Prospect Info: Joshua Roy Part 2

[26Mats]

Skating can be improved, vision and hockey IQ cannot. Many very fast players will never make it because they don't have the rest, the Hayden Verbeek, Brandon Gignac, even Jesse Ylonen is no longer a sure thing because the rest of his game has holes. That reminds me of wide recievers in the NFL. You have guys running 4,3 seconds 40 yards time, but that are busts because they cannot catch the ball or read the defense well. Speed is an asset, but vision, IQ and skills are as important.

There are a lot of good things about Ylonen's game besides his speed.

Although he doesn't have a physical aspect to his game at all, he can stick handle in a phone booth, making nifty plays to get the puck to his linemates. He'll never dominate the puck nor drive play. But I think he'll be a good complementary player.

 

[jfm133]

There are plenty of good power skating coaches. Nothing against the hire of Nicholas, but to think it will be a game changer for the team is exaggerated. Jake Evans improved his skating a lot under the previous structure. Suzuki did the same. It is more a question of commitment by the player to do what he needs to do, to put in the work. Also, don't underestimate the natural maturation of the body. From 18 to 22, you get stronger naturally.

 

[jfm133]

Honestly, he reminds me so much of Scherbak in his zone, along the boards when it is critical to get the puck out. Both were very weak at that very important part of the game for a winger. Some can think it's a minor aspect, but it's not. In the defensive zone it's the main task of a winger. He needs to be able to see when he has time to look for a pass, and when it's time to just get the puck out to force the opposing team to exit the zone. The fact that he is not strong physicaly does not help him in that aspect of the game. If Roy needs to work on his speed, Ylonen would benefit from more upper body strenght and gaining 5-7 more pounds.

There are a lot of good things about Ylonen's game besides his speed.

Although he doesn't have a physical aspect to his game at all, he can stick handle in a phone booth, making nifty plays to get the puck to his linemates. He'll never dominate the puck nor drive play. But I think he'll be a good complementary player.

 

[26Mats]

Honestly, he reminds me so much of Scherbak in his zone, along the boards when it is critical to get the puck out. Both were very weak at that very important part of the game for a winger. Some can think it's a minor aspect, but it's not. In the defensive zone it's the main task of a winger. He needs to be able to see when he has time to look for a pass, and when it's time to just get the puck out to force the opposing team to exit the zone. The fact that he is not strong physicaly does not help him in that aspect of the game. If Roy needs to work on his speed, Ylonen would benefit from more upper body strenght and gaining 5-7 more pounds.

yes, if he has problems with that aspect of the game, that will be a problem for him big time.

 

[Treb]

There are plenty of good power skating coaches. Nothing against the hire of Nicholas, but to think it will be a game changer for the team is exaggerated. Jake Evans improved his skating a lot under the previous structure. Suzuki did the same. It is more a question of commitment by the player to do what he needs to do, to put in the work. Also, don't underestimate the natural maturation of the body. From 18 to 22, you get stronger naturally.

Nicholas is known as one of the best in the business. Also, he's going to be a presence all year long instead of mostly just in the off-season like when players have to find coaches themselves.

I know you don't believe coach/staff is important for development, but I suspect we will see the effect of his presence.

 

[Habs Halifax]

There are plenty of good power skating coaches. Nothing against the hire of Nicholas, but to think it will be a game changer for the team is exaggerated. Jake Evans improved his skating a lot under the previous structure. Suzuki did the same. It is more a question of commitment by the player to do what he needs to do, to put in the work. Also, don't underestimate the natural maturation of the body. From 18 to 22, you get stronger naturally.

Agreed. Players obsession to improve and put the work in to get there is where you see development. Coaches can do some things yeah but if they don't put the work in, you can't do anything about it. The kid has to enjoy working out vs considering it a job. If they consider it a job and only do it cause they have to, that is a problem cause they might turn into Drouin.

So I feel drafting and development are tied together. Draft players who are rink and gym rats and have skill.

