nope just using a little common sense. why do people think the juniors are a bad place for him? after all he is only 19 he is not even old enough to drink yet.but some people think that he will "save" the team.but hey im not the coach or even ever played the game..heres to hoping the nhl does not ruin another prospect and they do whats right for the TEAM..AND JOHANSEN..AND NOT THE FANS.
Last edited by Double-Shift Lassé: 11-01-2011 at 08:54 AM.
nope just using a little common sense. why do people think the juniors are a bad place for him? after all he is only 19 he is not even old enough to drink yet.but some people think that he will "save" the team.but hey im not the coach or even ever played the game..heres to hoping the nhl does not ruin another prospect and they do whats right for the TEAM..AND JOHANSEN..AND NOT THE FANS.
Not sure anyone feels this way.
IMO I do not think the juniors are a bad place I am just not sure what he gains by going back. If he can keep up and be effective in the NHL why not give him a shot? Even after he plays his 10th game if it becomes clear that he should not be here there is nothing that says he can't be sent back, it just cost the Jackets a year of his ELC.
Is there any part of this that makes any sense? I didn't realize that it was a waste to develop a player on a team that isn't playoff bound, since you know, like, it's been done numerous times by other teams.
well if the team was a little better then i might see your point on keeping him..but since columbus has won 2 games and the organisation is run like crap why should they not send him down.after all he is only 19..so how many teams have kept young prospects on a BAD team that has turned out good? my guess is not to many..
Last edited by reporob: 10-31-2011 at 09:58 PM.
Reason: for got to ad
well if the team was a little better then i might see you point on keeping him..but since columbus has won 2 games and the organisation is run like crap why should they not send him down.after all he is only 19..so how many teams have kept young prospects on a BAD team that has turned out good?
The first part of your post is to to even comment on.
As for your question about young prospects on a bad team how about Rick Nash? Nash netted 41 goals after a full rookie season on a bad team.
I can also turn your argument around on you. How many prospects have been returned only to end failing the fallowing year or even never having a career up to the standers of their draft position?
Send him back to save a year and, more importantly, get the house cleaned out, bring in a competent GM who can start changing the culture of the entire org, THEN bring him back next year. I am really concerned that they are going to ruin or stunt another prospect, and this kid may be the best one since Rick Nash. He looks to be a true building block for the future, and they need to protect that because imo they don't have many of those.
The first part of your post is to to even comment on.
As for your question about young prospects on a bad team how about Rick Nash? Nash netted 41 goals after a full rookie season on a bad team.
I can also turn your argument around on you. How many prospects have been returned only to end failing the fallowing year or even never having a career up to the standers of their draft position?
what's to laugh about you did not answer my question? nash is a way different type of player like it or not. you have givin a rare "case" where nash scored 41 goals.great for nash however 2/9 is nothing short of failure for a team and management.so lets say i'm glad you not the coach..
Send him back to save a year and, more importantly, get the house cleaned out, bring in a competent GM who can start changing the culture of the entire org, THEN bring him back next year. I am really concerned that they are going to ruin or stunt another prospect, and this kid may be the best one since Rick Nash. He looks to be a true building block for the future, and they need to protect that because imo they don't have many of those.
well if the team was a little better then i might see your point on keeping him..but since columbus has won 2 games and the organisation is run like crap why should they not send him down.after all he is only 19..so how many teams have kept young prospects on a BAD team that has turned out good? my guess is not to many..
There have been over 60 since 2000 alone who have made the NHL and stuck right after being drafted. These include but are not limited to: Pierre-Marc Bouchard, Nathan Horton, Ilya Kovalchuk, Patrice Bergeron, Marian Gaborik, Steven Stamkos, Jeff Skinner, Eric Staal, Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin, Rick Nash, Drew Doughty, Cam Fowler, Alex Burmistrov, Anze Kopitar, Victor Hedman, Luke Schenn, Phil Kessel, Dmitry Kulikov, Taylor Hall, and Evander Kane.
