[Whitesnake]

Originally Posted by SeriousFan09

Beauchemain was good, but come on, Komisarek and Soury built their careers next to Andrei Markov and I love Andrei, but Nieds/Pronger are better than he is so they can raise him better than Markov could. Robidas entered the Team Canada question because of the underwhelming seasons of Bouwmeester and Phaneuf and Green was still ahead of him, he was maybe 10th, 11th in consideration. Maturity didn't hold Ribiero back from being talented, but his on-ice play was always held back by his immaturity on it and frankly, his party boy issues were well-known. Latendresse was the poster child for pouting in 09-10, didn't work hard one game of the season before he was traded. Complained endlessly in the media and self-admitted he hadn't been trying to keep his job. Teams can take our heartless players if this is what they have to offer us. Ribiero has apparently already worn out his welcome in DAL and Latendresse, no proof he's going to stick around at his 'I'm actually going to try' approach in MIN.

All that I was saying is that Beauchemin was good. Never was talking about a future HOF here. Same for Robidas who you were mentioning at one point that he was pretty average, yet understand that at one point he was 11th as far as Canadians are concerned. And for having seen some games, Robidas is more than just average. He has become a pretty good player all-around. We are not going to go back to Ribeiro and Latendresse. As "bad" as Ribeiro was, look at his stats and he wasn't that bad. Yet, he was the worst human being on the planet 'cause of that 1 fake seizure he had (like Bégin who's the worst hockey player ever 'cause of this one penalty he had, funny how it doesn't take a whole lot for the locals to be hated...). As far as Lats is concerned, he had a bad start of the year after showing improvement every single year, after working as hard as ever during the summer but was paired with a even more struggling Lapierre and never got his chance offensively. But that's another story where there are 2 camps there as well. The ones who believed he had his chance without being able to prove it....and the other ones.

Originally Posted by SeriousFan09

I already mentioned post '87, I acknowledge Serge Savard's 80s success but it came to a grinding halt after that year and well, we don't want to talk about the Houle era do we? Yes mistakes were made when we ran to the WHL but honestly, I doubt Savard or Houle could have done any better if they'd selected out of the Q. We might as well gripe we missed on Dennis Savard, Larry Murphy and Paul Coffey in 1980. I guess I was trying to focus in on more about the pathetic last decade of Quebec-born talent coming out more than anything. Also, kinda glad with Gagne's injury history we don't have him.

Drafting was bad all over from the Q to the rest. Not sure we can pinpoint specifically the Q to mention how we were bad at drafting. As far as the Gagné explanation...this is where I draw the line. You can't be serious. Thank god we got Chouinard 'cause he didn't have that injury history...yet he's 502 points behind Gagné. THIS YEAR is the year when you have to be careful about Gagné. You still would have used him really well before and he would have been able to give you a whole lot in return. So you might NOW look at replacing him sooner than you thought, still the years he would have given to you are irreplacable.

Originally Posted by SeriousFan09

It's nice the Quebec-born players made it better than most of the rest, but that is such a dark period of drafting for MTL that what does it matter? Still most of that talent didn't really make a real name for itself in the NHL. Yes they produced more compared to others picked but the team was picking so poorly that it doesn't matter and again, 90s are nice but the last decade is the real problem.

Last decade was a problem all around. Thing is first you are saying that the Q WAS the problem to begin with but then you now reply that it was a problem all around. As bad and terrible most of our 1st rounders were in the 90's, you still have 1998 who you ended up with Ribeiro, Beauchemin, Markov and Ryder. And chances are, all 4 could STILL be part of your team. All 4 are proven NHL'ers that gave us great hockey and are still giving good to great hockey TO THIS DAY. And that's 12 years after being drafted. So only 1 year, out of 10ish terrible ones could still, TO THIS DAY, form 1/4 of your team. Yes, I know, salary cap and all.....well even if we would not have been able to retain them, if we would have traded when their value was at their highest, the return would have been more significant than Niinimaa, nothing and nothing.

Originally Posted by SeriousFan09

Claude Giroux isn't Quebecois for one thing, he was born in Bathurst, Ontario and I know since his name is French, Quebec would like to adopt him as one of their own but he isn't. Same as Ben Pouliot.

Don't worry, I know he's not Québécois. He's still a franco who playing his junior years in Québec, being rejected by all the teams in the OHL. If you know me, you'll know that I like my locals. That I also like my francos but that I also like all the players that played in the Q. Giroux fits 2 out of 3, therefore he's amongst the players I take a closer look to. You can't compare Pouliot to him though. First, to care about Pouliot, he'll have to prove he's worth it. Then, you don't forget he was traded for a popular Québécois. Then, he didn't play his junior years in the Q so the "attachment" to Pouliot is not as much (needless to say some people remember his comment at the draft when he didn't want to be drafted by the Habs, but to me that's irrelevant, he's a Habs now and I hope people are behind him)

Originally Posted by SeriousFan09

11 Americans went in the first 30 picks this year, last time that happened with the Q was when? Danny Kristo is a top prospect for Montreal as is Jarred Tinordi. Max Pacioretty's career isn't done either. Paying better attention to the United States is good business for MTL as their talent is rising well above the Q.

