How much of prospects busting is "their fault"?

[DJJones]

54% It's still mostly on them.

 

[AlexModvechkin8]

Relatedly, who was the last forward drafted and developed by the Rangers? Kreider? Cuylle looks like he’ll hit but the Rangers don’t have a good track record with young forwards.

 

[tyhee]

I think Lafreniere and Kakko were both sabotagedby New York. Around the same time Vancouver had 3 straight Calder trophy finalists (Boeser, Pettersson, Hughes) and I'm confident that if either was drafted by Vancouver their careers would've gone differently.

Pointing out that they had three consecutive Calder finalists doesn't say anything about the Canucks' prospect development because Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes skipped the minor leagues, went straight from the NCAA or the SHL to the NHL and were immediately successful.

Boeser went straight from North Dakota to the Canucks in the spring of 2017, suited up immediately and scored 4 goals in 9 games before the season ended. Quinn Hughes went straight from Michigan to the Canucks in the spring of 2019 and had 3 assists in 5 games before the season ended. Pettersson went from MVP in the Swedish Hockey League to starting the 2018-19 season with the Canucks, had 3 goals and 2 assists in his first 2 games and 10 goals and 6 assists in his first 10 games.

The Canucks did nothing to develop these guys. They arrived already good.

That was the Canuck way during those years. A player had to be an immediate NHL success, be a goaltender or wait until he went elsewhere to succeed or he wasn't going to make it.

Given that the Canucks had their own high first round disappointments (Virtanen and Juolevi) who turned out worse than Lafreniere and Kakko have, what is there to make one think that Lafreniere and Kakko would have done better in Vancouver?

 

[MXD]

I think "fault" is to be defined.

Take... I don't know, someone like Griffin Reinhart. Who definitely busted in the common parlance, because he's a 4th OA who played 37 games of spot duties spread on 3 seasons.

It's painfully obvious that Reinhart shouldn't have been a 4th overall. He probably shouldn't even have been a first rounder.

Is that his fault he didn't become a star? .... I'd say, about as much as it's MY fault for not becoming the second coming of Bobby Orr.

Is that the team's fault on the developpment side that they couldn't make platinum out of tin ore? I think the answer to that question is obvious as well.

But there are some dimwits on the Habs board who still sweart Michel Therrien ruined Lars Eller, despite the fact there's a whole career of video evidence that his absolute upside was "2nd center in a pinch and great 3rd center".

 

[north21]

I'd put most of it, like 90 percent on the prospect with the rest being situational or development.

Talent, brains, genetics and motivation all come from within.

 

[boompuffboom]

Alex Galchenyuk has entered the chat.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDo]

tldr, but the players don’t draft themselves.

 

[Fatass]

tldr, but the players don’t draft themselves.

Good point. If a player doesn’t contribute to the level expected from where he was drafted, then he was drafted too high. The team made a mistake at the draft. Happens a lot.

 

[njdevils1982]

Usually a female is also at fault.

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame. But I know it's my own damn fault

 

[Chainshot]

Depends. The biggest talents will prevail no matter what imo. But for a lot players, the organization drafting you can literally make or break your career. Do you guys think it's just a coincidence that players keep leaving the Buffalo Sabres and they become completely different players?

I know this is the narrative, but the comment that they become completely different players is bullshit. Friedman should know that too. But he yet again he’s taking the very easy path on a team that he gets no information out of anymore.

 

[rynryn]

I'd say none unless it's a fitness issue like they just completely let themselves go.

 

[shello]

I know this is the narrative, but the comment that they become completely different players is bullshit. Friedman should know that too. But he yet again he’s taking the very easy path on a team that he gets no information out of anymore.

Friedman and most of the modern insiders are such a step down

 

[joestevens29]

Blame their agents

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Situational.

In some cases it's mostly the player, in others it's the org... in some it's both.

 

[adsfan]

I generally think that players are going to be what they're going to be, unless a team egregiously gets in their way. Teams can maybe "develop" a player into a little better (B+ player instead of a B) but it's not like a C player in Minnesota would've been an A player in Tampa Bay, or wherever.

Eeli Tolvanen for Nashville. He scored 11 goals in two consecutive seasons for the Preds. He scored 2 goals in 13 games in 2022-23. He is waived and picked up by Seattle. In 48 games with the Kraken in 2022-23, he scores 16 goals! The next season he scores 16 goals again. He is on pace for 19 goals this season.

It is because Nashville's coaches are generally IDIOTS!!!
They won't play the young players, who don't develop sitting in the press box.
They go to another NHL team and their scoring goes up 50 to 100%.

Look up Kevin Fiala's stats with Nashville versus the Wild or the Kings. He will probably score 30 goals this season.

I am sure that this isn't true for every NHL team. It might be true for last place teams.