Teams are currently so terrified of either actually rushing or being perceived as rushing as a young player that they'll only do it if it's obvious that the kid is either ready for the NHL or simply would gain nothing by going back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardG
Send him back to save a year and, more importantly, get the house cleaned out, bring in a competent GM who can start changing the culture of the entire org, THEN bring him back next year. I am really concerned that they are going to ruin or stunt another prospect, and this kid may be the best one since Rick Nash. He looks to be a true building block for the future, and they need to protect that because imo they don't have many of those.
Nash is the only CBJ draft pick to ever make the team and stick right after being drafted. Almost everyone else has been brought along slowly, and where did that get them?
I'd be terribly pissed off if they didn't keep him up here. The only forward with his kind of offensive talent is named Nash. It shows when the team can actually get the puck to him.
I voted to send him back. I'd rather not contaminate him with our current culture. Also It's probably better than 50/50 that a coaching change will occur with Hitch coming back behind the bench. He is only 19 and shouldn't be have to experience that Hitch-Hockey. Bring him back next year; he'll be 5-10 heavier with a new coach/system/GM in place... Carter will be back soon and Juice in about a month. Send him back - it's the best thing for him - IMO.
I think this decision says everything about how management is approaching the rest of the season. Send him back and we Fail for Nail. Keep him, trade to upgrade either the D or GK (or both), and make a run for the playoffs.
If I'm making the call, I'm keeping him here. Way too early to throw in the towel.
well if the team was a little better then i might see your point on keeping him..but since columbus has won 2 games and the organisation is run like crap why should they not send him down.after all he is only 19..so how many teams have kept young prospects on a BAD team that has turned out good? my guess is not to many..
Once again... Does any part of this make any sense?
A follow up, did I make the point that we should keep Johansen? Answer: Nope. You'll find in the other thread with the poll I said it depends.
I can tell you one thing, the record of this team would not play any part in my decision to keep him here or not (if it was up to me).
I'd be terribly pissed off if they didn't keep him up here. The only forward with his kind of offensive talent is named Nash. It shows when the team can actually get the puck to him.
well if the team was a little better then i might see your point on keeping him..but since columbus has won 2 games and the organisation is run like crap why should they not send him down.after all he is only 19..so how many teams have kept young prospects on a BAD team that has turned out good? my guess is not to many..
Well let me just think about the recent past.
The worst team in the NHL, at least by record with a whopping 56 points kept several young prospects on the team, 2 good young center prospects and a solid young winger. The two centers ended up as All-Stars.
Then there was this other team, that ended up with a very Columbus-like 88 points who kept two young prospects on that crappy team. Both eventually became All Stars.
On the first team, the 56 point team those young guys were Mike Richards, Jeff Carter and RJ Umberger. On the second team, those young prospects with Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane.
I'm not against sending Johansen down, but I think your argument is terribly flawed.
I haven't voted because I don't honestly know what they should do. The answer is in the dressing room. I don't know the atmosphere in there. Is it a group that is competitive and will kick and scratch for all they are worth to become a good team, or is it a beaten group? Only folks on the inside know this. If it's the former situation, he is better off in Columbus. If it's the latter, he's better off in Portland.
I want Ryan in the best possible environment to develop him into the kind of impact player he can become.
He will not develop his game more in juniors. That is a fact. Screw the contract the real question is will it hurt his game to be on the Blue Jackets. At this time I don't believe so because he is getting minutes although he is on the wing I hope he slowly works back to center. With Vermette able to play the wing we should slowly be switching RyJo back to center.
I'll agree that there is no clear cut answer right now.
Basically, I do not want him chaffing under Hitchcock if the big guy returns behind the bench.
Johansen is fresh from juniors, needs time and understanding to learn from his mistakes, not scratched or benched for the smallest mistake.