Again, not sure why you are trying to prove that the US has the upper hand. I stated that before. I even agree myself. But there's a freakin difference between knowing this and not even having 1 full-time scout in the Q before this year, a full time scout that is now Serge Boisvert who has more experience than everybody here based on the fact that he played the game....but that's it. I'd personnally even wish that we would have 1 full time for Quebec East, 1 full time for West and Maritimes. So how's that detrimental to the fact that we'll still scout the US? Have 4 or 5 in there if you want, but just don't disregard the Q based on the fact that there's only 20 to 30 guys being drafted every year. 'Cause like I said before...it only takes 1. And the upcoming year will be a good year. And there might be other years after. I'd wish the Habs would be the best scouting and development squad of the league. I wish that since we can't spend 80 M$ on the cap, that this money would served at getting the best guys and develop them the best way possible even if scouting might be an unexact science. We did, in general, are amongst the best scouting squad as far as number of players that played in the NHL. Yet, most of those guys are 3rd and 4th liners that you can now have for 1 M$ in the UFA market. That's not what you want from your drafting. And yes, I did state how it looks much better for the upcoming future. That Timmins and Co analysis can change pretty fast. But as of now, you do not have proof that our US drafting is that much better than our Q drafting. Since 2004, we are talking about 16 guys from the American system, for 8 players from the Q (don't count Leblanc who,s actually....a product of both). And so far, while it's too soon for the years that might shift the balance, the guys that ended up, so far, playing a role in this team are Lapierre and Latendresse. Yes, some might see McDonagh's value as being the greatest 'cause of the return he got us. And then I personnaly based my evaluation of a better use of Latendresse would have permit him to do better than he did even if he had proven except last year a continuous progression in his game. Again, I know Tinordi, Bennett, Kristo, Quailer, MaxPac, can TOTALLY change this evaluation. It's a work in progress, I'm not dumb enough to believe that what I'm seeing now, will be the future as well. So we'll see there. We also don't know what Leblanc, who's kinda hybrid, Dumont, Carle, Ellis and Fortier will end up doing. Clearly the potential is in the US camp. But at this time, we have to talk with what we have in front of us.

Originally Posted by SeriousFan09

There were the Letangs and Giroux here and there, but a ton of Q guys have failed to make the grade as well like Gilbert Brule, Marc Pouliot, Alex Picard and others who simply were no better than people born elsewhere and drafted later. The US makes sense, their talent pool is going up, Q's is stagnant.

My turn...., Brule is not from the Q. Yes, some Q failed and it's more spectacular 'cause the overall quantity isn't there, while there is a lot of fails elsewhere but doesn't show as much 'cause quantity is more there. The US makes sense, never said otherwise. Again, being more present in the Q, doesn't mean more absent in the US. We aren't talking about adding 1 guy there so we'd have to remove 1 guy over there.

Originally Posted by SeriousFan09

Also, I would argue is that Q talent really Quebecois that goes first? Arguably the most talented player out of the Q this season was Kirill Kabanov, the highest drafted was Brandon Gormley, a maritimer. In 2009, the first Q player picked was Dmitri Kulikov and so far Jordan Caron has trouble staying healthy in the Q and Paradis and Depres are far from being locks for NHL players. The top prospect for 2011 is a US born, N.B.-raised Sean Couturier. The lower Q leagues and the Q itself is doing little to actually produce actual French-Canadian, Quebec-born talent. Quebec seems to be producing more top prospects from other countries or provinces than actually Quebec-born. It's a system that has to be fixed from the leagues under the Q I would say.

Yes, there's some work to be done as far as our french-canadian Quebec-born talent. Nobody is every denying it. Not sure how you can have such opinions on guys like Caron and Despres while I personnally share your opinion on Paradis but they are what they are. First-rounders. Why judging them already and not accept that at this point and time, they were judged as 1st-rounder material. And yes, there's a LOT of fixing. By far. The Quebec system cannot SOLELY blame everybody but them by what's going on. Far from it and I totally agree with you.

Originally Posted by SeriousFan09

It does only take one great one, but drafting is also about the numbers and simply, it makes more sense to more extensively scout and study the regions that are producing more talent. If Louis Leblanc becomes a star, I'll do cartwheels but MTL doesn't owe Quebec anything. Take a better look for the Girouxs (Not born in QC anyway) Perrons and Letang's fine but honestly, it's not like they're coming out of the woodwork, they were the rare gems of a bad lot. Max Lapierre is one of top 10 Quebec-born centers in scoring in the last decade!

