps, and I'm just spit-balling here, thinking outside of the box, being all crazy and all, could it be that it was because Beaulieu and Pateryn were in the NHL, Nygren was in Sweden (and concussed), Tinordi and Drewiski had both undergone wrist surgery, and Allen had broken his foot? That's six defensemen who were ahead of Ellis on the depth chart who were no longer available to Lefebvre down the stretch. Who was left to play ahead of Ellis down the stretch? Dietz, Bennett, Finley, Makowski, and Shea (Didier and Lernout joined the team only after their junior teams were eliminated). So yeah. Let's consider the context a little bit, okay? It actually made perfect sense.
Sven Andrighetto: Had a solid rookie season, but didn't improve as a sophomore, actually scored less. Was made a healthy scratch by Lefebvre and reportedly butted heads with the coach.
And yet the same crowd thought that he should have stayed in the NHL. So which is it? Was he good enough (and thus developed properly) to be in the NHL, or not? It's a tough conundrum, because if you say he was good enough to be in the NHL and that's it Therrien's fault he is not, then by extension you are saying Lefebvre did his job. But if you say he wasn't good enough to be in the NHL and therefor he has stagnated under Lefebvre, then Therrien was right not to play him and send him down. Tough call if you don't want to give credit to either Lefebvre or Therrien.
Magnus Nygren: Fled to Sweden 16 games into his first season, suffered a major concussion 15 games into his second and missed the rest of the season. Has since signed a new contract in Sweden, likely not factoring into the Canadiens' plans again.
He played great in the brief time he was under Lefebvre, even if he didn't like it. Can't pin this on the coach.
Darren Dietz: Went from a goalscoring machine in junior, notching 24 goals his final season, and 39 his final two, to just four goals in 105 AHL games under Lefebvre.
Dietz was a 5th round pick for a reason. While we all hope he turns into an NHL let's not crucify the AHL coach because a 5th round pick defenseman suddenly finds it difficult to score in the AHL.
Christian Thomas: Looks fantastic in the NHL, but abysmal in the AHL. Thomas' shot rate skyrocketed in his NHL call up, but even after that when he was sent down, he barely factored for the Bulldogs. Another offensive minded player stagnating under Lefebvre.
If Thomas "looks fantastic in the NHL" then Lefebvre has done his job. There is just no way around this argument. Lefebvre's job isn't to get Thomas to produce points in the AHL, it's to get him to "look fantastic in the NHL". So either Lefebvre did his job, or Thomas didn't look fantastic in the NHL (which is what I would say). You can't have it both ways.
Charles Hudon: The great junior scorer was the first prospect in awhile to fully translate his talent to the AHL, coming within a couple points of the AHL rookie scoring lead.
I see nothing wrong here.
Daniel Carr: An older prospect out of the NCAA, Carr led the Bulldogs in goals in an impressive debut.
Nothing wrong here either, but let's not get carried away. Most of these undrafted college free agents rarely turn into anything other than career AHLers. They were undraft for a reason after all.
Jacob de la Rose: The 19-year-old Swede was the shutdown force for the Bulldogs, and graduated quickly to the NHL. Scored at almost the same rate in the NHL as the AHL.
Nothing wrong here either.
Mac Bennett: Had an okay rookie season, but underwhelming for an older prospect. Was a frequent healthy scratch early in the season in favour of veteran face-puncher Joe Finley.
Maybe he's just not that good. He didn't progress in four years under legendary coach Red Berenson either.
The whole argument against Lefebvre boils down to "the team doesn't win, and the power-play sucks." And maybe "Louis Leblanc". But otherwise… De la Rose, Pateryn, Beaulieu and (maybe) Gallagher are all NHL regulars. As is Tokarski, in his own role. Tinordi is on the cusp, and Andrighetto and Thomas "look fantastic in the NHL". I'd debate the last two, but it's not my argument. Those are all "wins" for Lefebvre. Losses would be Leblanc (maybe) and Bournival. The rest, the jury is either still out on (Hudon, Carr, Dietz) or they just aren't that good. I mean, Patrick Holland? Really?
