The points per game reflect ice time and opportunities. Players like Patrick Holland and Alexander Avtsin might do better if given more opportunities.
Avtsin has 1 point in 2 games.
Holland was doing great at the start of the season, 7 points in 12 games or something, and was then put on the 4th line.
I wouldn't mind if Holland and Avtsin were given better opportunities. And I agree that bringing up Chaput's PPG was a bit of a reach given that he has played 12 games. But still, I don't get why it's such a terrible thing to have Dumont on the first PP wave. He's our top centerman in terms of points. Blunden, as I said, has been producing these past few games and at this point, he's one of our better forward.
I think Gallagher should be completing that line instead of Chaput, but I guess Lefebvre is trying to spread his very few offensive weapons around, which is okay.
I don't understand why Avtsin is such a pariah. I liked his play when he was in the line-up and at this point, the Dogs have nothing to lose giving him prime offensive ice time, given that they're struggling mightily to score goals.
I dont think it really matters who we draft in terms of helping hamilton out. We have some really good young players. Maybe even to many young players! The problem is we surrounded them with goons and a coach I shouldnt believe in.
Im worried about bergevin now. He is the one who hired the coach and signed useless goons to help hamilton. Guys like beaulieu and gallagher are doing pretty good playing for a crap team. But we also had leblanc injured which did not help.
Buddy Boxing day's over and lay off the Bergevin and coaching team.Hamilton has eight rookies playing in a lockout year.Wow talk about overreactions!
What intrigues me is how you know more about hockey development than Lefebvre, Dufresne, Wilson, Riendeau, Brisebois, Lapointe and the rest of the Habs staff that easily has over 5,000 games played in the NHL.
I don't. What intrigues me is how someone can just follow hockey for 10-20 years and not ask a single question on what the development program is exactly especially when decision are really out of the ordinary and questionable. There's plenty of questions in this thread that need answering, please feel free to fill us in without sounding like an apologist.
I was in the lower bowl for the Toronto game and made some notes.
Gallagher was obviously the most dangerous forward for Ham. Terrific hands but, more importantly he's fantastic at quietly slipping away from coverage. Had one superb shift were he put on a stick handling clinic hen finished off by knocking over a defenseman twice his size. Marlies were able to box him out as his linemates couldn't make space for him.
Leblanc looked the most skilled behind Gallagher. He has real difficulty finding space though. It really looked like he couldn't get enough strength from his legs for both skating and shooting which sharply limited his effectiveness.
Beaulieu most dynamic player. Only guy that looked like he can create something as a puck carrier. He and Gallagher miles ahead of teammates on the PP. One guy Mar lies had difficultly containing.
Holland can't control the centre of the ice or be a good puck carrier. His pass aren't good under pressure. Missed Gallagher on a short pass often. I think he's far more effective on the fringes if the play rather than at the focus.
Tinordi looks down a large section of ice, especially on the Pk. Terrific range of coverage.
I was in the lower bowl for the Toronto game and made some notes.
Gallagher was obviously the most dangerous forward for Ham. Terrific hands but, more importantly he's fantastic at quietly slipping away from coverage. Had one superb shift were he put on a stick handling clinic hen finished off by knocking over a defenseman twice his size. Marlies were able to box him out as his linemates couldn't make space for him.
Leblanc looked the most skilled behind Gallagher. He has real difficulty finding space though. It really looked like he couldn't get enough strength from his legs for both skating and shooting which sharply limited his effectiveness.
Beaulieu most dynamic player. Only guy that looked like he can create something as a puck carrier. He and Gallagher miles ahead of teammates on the PP. One guy Mar lies had difficultly containing.
Holland can't control the centre of the ice or be a good puck carrier. His pass aren't good under pressure. Missed Gallagher on a short pass often. I think he's far more effective on the fringes if the play rather than at the focus.
Tinordi looks down a large section of ice, especially on the Pk. Terrific range of coverage.
I like Gallagher but I am not sure how he will fare in the NHL. He really needs to work on his shot as it just isn't hard enough to beat NHL goaltenders consistently. He is tenacious and scores alot of dirty goals but he will have trouble doing this at the next level.
I like Gallagher but I am not sure how he will fare in the NHL. He really needs to work on his shot as it just isn't hard enough to beat NHL goaltenders consistently. He is tenacious and scores alot of dirty goals but he will have trouble doing this at the next level.
I'm not worried at all about Gallagher. A lot of people said he'd have trouble keeping up his game at the AHL level too, but he's proven them wrong. He's one guy who I've never been worried about for whatever reason, Ellis to a lesser extent too.
I don't. What intrigues me is how someone can just follow hockey for 10-20 years and not ask a single question on what the development program is exactly especially when decision are really out of the ordinary and questionable. There's plenty of questions in this thread that need answering, please feel free to fill us in without sounding like an apologist.
My comments have nothing to do with being an apologist for the Habs.
Truth of the matter I was involved in hockey for over 30 years at the coaching level, attained Advance Level II, worked with the program of excellence in the GTHL and taught coach certification in Ontario and Quebec for over 15 years. One of the modules that I taught was development.