See, I'll repeat by Slovenia/Kopitar example. And I'll mention the numbers drafts that the Detroit scout was able to get relatively unknown players 'cause nobody was used to draft there. I just wish that with the means that we have, we HAVE to be on top of that game. We can't spend money more to get players, we have to spend it so that the draft becomes our main way to attract people. Yes, we were able to do without and 2 years ago, UFA was our way to get people but guess what.....chances are we wouldn't be able to make that kind of move for the next 5 years....so where do you take your players? Habs needs to be on top of drafting as far as quality is concerned. And it has been proven that while being more difficult, you can have top-6 players, top-4 d-men while drafting at our ranks or after us.

Yes, we are stronger in some position than others. Not sure it matters since I keep hearing how we should always go for the BPA since needs are tough to determine.

Originally Posted by ppil

My last point, and I think that is the biggest problem, it's development… We couldn't bring Latendresse to his potential, we certainly could have done better with Price, and frankly, I convinced that you wouldn't be that happy if we had picked Giroux and Perron, because I'm sure that they wouldn't have become the player they are if they had played for Montreal (Perron would never have made the habs on his first year).

I really hope that one day we stop with that. For one reason. If it works that way, it could work the other way around. I remember some posters here laughing at me and others who wanted Gilbert Brule in 2005. I was furious at getting Price and though we missed the boat big time. Well what was their replay 4 years later? "Well, Price is still fine but it could have been worst...imagine if we would have drafted Brule..." Guess what though....who knows if he would have developed the same way if he would have been chosen by us? Is it too far fetched to believe that as tough we are with our players that every other team is better at developing youngsters than Hitchcock was at least in Columbus? To me, Brule was a surefire prospect but needed to work on 1 thing...realize his size and not play the pinball machine he used to play in Juniors. That was my statement at the time and guess what...didn't he got injured right from the start, thinking he'd was stronger than he actually was and that was already the end for him.

And how about all these other players that didn't work elsewhere....do we know if they wouldn't have worked better here despite our development record? We don't know, some players work better in an environment than others. But we still don't know where that's headed. The only thing we know is that a good player ends up being a good player even if it takes a longer time to happen.

Originally Posted by ppil

You point out many Quebecers that went on doing well elsewhere, but why couldn't they do it here (don't tell me that Beauchemin, Robidas, Ribeiro and Latendresse were playing like that in Montreal).

Well Beauchemin couldn't play like that in Montreal, 'cause he never got his chance in Montreal. Robidas was let go at 24. Ribeiro at 25 after finishing 1st and 4th in scoring in his last 2 years. And Latendresse was let go at 22 after improving year after year except his start of the season the year he was traded. No they didn't play like that in Montreal....they didn't have that chance. One day people will realize that confidence is just as important as your actual skills.

Originally Posted by ppil

I think it's a mix of development, pressure and no place for error. I think that sadly for us (but we got to take a part of the blame) Montreal is a place for veteran (see media and fans reaction toward Price, Pac, Maxwell, Weber, Latendresse), because people learn by doing errors but it seems that here you can't do some without getting criticized…

Agree and disagree. I believe that Montreal is a place for vets.....in nets. This team would look great with a Craig Anderson in net. A vet, able to take that extra pressure that being a goalie in Montreal represents, that doesn't speak french (a place I couldn't care less and probably hope the players there doesn't speak french), low profile and just do his job. We kill our goalies in this town. And once they're dead, we ressuscitate them to kill them again. There's no place for distraction in net for our team.

But then, please tell me which fans and media reaction towards Pac, Weber, Latendresse or any other kids you are talking about. Yes, seems that the local boys in this board will have a harder time. Though, the media will cherish them and the local fans will sometimes be harder on them, sometimes loved them no matter what, so in the end, it's equivalent. Then, which media are repeatadly talking about how Weber doesn't progress as much. Yes, I do hear from time to time how MaxPac isn't progressing but for one reason.....because Perron was chosen almost right after. Reason why there's a big fuss over Fischer because Giroux was close by. But the rest of the anglo kids, if the organization let them develop nicely, there wouldn't be a big fuss over any of them. But when the organization demonstrates by making them progress sooner than they should à la MaxPac or Price, then you can understand how the reaction might be a little different. I guess we trust our organization that they are doing the right thing. When they seem like they're not, we are more vocal about it. Though I'm not sure it's what plays in MaxPac head at this time, it's way more about how he sees himself. I mean the kid, himself, said that he judged he was ready for the Pros when he saw how he was playing.....at a development camp. Not rookie camp, not pro camp, development camp. A camp when there's actually no competition. Somebody somewho, should've told him that his performance, as exciting as it was, meant so much. That another year in University without the 2 stars he was playing with, would have been much better for his development. Then, the expectation level by the fans would have went way down.

As far as Price is concerned.....that's another freakin story that was handled in the worst possible way. Everything was done to screw this guy the best way possible. If he ends up having a great year this year, I'll name him in the HOF.....