Hitchcock has proven that he's not interested in development... period, especially with a player like RyJo, who hasn't experienced the pro game much and his leash will be incredibly short. If there is any chance that Hitchcock takes over, send him back down immediately.
If I have guarentees that Arniel or Richards will remain as the coach, I'd say keep him up here.
Hitchcock has proven that he's not interested in development... period, especially with a player like RyJo, who hasn't experienced the pro game much and his leash will be incredibly short. If there is any chance that Hitchcock takes over, send him back down immediately.
If I have guarentees that Arniel or Richards will remain as the coach, I'd say keep him up here.
Wasn't it reported that the whole Hitchcock thing was false already?
Although I would agree, I would strongly not want Johansen up here if Hitchcock was coaching.
I'll agree that there is no clear cut answer right now.
Basically, I do not want him chaffing under Hitchcock if the big guy returns behind the bench.
Johansen is fresh from juniors, needs time and understanding to learn from his mistakes, not scratched or benched for the smallest mistake.
Hitchcock has proven that he's not interested in development... period, especially with a player like RyJo, who hasn't experienced the pro game much and his leash will be incredibly short. If there is any chance that Hitchcock takes over, send him back down immediately.
If I have guarentees that Arniel or Richards will remain as the coach, I'd say keep him up here.
That's a very tired meme. Hitchcock had a lot to do with the development of Jeff Carter, Mike Richards and RJ Umberger. Brassard and Voracek were their most productive when they were playing for Hitchcock.
Many say that because of his handling of Nikita Filatov. They were vindicated by by how well Filatov played for Arniel and now for MacLean in Ottawa. :
Filatov was arguably the 2nd most skilled player his draft year after Stamkos, and some said more skilled than Stamkos. Filatov is in Binghamton playing in the AHL.
That's a very tired meme. Hitchcock had a lot to do with the development of Jeff Carter, Mike Richards and RJ Umberger. Brassard and Voracek were their most productive when they were playing for Hitchcock.
Many say that because of his handling of Nikita Filatov. They were vindicated by by how well Filatov played for Arniel and now for MacLean in Ottawa. :
Filatov was arguably the 2nd most skilled player his draft year after Stamkos, and some said more skilled than Stamkos. Filatov is in Binghamton playing in the AHL.
He's fresh from Juniors, thats what I worry about... Both Hitchcock and Arniel will throw you in the deep end, difference is, Hitchcock won't put water wings on you and is likely to hold your head under eventually (i.e bury you at the end of the bench)
This season is over, If Johansen is going to stay up here, I'd rather he have some leeway with what he does, I'm afraid Hitchcock wouldn't grant him as much as he'd need.
That's a very tired meme. Hitchcock had a lot to do with the development of Jeff Carter, Mike Richards and RJ Umberger. Brassard and Voracek were their most productive when they were playing for Hitchcock.
Many say that because of his handling of Nikita Filatov. They were vindicated by by how well Filatov played for Arniel and now for MacLean in Ottawa. :
Filatov was arguably the 2nd most skilled player his draft year after Stamkos, and some said more skilled than Stamkos. Filatov is in Binghamton playing in the AHL.
Don't even bother, leek, you'll only end up more frustrated.
I voted to send him back. I'd rather not contaminate him with our current culture. Also It's probably better than 50/50 that a coaching change will occur with Hitch coming back behind the bench. He is only 19 and shouldn't be have to experience that Hitch-Hockey. Bring him back next year; he'll be 5-10 heavier with a new coach/system/GM in place... Carter will be back soon and Juice in about a month. Send him back - it's the best thing for him - IMO.
i have issue with this mentality that's stemming thru several threads...if we keep sending everyone away to "not contaminate" them, how can we ever actually change the culture if we're sending everyone away that might actually change the culture...
to even comment on.
nash is a way different type of player like it or not. you have givin a rare "case" where nash scored 41 goals.great for nash however 2/9 is nothing short of failure for a team and management.so lets say i'm glad you not the coach..
