Right now, yes. But how many seasons would it have taken? Their rookie years... doubtful.
I’ve said this before, laf’s best position on the pp is on the left d spot, he controlled the pp all through junior hockey and he mostly sat up top.
Even during Junior hockey, many thought he should have been in front of the net for the powerplay. I wouldn't hate it for PP2, but I think the net front area is his game for finding the net.
I understand your point Hughes weakness was his physical strength. Coaches would have wanted to get him as much open ice as possible. Ironically the thing that could have kept him off was that he is really bad at faceoffs. I think Jack may have had to play with someone that can win draws. Jack would have been on and off in his first and second seasons until he physically got stronger. He also had some injury issues.
Ok, so that begs the question - How stunted would their growth be had they not been given full ice time including top PP time? If they were just meddling on the 2nd or 3rd lines, maybe hitting an even strength goal slump for 5 or 6. Maybe 7 games. Confidence issues could snowball without the consistent open ice and increased chances of production on the PP.
This is all true.
I guess i don't really believe that one necessarily translates to the other. That's a major disagreement I have with the people who advocate for forcing these guys onto the top PP unit.
I'm not one for forcing either of them onto PP1.
I think its all total speculation that guys growth would be stunted by not playing more than they are ready to play. Many teams in all sports have been criticized (including the Rangers) for playing young guys too much before they were ready and breaking their confidence.
I mean they literally just fired two coaches who are very much in the business of holding players back that can help them win games. I’m not sure how you could even argue that, unless you’re a major proponent of the strategy where you try to beat a team of HOFers by suiting up a broken pelvis, Kevin Rooney and Dryden Hunt in your top 6.
No offense but you are a complete neophyte. You mention outlier things and pretend in your post they were the norm. There is a reason guys like Gallant and Laviolette are professional NHL coaches and you are not. Dryden Hunt averaged 8 minutes a game as a NYR. Please tell me how he was a regular top 6 player. He was filling a role in the top 6 occasionally. That was not the norm. Kevin Rooney averaged around 12 minutes a game as a NYR. The 12 minutes a game is around the same amount he played on NJ and it includes around 2 minutes a game killing penalties. So he was playing 10 minutes a game in the top 6 as the norm? So where were Mika, CK, Bread, Strome, Copp, Valtrano, Buchnevich, etc playing if Dryden Hunt and Kevin Rooney were playing in the top 6 as a norm and not as an outlier? How come their minutes per game were so low if they played in the top 6 as the norm and not an outlier?
You stated that NHL coaches are not in the business of holding back players who can help them win games. I gave you an example of a NYR head coach doing that in maybe the biggest game of the past decade for this franchise. Your retort is an ad hominem followed by an argument from authority.
Dryden Hunt averaged 12 minutes a game 21-22. That average was ranked 14th among our forwards that season. He averaged 8 minutes a game in 22-23. If you believed in your take you would not try to promote outliers as the norm. If you really know about hockey you understand that sometimes lesser players play on a higher line for assorted reasons such as needing a more physical player. That is not to purposefully hold back any players. You know who played more minutes than Hunt that season? Kaapo Kakko. You know who else played more minutes than Hunt that season. A rookie named Lafreniere.
Look chief, we can agree to disagree on the definition of “held back”. Personally I don’t see how the team or player benefits from 4th liners spending hundreds and hundreds of minutes in the top 6. That’s extremely valuable ice time to let your young players gain chemistry with your best players so that you know what you have in them as soon as possible. Instead we’re doing this in years 4,5,7 for the kids. It’s dysfunctional.Dryden Hunt averaged 12 minutes a game 21-22. That average was ranked 14th among our forwards that season. He averaged 8 minutes a game in 22-23. If you believed in your take you would not try to promote outliers as the norm. If you really know about hockey you understand that sometimes lesser players play on a higher line for assorted reasons such as needing a more physical player. That is not to purposefully hold back any players. You know who played more minutes than Hunt that season? Kaapo Kakko. You know who else played more minutes than Hunt that season. A rookie named Lafreniere.
LOL you gave me an example of sitting a guy KK with 2 goals in 19 games including 0 goals in 6 games that series and who missed 2 empty nets as your norm of a coach sitting better players?
Okay you go on believing our 3 head coaches coaches purposefully hold back their own players to stop them from excelling. That is totally logical. In other totally logical news I was going to win a million dollars in the lottery but I said please just give me a thousand instead.
I'm a chief? As in an Indian chief? Or another kind of chief?
You aren’t reading. My point isn’t that the Rangers shouldn’t have prioritized winning over development. My point is that if they wanted to win, what the hell were Goodrow and Hunt doing up there for so long over players who are younger and already significantly better than them. The decision making process has never aligned with winning or development. All they’ve done is putz around with bums pre trade deadline every year
...no, actually...
