View Single Post
02-12-2012, 03:14 AM
Miller Time
Registered User
Miller Time's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,254
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post

Different style, probably. Though i would disagree, without what i understand as overplaying vets over rookies. Different standards, probably, but how can we forget bringing up Patches? and Subban? and did he mishandle Price? Give it time and RC will pull some bad moves too, and it won't be a cute "he healthy scratched eller, how cute , RC putting his stamp on the team" (not saying that was a mistake, that turned out a o k)
Martin trusted his rookies alot. He praised them all the time, just that he would continuously have to explain why he did what he ahd to do to certain players (development process) and he did, he always said what the rookies needed to do better. In the end it was viewed as "Martin blames young guys for loss" when in fact he would point out what the mistakes were.
I'm sure our perspective of Martin is quite contradictory to each other.
For now, RC is doing a good job, but he got some criticism befor this streak, and he did some questionable moves, and he will probably do more in the future. And i'm sure he will handle them properly.
i don't know about that assessment.

Subban and Pacioretty both responded poorly/publicly to how Martin handled them, I think it's a bit of a faulty argument to argue that their current success is because of how he handled them... Just as we can't entirely fault Martin for the failures of S.Kost, O'Byrne, Lats, D'ago, Pouliot, Lapierre in montreal, we can't credit him with how Subban, Patches, Eller, DD, Emelin, Diaz have/will turn out.

and besides, on the whole, if we were to credit/fault any one coach for the success/failure of young players, on the whole our young prospects/players did rather poorly under Martin imo.

Personally, I didn't like Martin's approach to dealing with young players, and imo, he didn't get as much out of our team as he could have had he shown greater willingness to both trust and adapt to the young talent we had. But a statement like that can only be opinion, because there really is no way to objectively quantify a coaches positive or negative impact on the "development" of young players over a 2 1/2 year span (perhaps if you had a guy like Ruff or Trotz, in place for over a decade, then you could start to extrapolate a more concrete connection, but even then the amount of variables at play would still leave any analysis quite subjective).

I think what was pretty clear under Martin, is that younger players had a much shorter "leash", that mistakes by younger players would lead to more direct and immediate ice-time consequences than they did with older players, and imo it's this double standard that ultimately undermined his ability to get the team as a whole to continue competing with confidence despite the slow start.

RC has made his share of decisions that I find puzzling, I just think that the situation he walked into warrants patience on our part, and the willingness to keep "key" veterans stuck on the bench as much as young guys strikes me as a positive change.

pretty much agree with most of the rest of your post... (as for the unwarranted part, tit-for-tat never bothers me, getting the elbows up sometimes adds a little spice )

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote