Our problem is mostly on the player development side.
The thing with developing star forwards is that (with the exception of the elite of the elite - guys like Crosby and Ovi) you have to be patient with them, and you have to accept the inevitable growing pains that come with them. You also have to let them round out their offensive game before you try to turn them into excellent two-way defensive forwards.
The problem is that the Habs (re: Martin, and Carbo before him to some extent) refuse to tolerate those inevitable growing pains, and that retards or limits a player's development, at least when he's with us.
What "growing pains" means, in a practical sense, is giving a young forward with star potential significant playing time, and learning to live with the rookie and sophomore mistakes he'll make while eating up a lot of minutes. Since by eating up a lot of minutes and being shown patience, the young forward with star potential will be gaining a lot of NHL experience and will gradually develop into a star forward.
This is true. The young ones may not know, and we forget, that Flower struggled his first 2 years a bit. Then he took his helmet off and the rest, as we say, is history. Bowman played him decent but not big minutes, and the team mind you was already very good, and they protected him. And there was no INTERNET!
The problem with giving a young star time to devellop is that nowadays a coach/GM that does not win "now" will be out before the young star gets to maturity.
Was Scotty Bowman's coaching position in any danger back then ? Right now, there is a list of Adams winners or candidates who get fired the next year.
Good point. These days we all need a new Ipod every year...and our new rookie better perform NOW.
But there must be a way to nurture young talent. Detroit does it, however admittedly, not in the Habs fish bowl market.
Perhaps our GM should just have a press conference every year and ask the media and fans to let the young guys have 2 years...
More importantly, I think the older players used to protect the young ones and teach them the ropes. Now? Not so sure. When Lafleur had a bad rookie shift, Henri Richard was on the bench to calm him down. Must have been nice.
If I was a rookie, I'd rather have Henri on the bench after a bad shift than Gomer, sorry bout that. And in those days, we expected Richard to perform, but not Guy the first couple of years.
No. Slow down. You did not read his post carefully. Your post was correct, but he stated that tanking gives you 1, 2 or 3 very good young players, who then help your somewhat lower lower picks perform at a higher level, which is probably correct: Less pressure, 2nd line or 3rd line duty not 1st, better passes and rebounds on the PP etc.
An interesting idea. Leads me to believe that tanking for three years and getting 3 top fives has even more effect than I had thought.
This is not really relevant. Players can be insulated with or without top-5 picks ahead of them (witness: Selanne/McDonald as the first line to Perry/Getzlaf's second line as a prime example).