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 28, 2015 9:05:17 GMT -5
Continuing to expand on that, let's look at the ppg of some players who have come to Lefebvre from other organizations. The expectation would be that under Lefebvre their production would completely tail off, right? Because Lefebvre can't coach? Especially offensively?
Christian Thomas:
2012-13, w/Connecticut: 0.48 ppg
2013-14, w/Lefebvre: 0.49 ppg
2014-15, w/Lefebvre: 0.42 ppg
Slight downwards progression, but on the other hand the argument is that he "looks fantastic in the NHL".
Eric Tangradi:
2012-13, w/Scranton: 0.53 ppg
2014-15, w/Lefebvre: .65 ppg
Better with Lefebvre.
Drayson Bowman:
2012-13, w/Charlotte: 0.59 ppg
2014-15, w/Lefebvre: 0.53 ppg
Slightly down.
Gabriel Dumont (didn't come from another organization, but fun anyways):
2010-11: 0.28 ppg
2011-12: 0.41 ppg
2012-13: 0.56 ppg
2013-14: 0.49 ppg (damn you Lefebvre!)
2014-15: 0.68 ppg
Getting better all the time.
I want Hamilton to win as much as the next guy, but I want Montreal to win more. And so far it seems like the players who come up from Hamilton seem to do all right once they join the big club. As I keep saying, you can't have it both ways; you can't say Therrien is ruining the callups because he's not playing them even though they "look fantastic in the NHL" or "NHL ready" and then turn around and say Lefebvre is not doing his job developing prospects. If they are ready for the NHL and the only reason they aren't regulars is because of Therrien, then Lefebvre is a good coach. If they AREN'T ready for the NHL because Lefebvre is a bad coach, then you can't blame Therrien for not playing these kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 28, 2015 10:40:52 GMT -5
This is fun!
16 players were listed in that article:
* Four are NHL regulars (Beaulieu, Pateryn, De la Rose and Gallagher) and two are "NHL ready" or "look fantastic in the NHL" (Tinordi, Thomas). So six of the 16 players (37.5%) have been developed into legitimate NHL players, according to the article's own words.
* One player probably would have been called up, but had off-ice issues (Nygren) and injury problems.
* One player, according to that site "should be in the NHL" (Andrighetto).
* Two players, according to the article, were impressive or living up to their offensive billing in their rookie AHL seasons (Hudon, Carr).
* Two players made the NHL, and then regressed (Leblanc, Bournival).
* The four remaining players (Bennett, Dietz, Ellis, Holland) are either still developing, or were low-ish picks to begin with.
So under Lefebvre's terrible watch 37.5% of the players listed in the article are, or should be in the NHL. That number jumps to 50% if you include Nygren and Andrighetto. Two others were rookies in the AHL, and are "impressive" by the article's own admission. We're up to 10 of the 16 players listed in the article who seem to be doing just fine developing into NHL players under Lefebvre. Three other players (Ellis, Dietz and Bennett) are perhaps stagnating, though none was higher than a 3rd round pick, and three others are busts, or about to be busts (Leblanc, Bournival and Holland). And Bournival is debatable.
10 of 16 are doing well (62.5%)
3 of 16 are stagnating (18.75%)
3 of 16 are busts (18.75%)
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 28, 2015 14:01:47 GMT -5
I read that article a few days ago and didn't post it because Habs Eye on the Prize tends to be highly coaching critical. They make me look like a piker. I agree that Lefebvre needs to be replaced, but mostly because he can't seem to win and I place a high mark on developing a winning attitude. The points about player development are questionable. I just wonder if, because of the system, they try to squeeze square pegs into round holes. There's got to be some reason why our scoring is so poor, at both levels, even allowing for the talent level.
There was too much 'opinion', which meandered, and not enough hard facts for me to take the article seriously. Now if he had just concentrated on coaches who have had success at the NHL level and were winners throughout minor pro and juniour, then he'd have a better argument. Lefebvre's CV is littered with lack of success in that regard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on May 28, 2015 15:17:24 GMT -5
Is it me or does the AHL team lack some real prospects? Or has the league changed so much that good prospects make the big team and play on the third lines now instead or seasoning and exceling in the "A"?
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 28, 2015 15:59:14 GMT -5
Is it me or does the AHL team lack some real prospects? Or has the league changed so much that good prospects make the big team and play on the third lines now instead or seasoning and exceling in the "A"? Good point tank. I definitely think that kids are rushed from junior to the NHL. Top junior age prospects just don't spend time seasoning in the A much anymore, especially if they're forwards. Used to be the norm. |
|
|
|
Post by Disp on May 31, 2015 9:07:53 GMT -5
Good job BadC, fun read.
I read that site every once and awhile, his conclusions don't really follow logic. Just spun whichever way his opinion leans, even if it's contradictory, which you've pointed out nicely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disp on May 31, 2015 9:27:58 GMT -5
I think Lefebvre treats the Bulldogs like a school. The emphasis is to teach, rather than win. If you don't listen, slack off, or just don't play the right way you're probably going to have problems, even if, at the ahl level, you can have some success playing that way. They'll send a message to the guy and play an older filler-type who makes the same or worse mistakes, but who is kind of a lost cause anyways. Even if it's a detriment to winning hockey games.
I think there is a method to his madness. I'm sure he talks to the guys and let's them know that's what he's doing.
It's all about developing Nhlers. Which seems to be happening for the most part.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 31, 2015 10:51:08 GMT -5
I too think it's important for a team's NHL coach to develop talent. It's one of the job's accountabilities. If Jon Cooper had achieved what Sylvain Lefebvre is achieving, just think where he could be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disp on May 31, 2015 15:08:29 GMT -5
I too think it's important for a team's NHL coach to develop talent. It's one of the job's accountabilities. If Jon Cooper had achieved what Sylvain Lefebvre is achieving, just think where he could be. Cooper had more talent to work with, but go with that line of thinking if you want. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 31, 2015 15:49:13 GMT -5
I think Lefebvre treats the Bulldogs like a school. The emphasis is to teach, rather than win. If you don't listen, slack off, or just don't play the right way you're probably going to have problems, even if, at the ahl level, you can have some success playing that way. They'll send a message to the guy and play an older filler-type who makes the same or worse mistakes, but who is kind of a lost cause anyways. Even if it's a detriment to winning hockey games. I think there is a method to his madness. I'm sure he talks to the guys and let's them know that's what he's doing. It's all about developing Nhlers. Which seems to be happening for the most part. Yup. Of course, it means a weaker team: you're not just maximizing current assets, you're trying to get them to improve, which means some short-term pain for long-term gain, the downside for Lefebvre being that the long-term gain happens in Montreal, and he has to deal with the pain. I think we all wish we could have a winning AHL team and that the kids develop better when they are on a competitive team and that AHL playoff success would be terrific, but I can't blame Lefebvre alone for no having that. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 31, 2015 20:13:24 GMT -5
I too think it's important for a team's NHL coach to develop talent. It's one of the job's accountabilities. If Jon Cooper had achieved what Sylvain Lefebvre is achieving, just think where he could be. Cooper had more talent to work with, but go with that line of thinking if you want. Well, here's my line of thinking. The previous year, also with the Norfolk Admirals, Cooper was eliminated in the first round. His lineup included Marc Antoine Pouliot, Blair Jones, Johan Harju, Paul Szczechura , James Wright, Matt Fornataro, Mike Angelidis, Troy Milam, Chris Durno, Alex Berry, Mark Barberio, Mike Vernace, Mattias Ritola, Pierre-Cedric Labrie, Mathieu Roy, Stefano Giliati, Radko Gudas, Kevin Quick,Vladimir Mihalik, Marc-Andre Bergeron, Tim Marks, Scott Jackson, Levi Nelson, Cedrick Desjardins and Dustin Tokarski. If you investigate these names, you'll find MA Pouliot was a busted Oilers pick, Mark Barberio is the 8th or 9th dman on the Lightning depth chart, Radko Gudas is a decent defenseman for the Lightning, currently injured, otherwise might be on the 3rd or 4th pairing. Tokarski you know, of course. MA Bergeron was a bone of contention on our board. Great PP guy, and a huge turnover machine at other times. That's the extent of the guys with any NHL experience. The rest are a who's who of Who? My point is that Cooper made the playoffs with those guys. Yeah, he got bounced in round 1. Cripes, it's amazing he didn't finish last with that group. I'm not giving Lefebvre any leeway on his talent. He had enough talent, he didn't use it properly, they lost again. Three at bats, three swings and misses. If you enjoy mediocrity, keep him. |
|
|
|
Post by Disp on May 31, 2015 21:07:45 GMT -5
Losing in the first round, while riding some career minor leaguers, doesn't really seem like a successful season.
I'm not going to go through all the guys on that list, other than the guys you mentioned, not too many familiar names, can we pin their development failure on Cooper?
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 31, 2015 21:12:53 GMT -5
Game, set, Match.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disp on May 31, 2015 21:24:31 GMT -5
Not at all. You're completely missing the point. |
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Jun 1, 2015 7:14:54 GMT -5
I think Lefebvre treats the Bulldogs like a school. The emphasis is to teach, rather than win. If you don't listen, slack off, or just don't play the right way you're probably going to have problems, even if, at the ahl level, you can have some success playing that way. They'll send a message to the guy and play an older filler-type who makes the same or worse mistakes, but who is kind of a lost cause anyways. Even if it's a detriment to winning hockey games. I think there is a method to his madness. I'm sure he talks to the guys and let's them know that's what he's doing. It's all about developing Nhlers. Which seems to be happening for the most part. Yup. Of course, it means a weaker team: you're not just maximizing current assets, you're trying to get them to improve, which means some short-term pain for long-term gain, the downside for Lefebvre being that the long-term gain happens in Montreal, and he has to deal with the pain. I think we all wish we could have a winning AHL team and that the kids develop better when they are on a competitive team and that AHL playoff success would be terrific, but I can't blame Lefebvre alone for no having that. We call them up just when they're getting interesting. It's not like we have a lot of top six nhl types down there either. Our farm system is pretty thin. There will be more success down there when the players get better. I guess if winning at the ahl level was the prime goal, we could push a lot of guys to the echl and load up with career minor leaguer types. But really what would be the point of that? |
|
|
|
Post by Anardil1 on Jun 1, 2015 10:25:14 GMT -5
Yup. Of course, it means a weaker team: you're not just maximizing current assets, you're trying to get them to improve, which means some short-term pain for long-term gain, the downside for Lefebvre being that the long-term gain happens in Montreal, and he has to deal with the pain. I think we all wish we could have a winning AHL team and that the kids develop better when they are on a competitive team and that AHL playoff success would be terrific, but I can't blame Lefebvre alone for no having that. We call them up just when they're getting interesting. It's not like we have a lot of top six nhl types down there either. Our farm system is pretty thin. There will be more success down there when the players get better. I guess if winning at the ahl level was the prime goal, we could push a lot of guys to the echl and load up with career minor leaguer types. But really what would be the point of that? I am not a fan of Lefebvre's current body of work, however, I aslo think that this article twists facts around to fit the writer's agenda. I think that everyone is missing another important point about the purpose of the AHL. It is also a developmental league for coaches. I ask this one simple question. How would you feel if Lefebvre was named as Therrien's replacement? |
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Jun 1, 2015 18:26:54 GMT -5
Who knows? Maybe he'd be great. It would be a different kind of role, impossible to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 2, 2015 6:44:26 GMT -5
Cooper had more talent to work with, but go with that line of thinking if you want. Well, here's my line of thinking. The previous year, also with the Norfolk Admirals, Cooper was eliminated in the first round. His lineup included Marc Antoine Pouliot, Blair Jones, Johan Harju, Paul Szczechura , James Wright, Matt Fornataro, Mike Angelidis, Troy Milam, Chris Durno, Alex Berry, Mark Barberio, Mike Vernace, Mattias Ritola, Pierre-Cedric Labrie, Mathieu Roy, Stefano Giliati, Radko Gudas, Kevin Quick,Vladimir Mihalik, Marc-Andre Bergeron, Tim Marks, Scott Jackson, Levi Nelson, Cedrick Desjardins and Dustin Tokarski. If you investigate these names, you'll find MA Pouliot was a busted Oilers pick, Mark Barberio is the 8th or 9th dman on the Lightning depth chart, Radko Gudas is a decent defenseman for the Lightning, currently injured, otherwise might be on the 3rd or 4th pairing. Tokarski you know, of course. MA Bergeron was a bone of contention on our board. Great PP guy, and a huge turnover machine at other times. That's the extent of the guys with any NHL experience. The rest are a who's who of Who? My point is that Cooper made the playoffs with those guys. Yeah, he got bounced in round 1. Cripes, it's amazing he didn't finish last with that group. I'm not giving Lefebvre any leeway on his talent. He had enough talent, he didn't use it properly, they lost again. Three at bats, three swings and misses. If you enjoy mediocrity, keep him. FYI on Gudas - traded to Philly - part of the Coburn deal. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 2, 2015 8:00:11 GMT -5
From The Hamilton Spectator. January 15, 2015. In the three years prior to his taking over as GM of the Habs, the Dogs were the fourth-most-successful franchise in the AHL by points, and went to Game 7 of the Calder Cup semifinal twice. In the two-and-a-half years since, Hamilton has the worst record in the league and hasn't played a single post-season game.Besides, Lefebvre has been told he has to run the same system as Habs' coach Michel Therrien to build organizational continuity. Even though the guys here aren't as good as the players in Montreal, and may not be able to execute it perfectly, they have to be familiar with it if they get called up.
"Maybe Sylvain has other ideas how to (coach), but he doesn't have much of a choice," Bergevin says.====================================================== In response to Anardil1's question of Lefebvre someday replacing Therrien….the answer would logically be 'No'. He's using the same system as Therrien, forcibly so, to provide unity in the system. If Therrien is ever to be fired, it would be because his system is lost on the players. Why would you bring in the guy who's used the same system on the farm? Or is Lefebvre supposed to change philosophies quickly? I could care less about the farm team winning the Calder Cup…..but they should be able to make the playoffs, instead of having the worst overall record in the league since the "system" came to town. Not blaming SL entirely….the talent is thinner….and as Bergevin says in the article, the aim is to give the prospects lots of ice time instead of giving it to older career AHLers who could make the team better, record-wise. Lefebvre doesn't have the luxury of the best goalie in his league to cover the warts. That's the main difference, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 2, 2015 9:48:55 GMT -5