 

[Oilslick941611]

90% on the player.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

85%

 

[cupface52]

Some prospects dominate lower levels because they physically matured faster than their peers. Once their peers reach an equilibrium, physically, then the once-thought-of domination is no longer the case and the player is simply who they always were. In the recent memory, Jordan Greenway falls into this category, and it appears Owen Power may be headed this way as well.

Generally speaking, from having played sports professionally, the commitment level needed is something that not all prospects are willing to buy into. It was okay when they were in junior or college, but at the highest levels it's a whole different level of emotional and physical commitment.

It's only human nature to see people basically "nope" out of constantly playing injured or having to endure a training regiment that lasts almost year round with a great deal of self-sacrifice. It's a choice that a player has to make and sometimes they choose not to make it.

This rarely ever gets mentioned, and I believe it's the biggest factor when it comes to prospect development.

A 16 year old can be on the same physical maturity level as a 20 year old. You can have 2 draft eligible prospects at 18, both similar skillsets, both at completely different levels of physical maturity. Do you take the player that has had 2 phenomenal years, or do you take the one that's been improving year over year.

 

[Vide]

It's both. One of the biggest issues I see is when guys who are really talented get put on a terrible team and are left in a situation with no mentorship, lose every night, doesn't have good teammates to play off etc. It's a really bad situation and a big part of why some team stay bottom-feeders forever despite drafting really high year after year.

Or some guys who gets 4th line minutes or scratched for a whole year instead of getting top minutes in a different league. Or guys that are rushed, like you see a lot of guys play more or less a full season in the NHL when they weren't ready and then the next year they're in the AHL full-time. I imagine taking a step back like that must be really frustrating for a player.

Of course then there are guys who get every opportunity possible and still don't crack it, and those are typically the guys that simply don't put in the work. Guys who have been coasting by on their talent all their lives and when things suddenly get difficult they fold like a lawn chair. A lot of guys are also really entitled and get resentful if they have to play their way up their lineup.

So yeah, it's really a case by case basis. But typically if you have an organisation with a strong culture and great leadership you'll have way fewer busts than teams who have none of that in place.

 

[ijuka]

Prospects at the age of 18 are essentially still kids. They require guidance, their self-regulation hasn't still developed enough. At the age of 30 or so, a player could probably react to the environment accurately, but at the age of 18, there's a significant calibration error. As such, the role of guidance is very significant.

By calibration error, I mean that a young player is likely to overadjust. For example, good outcomes can lead to overly correcting behavior towards that, bad outcomes can lead to overly correcting behavior to compensate, and a balance is difficult to achieve. Also, at such an age, emotions are still strong and difficult to regulate.

I'd say that external factors play a significant role that's quite understated, perhaps because the prospects themselves don't want to admit that they still are effectively kids. Many of the common coaching practices are very bad for the development of young players, such as a lack of direct feedback, and general directions that don't specifically account for the player still being young and developing.

It's also partially caused by the male macho culture and social norms.

 

[JPT]

Who knows? But I would guess almost never. It isn't their fault that expectations are put on them to achieve certain things in the NHL, nor is it their fault that their skills don't translate to the NHL. There's only so much hard work a person can put into a craft. Not everyone is cut out for the top level of the thing they work at. That said, if they are simply not putting in reasonable effort and/or they are too arrogant to accept they have to keep growing their game, that's on them.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

A bit of everything.

Physical maturity early is a big one. A big who is big and strong early sometimes take the easy route by leaning on that strength to dominate, instead of working on their overall skills. They look amazing against boys, but suddenly against men the lack of hockey IQ and skill level stops them quickly.

Organizational instability is another...a team drafts for a type or play style that suddenly changes course with a different coach, all of a sudden you have prospects that don't fit the new mold and are trying to reinvent their game to a different playbook. Same with a GM change, and all of a sudden the 'favorite' pick of the previous GM ends up having to go above and beyond for a new management team that has no investment in the player.

Or you have a team that drafts a kid with one type of skillset with the idea you can turn it into something else....and that has a risk of failure. Turning a defenseman into a forward (or switching from center to wing), or slotting a scorer into a checking role. Some guys can't adapt their game to a different role or position.

And sometimes a kid with unbelievable skills has the ability to fool scouts into thinking he can play pro when he simply has no hockey IQ to speak of. The dipsy doodle, high energy guy who typically destroys junior with flash and dash who just doesn't have that extra gear and brains to beat pros with kiddie moves.

And a big part of it is between the ears. A lot of these kids have it easy their entire lives, and don't face any challenges until their first pro camp. Zero adversity tends to breed guys who are a bit soft and unwilling to work hard to achieve their goals, or who shatter at the slightest setback. Much like the smart kids in high school who would ace every exam without studying, and who flunk out in their first semester at university where they suddenly have to learn how to learn...and can't do it.