I get the point you’re making, but really we don’t know what the best path forward is. You mention Eichel. Who was known for his offense only at Buffalo and couldn’t win there either. So left the offense only aspect turns you into Buffalo ? Is that a good benchmark for us to want to replicate.
I understand the need to develop and fence and defense. But let me ask you a question, would Steph Curry be a 25% shooter from 3 if his second year coach had him focus on the weight room + defensive responsibility ?
And my point is kinda tongue in cheek, but the argument you seem to be making is, Cronin and co are ONLY practicing defense and not just emphasizing + weight room as the keys to sustained long term success.
The HC may be focused on defense first philosophy as a cultural buy in point. But does that mean the player development coach isn’t working on net front tip drills / rebound drills / etc.
But like I said before, we can have conversations or situations and aspects people need to improve in their game. And we can blame Cronin for the lack of offensive explosion we’d like out of our young core.
But it seems Verbeek and co’s vision on how to properly develop players doesn’t align with yours. So you are in for a miserable time until progress happens (if it does at all).
Like I don’t want Cronin around for the next 20 years, but I haven’t lost any sleep over him being our coach. I’ve spelt out multiple times what I think our plan is (using Verbeek / Cronin / McIlvane interviews) …. Best case scenario everyone who took a step back this year takes a huge jump in their third year …. Z and McT also take jumps + PP and PK all clicking and we never look back. Do I think that happens ? No.
We let Cronin run it back, we probably have some injury bad luck / start off slow / go on a losing streak and fire him. This is the most likely option for how this ends.
Just everything Verbeek has said, seems he is okay with what Cronin is doing, which means it aligns with Verbeek’s plan. Which is better (IMHO) than aligning with your plan, because you can’t make any decisions that effect the team. If you were running the show, and had some sort of track record of being apart of successful franchises, and you fired Cronin, I would be like, well good, doesn’t seem like he was doing his job as a developmental coach, otherwise he wouldn’t have been fired.
And truly I’m not advocating for focus on defense this is the only way to develop players as they mature physically. It just seems like obviously the path we are on, and I don’t think 20 year old Leo Carlsson’s offensive potential is being ruined, much like Steph curry wouldn’t magically turn into a 25% 3pt shooter if his coaches preaches weight room and defense over offense his first couple years. Or if we want a close comp to hockey, would David Beckham suck at set pcs and free kicks because one of his first coaches tried to get him to play more defensively sound ? Would all his creativity be destroyed beyond repair ? I just don’t see it.
Bold 1: you say you get my point but still seem to miss my point by asking that question. I'm not suggesting that we follow Buffalo's model. I'm pointing out an example of how it's a lot easier to teach a talented forward to improve his defense, even after age 25 than it is to significantly improve their offensive dominance. I'm not saying this team needs to neglect defensive development. But neglecting offensive development on the gamble that it will just come to our kids naturally is beyond idiotic. And to me it reads as a convenient excuse for the undeniable offensive stagnation and regression we've seen in our young players. To me, there's less time to maximize the development of young NHLers' offensive potential than there is to develop defensive capabality. If you're fine with the emphasis on the latter on the dice roll that the former will develop naturally, more power to you. If we end up in a situation where our core shakes out to be a collection of second and third liners and second pairing OFDs, no one is going to convince me that it wasn't in significant part due to this inane development philosophy.
Bold 2: I mean I don't need to speculate. The man more or less said it himself. Though I recognize that the limits of mid-season strength and conditioning is delicate.
Bold 3: I'm sure they're not neglecting offensive drills
entirely, but the body of work this season suggests that whatever they're teaching these kids is not good enough.
Bold 4: I mean is that unreasonable? Being a Ducks fan has been a miserable experience since before Carlyle was fired the second time. Regardless of when the rebuild actually started in earnest, this team has been in the dumps for nearly a decade. I'm not unreasonable. I know not every promising prospect is going to pan out and I'm not sitting here expecting all of them to hit or our kids to develop into top ten players at their respective positions necessarily, but I'd like to see that the effort that went into scouting these kids and building the foundation for a core that can compete for years doesn't get pissed away on stupid development philosophies.
That's how we end up as the next Buffalo. Look at teams that successfully exited rebuilds by building out of the draft. Do you think any of them spent the first two-three years of their top 5/top 10 draft picks only focusing on development of defensive play? We can't exactly verify what those teams were doing with their development efforts but I really doubt they were employing the same model we are.
Bold 5: good, let's let him set the tone on preseason drills, systems, preseason physical training, mentality, what the kids need to focus on, etc. and then hand it off to a new coach and what, turn everything on its head in the first quarter of the season or have the new guy adopt what Cronin set up? If we're going to bring in someone new, it should be before training camp starts.
Bold 6: I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Because Verbeek doesn't seem to be concerned no one should be?
Last paragraph: no I'm not saying that failing to foster offense means that it can never be reclaimed. But historically speaking, when a player hits his prime years, it's rarer that he's going to have an epiphany and reach new heights that he hadn't reached before. Guys like Terry and, say, Marchand, are exceptions. Not the rule. On some level Cronin is correct, some natural offensive gifts will flow into these guys' every day performance by sheer virtue of physical growth and additional experience. But there's so much that goes into playing this sport the right way at any level where natural skill and physical gifts are not enough to guarantee success. Some of that comes down to a player's hockey IQ, adaptability and game sense, but a lot of it comes from shift to shift approaches to decision making in various circumstances and habits. These things can be taught through drilling, advice, guidance, game tape review, etc. The longer we cross our fingers hoping our players will pick up the tendencies, approaches, tricks, etc. to excel offensively without guiding them and honing their offensive talents, the less we are optimizing their development time, and the longer it goes, the more these kids will settle into the habits, approaches, and tendencies they are used to and will have embedded in psyches. Which will make it that much harder to try to coach in drastic improvements to offensive play the older they get. That, to my understanding, is why it's so rare for players to have sudden spikes in offensive ability past age 23-25. Yeah you'll see some guys have one off excellent seasons but it's rare for a player to go from decent to a star and stay at that level long term the way someone like Marchand did. As I said.
The current development approach does not seem to be yielding results, and I'm loathe to think about this team cycling draftees in and out until we finally get it right (think Buffalo). Or watching this team end up with a slew of low range stars and middle 6/pair players that collectively are able to squeak into the playoffs here and there but are never truly competitive nor getting high draft picks consistently enough to get lucky like a Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay or Edmonton (see Calgary for the past 20+ years as a good example).