Well, here's my line of thinking. The previous year, also with the Norfolk Admirals, Cooper was eliminated in the first round. His lineup included Marc Antoine Pouliot, Blair Jones, Johan Harju, Paul Szczechura , James Wright, Matt Fornataro, Mike Angelidis, Troy Milam, Chris Durno, Alex Berry, Mark Barberio, Mike Vernace, Mattias Ritola, Pierre-Cedric Labrie, Mathieu Roy, Stefano Giliati, Radko Gudas, Kevin Quick,Vladimir Mihalik, Marc-Andre Bergeron, Tim Marks, Scott Jackson, Levi Nelson, Cedrick Desjardins and Dustin Tokarski. If you investigate these names, you'll find MA Pouliot was a busted Oilers pick, Mark Barberio is the 8th or 9th dman on the Lightning depth chart, Radko Gudas is a decent defenseman for the Lightning, currently injured, otherwise might be on the 3rd or 4th pairing. Tokarski you know, of course. MA Bergeron was a bone of contention on our board. Great PP guy, and a huge turnover machine at other times. That's the extent of the guys with any NHL experience. The rest are a who's who of Who? My point is that Cooper made the playoffs with those guys. Yeah, he got bounced in round 1. Cripes, it's amazing he didn't finish last with that group. I'm not giving Lefebvre any leeway on his talent. He had enough talent, he didn't use it properly, they lost again. Three at bats, three swings and misses. If you enjoy mediocrity, keep him. FYI on Gudas - traded to Philly - part of the Coburn deal. Thanks, missed that. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 2, 2015 9:56:59 GMT -5
From The Hamilton Spectator. January 15, 2015. In the three years prior to his taking over as GM of the Habs, the Dogs were the fourth-most-successful franchise in the AHL by points, and went to Game 7 of the Calder Cup semifinal twice. In the two-and-a-half years since, Hamilton has the worst record in the league and hasn't played a single post-season game.Besides, Lefebvre has been told he has to run the same system as Habs' coach Michel Therrien to build organizational continuity. Even though the guys here aren't as good as the players in Montreal, and may not be able to execute it perfectly, they have to be familiar with it if they get called up.
"Maybe Sylvain has other ideas how to (coach), but he doesn't have much of a choice," Bergevin says.====================================================== In response to Anardil1's question of Lefebvre someday replacing Therrien….the answer would logically be 'No'. He's using the same system as Therrien, forcibly so, to provide unity in the system. If Therrien is ever to be fired, it would be because his system is lost on the players. Why would you bring in the guy who's used the same system on the farm? Or is Lefebvre supposed to change philosophies quickly? I could care less about the farm team winning the Calder Cup…..but they should be able to make the playoffs, instead of having the worst overall record in the league since the "system" came to town. Not blaming SL entirely….the talent is thinner….and as Bergevin says in the article, the aim is to give the prospects lots of ice time instead of giving it to older career AHLers who could make the team better, record-wise. Lefebvre doesn't have the luxury of the best goalie in his league to cover the warts. That's the main difference, IMO. Perhaps he's being forced to use a system he's not sold on. That could be a contributing factor. I've read some criticism, strangely enough, of him overusing Joe Finley and Bobby Shea instead of playing Morgan Ellis on D, for example. That came from the Hamilton Spectator, not Habs Eye on the Prize, so it may be more objective. I say strangely enough, because Finley is one of those career minor leaguers who should be helping the team win. He isn't very good and is mostly an enforcer. So that goes against the 'development' tag. I saw Finley in some pre-season games with the Habs and can concur he's not a good player. Anyway, this appears to be another of those situations with the Habs where 'time will tell'. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 2, 2015 10:09:41 GMT -5
Trying to follow the thread the best I can ... what I'm reading is that, the Bulldogs have been a losing franchise since Sylvain Lefebvre took over ... I'm also reading that this is because Lefebvre is more concerned about developing NHL-ready players than he is about winning ... it's the first time I've heard of that and, honestly, if I were a fan and I am asked to believe that a losing franchise is the cost of developing NHL-ready players, I wouldn't hesitate at spending my entertainment dollar elsewhere ... hence, I don't know why the Bulldogs are moving, but why would I pay to see a loser ... having said that, they do have talent, at least that's what I've been reading from folks on this website, as well ... however, while that talent in Hamilton allowed a respectable 208 GA, they still only scored 201 times ... while those numbers aren't identical to what the parent club did (GF 221, GA 189), could they be indictative of similar coaching styles ... and if they are indicative of coaching styles then what is different between the two clubs ... why is Montreal winning and why is Hamilton losing ...