So with that being said, there are many factors that can influence development. At an early age, maximum development is obtained through practices, repetition of basic technical elements. For the elite players, as they get older, more emphasis is put on game situations, off ice training, sports psychology etc.
At the pro level, IMO, the incremental progression in skating, skills, etc. is minimal. Therefore the main aspects of development for young pro's are game ice time, not being rushed to the NHL, and off ice training.
When I watch the Bulldogs I like what I see. All the important game situation and the bulk of the ice time is taken by players that actually have a good chance to play in the NHL. As example, I can already see the progression in Beaulieu and Tinordi. Same can be said for Gallagher and Dumont.
As long as the team is competitive and remains physical as it has, I don't see a problem with the Bulldogs, including Lefebvre.
My comments have nothing to do with being an apologist for the Habs.
Truth of the matter I was involved in hockey for over 30 years at the coaching level, attained Advance Level II, worked with the program of excellence in the GTHL and taught coach certification in Ontario and Quebec for over 15 years. One of the modules that I taught was development.
So with that being said, there are many factors that can influence development. At an early age, maximum development is obtained through practices, repetition of basic technical elements. For the elite players, as they get older, more emphasis is put on game situations, off ice training, sports psychology etc.
At the pro level, IMO, the incremental progression in skating, skills, etc. is minimal. Therefore the main aspects of development for young pro's are game ice time, not being rushed to the NHL, and off ice training.
When I watch the Bulldogs I like what I see. All the important game situation and the bulk of the ice time is taken by players that actually have a good chance to play in the NHL. As example, I can already see the progression in Beaulieu and Tinordi. Same can be said for Gallagher and Dumont.
As long as the team is competitive and remains physical as it has, I don't see a problem with the Bulldogs, including Lefebvre.
So you can state that Sortini, Hagel, Chaput & Fortier taking significant ice time and some on the PP even is part of decent prospect development? I'm still in doubt. Tonight we had better than this I admit. Finally Leblanc got some significant ice time, but he's still no where near a decent PP. You can chalk this on his injury if you want, but quite frankly having Avtsin a healthy scratch at the same time is weird. How can he get decent ice time while being a healthy scratch for the majority of all games we've seen?
And a new question. I understand the logic in having Sortini and Hagel in the lineup, I'm not even going to debate that, but why are they on the same stinking line all the time? Is that part of some development strategy? Are they going to tag team the chaps they fight?
My comments have nothing to do with being an apologist for the Habs.
Truth of the matter I was involved in hockey for over 30 years at the coaching level, attained Advance Level II, worked with the program of excellence in the GTHL and taught coach certification in Ontario and Quebec for over 15 years. One of the modules that I taught was development.
So with that being said, there are many factors that can influence development. At an early age, maximum development is obtained through practices, repetition of basic technical elements. For the elite players, as they get older, more emphasis is put on game situations, off ice training, sports psychology etc.
At the pro level, IMO, the incremental progression in skating, skills, etc. is minimal. Therefore the main aspects of development for young pro's are game ice time, not being rushed to the NHL, and off ice training.
When I watch the Bulldogs I like what I see. All the important game situation and the bulk of the ice time is taken by players that actually have a good chance to play in the NHL. As example, I can already see the progression in Beaulieu and Tinordi. Same can be said for Gallagher and Dumont.
As long as the team is competitive and remains physical as it has, I don't see a problem with the Bulldogs, including Lefebvre.
This,don't fix what isn't broken,our Management Team is the best it's been since the 60's & 70's.
This,don't fix what isn't broken,our Management Team is the best it's been since the 60's & 70's.
We've said that of Gainey and Co. and counted all their Stanley Cup rings at the same time. We'd do good to learn for once and ask the right questions at the right time.
So you can state that Sortini, Hagel, Chaput & Fortier taking significant ice time and some on the PP even is part of decent prospect development? I'm still in doubt. Tonight we had better than this I admit. Finally Leblanc got some significant ice time, but he's still no where near a decent PP. You can chalk this on his injury if you want, but quite frankly having Avtsin a healthy scratch at the same time is weird. How can he get decent ice time while being a healthy scratch for the majority of all games we've seen?
And a new question. I understand the logic in having Sortini and Hagel in the lineup, I'm not even going to debate that, but why are they on the same stinking line all the time? Is that part of some development strategy? Are they going to tag team the chaps they fight?
Development and progression are more based on concepts and planning and cannot be evaluated by the questions you ask. Stop looking at the micro and try to see the big picture.
I am not in the dressing room or on the daily conference calls with Lefebvre and the player development personnel. I assume there are reasons for the present utilization of the assets.
For example, take Leblanc. It is common fact that high ankle sprains take a long time to heal totally. You can play, but you are not 100%. Therefore, it is highly feasible that the Habs brass has decided to gradually increase Louis' ice time. Every game he seems to be getting more ice time, more PP time and better line mates. Don't think for a minute that Lefebvre has free reign as to how to utilize players.