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gogie on Jun 2, 2015 10:21:42 GMT -5
Trying to follow the thread the best I can ... what I'm reading is that, the Bulldogs have been a losing franchise since Sylvain Lefebvre took over ... I'm also reading that this is because Lefebvre is more concerned about developing NHL-ready players than he is about winning ... it's the first time I've heard of that and, honestly, if I were a fan and I am asked to believe that a losing franchise is the cost of developing NHL-ready players, I wouldn't hesitate at spending my entertainment dollar elsewhere ... hence, I don't know why the Bulldogs are moving, but why would I pay to see a loser ... having said that, they do have talent, at least that's what I've been reading from folks on this website, as well ... however, while that talent in Hamilton allowed a respectable 208 GA, they still only scored 201 times ... while those numbers aren't identical to what the parent club did (GF 221, GA 189), could they be indictative of similar coaching styles ... and if they are indicative of coaching styles then what is different between the two clubs ... why is Montreal winning and why is Hamilton losing ... Cheers. Just a thought, but maybe other NHL teams are more interested in developing players in the AHL than "systems". And maybe the "players" win more than "systems" at that level. |
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 2, 2015 10:25:40 GMT -5
Trying to follow the thread the best I can ... what I'm reading is that, the Bulldogs have been a losing franchise since Sylvain Lefebvre took over ... I'm also reading that this is because Lefebvre is more concerned about developing NHL-ready players than he is about winning ... it's the first time I've heard of that and, honestly, if I were a fan and I am asked to believe that a losing franchise is the cost of developing NHL-ready players, I wouldn't hesitate at spending my entertainment dollar elsewhere ... hence, I don't know why the Bulldogs are moving, but why would I pay to see a loser ... having said that, they do have talent, at least that's what I've been reading from folks on this website, as well ... however, while that talent in Hamilton allowed a respectable 208 GA, they still only scored 201 times ... while those numbers aren't identical to what the parent club did (GF 221, GA 189), could they be indictative of similar coaching styles ... and if they are indicative of coaching styles then what is different between the two clubs ... why is Montreal winning and why is Hamilton losing ... Cheers. Max Pacioretty. Hamilton does not have a 30+ goal scorer. I'm not even looking at Carey compared to Condon. |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jun 2, 2015 10:41:54 GMT -5
Under Lefebvre, they have not even come close to making the playoffs (although this year it looked possible for a while, but they had dug too deep a hole at the end).
With their anemic offense and terrible PP, they are mimicking the Habs far too much. While some players are developing and making it when they transition to the Habs, how much of that is on the player rather than the coaching environment that they were receiving in Hamilton? Although the Dogs never had a Carey Price caliber goalie, both Tokarski and Condon had numbers that were very good, even moreso considering how bad the team's records were.
Bergevin did add some AHL veteran presence during Lefebvre's three years in Hamilton, but none of them seemed to pan out quite as expected. TJ Hensick and Drayson Bowman should have been a great addition to the team last year that helped the offense win enough games, but they both stuttered at times. That has been the trend with the vets in Hamilton under this current regime.
There are two forwards heading St. John's way this fall that represent the best of our forward prospects: Scherbak and McCarron. My hope is that they continue to develop and don't take any steps back. They both have developed in good two-way systems (with Kevin Constantine and DJ Smith who both preach solid defensive awareness in their games), so they will be schooled in that style of game. And then there is Jarred Tinordi, who seems to struggle with confidence for stretches and I am sure the "make or break" feeling that must be creeping in cannot be helping him get over that confidence hump. That is where good development coaching comes in...or not.
The move to Newfoundland represents a fresh start...but not behind the bench.
There is a lot at stake now between Scherbak, McCarron and Tinordi.
|
|
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/6F6VF25GCFF2HFJCOITRJSGNPE.jpg)