 

[jfm133]

This is not my point of view. What I repeated many time is that I believe every team is providing good enough coaching for the players with the right stuff to make it. The vast majority of impact players in the NHL are there because of their talent and will to succeed. So in line with that, I think that the draft is by far the most important factor in finding future impact players at the NHL level. So it's not that I don't believe in coach/staff, I don't believe they make or break a player with enough talent, discipline and will. Many players that fail to make it don't even sign with the NHL team. The Hendriksson, Staum, Tyszka, Walford, Ikonen, Stapley, Houde, Gorniak, McShane, Olofsson, Leguerrier, Ruscheinski.

It's normal, and it's normal that among those that signs a contrat, many will not make it either just because they are not good enough to start with. No coaches would have made an impact NHL player out of the Bourque, Vejdemo, Bitten, Fleury, Brook, Hillis., Khisamutdinov. A guy like Fleury may end up a bottom pairing D in the NHL, Bitten or Vejdemo a fourth liner. They are late picks and have talent limitations that coaching cannot overcome. If Harvey-Pinard makes it as a third liner one day, coaching will havec little to do with that. It will be mostly out of will and hard work.

Also, in the past, we saw the Habs letting go young players that went on to have good careers in the NHL, the Robidas, Beauchemin, Hainsey, but none of the Leblanc or Tinordi and others were able to show Habs made a mistake with them by succeeding elsewhere. Again, most of the outcome is predetermined at the draft, either you pick a good one or not. That's it. That's why accumulating extra picks is so important. We have Roy and Farrell because of this strategy.

Nicholas is known as one of the best in the business. Also, he's going to be a presence all year long instead of mostly just in the off-season like when players have to find coaches themselves.

I know you don't believe coach/staff is important for development, but I suspect we will see the effect of his presence.

 

[jfm133]

I should have added, who will care about Smith, Biondi, Trudeau and Sobolev if Roy and Farrell become top-6 wingers? Imagine if one of these four will make it on top of Roy and Farrell.

This is not my point of view. What I repeated many time is that I believe every team is providing good enough coaching for the players with the right stuff to make it. The vast majority of impact players in the NHL are there because of their talent and will to succeed. So in line with that, I think that the draft is by far the most important factor in finding future impact players at the NHL level. So it's not that I don't believe in coach/staff, I don't believe they make or break a player with enough talent, discipline and will. Many players that fail to make it don't even sign with the NHL team. The Hendriksson, Staum, Tyszka, Walford, Ikonen, Stapley, Houde, Gorniak, McShane, Olofsson, Leguerrier, Ruscheinski.

It's normal, and it's normal that among those that signs a contrat, many will not make it either just because they are not good enough to start with. No coaches would have made an impact NHL player out of the Bourque, Vejdemo, Bitten, Fleury, Brook, Hillis., Khisamutdinov. A guy like Fleury may end up a bottom pairing D in the NHL, Bitten or Vejdemo a fourth liner. They are late picks and have talent limitations that coaching cannot overcome. If Harvey-Pinard makes it as a third liner one day, coaching will havec little to do with that. It will be mostly out of will and hard work.

Also, in the past, we saw the Habs letting go young players that went on to have good careers in the NHL, the Robidas, Beauchemin, Hainsey, but none of the Leblanc or Tinordi and others were able to show Habs made a mistake with them by succeeding elsewhere. Again, most of the outcome is predetermined at the draft, either you pick a good one or not. That's it. That's why accumulating extra picks is so important. We have Roy and Farrell because of this strategy.

 

[Treb]

This is not my point of view. What I repeated many time is that I believe every team is providing good enough coaching for the players with the right stuff to make it. The vast majority of impact players in the NHL are there because of their talent and will to succeed. So in line with that, I think that the draft is by far the most important factor in finding future impact players at the NHL level. So it's not that I don't believe in coach/staff, I don't believe they make or break a player with enough talent, discipline and will. Many players that fail to make it don't even sign with the NHL team. The Hendriksson, Staum, Tyszka, Walford, Ikonen, Stapley, Houde, Gorniak, McShane, Olofsson, Leguerrier, Ruscheinski.

It's normal, and it's normal that among those that signs a contrat, many will not make it either just because they are not good enough to start with. No coaches would have made an impact NHL player out of the Bourque, Vejdemo, Bitten, Fleury, Brook, Hillis., Khisamutdinov. A guy like Fleury may end up a bottom pairing D in the NHL, Bitten or Vejdemo a fourth liner. They are late picks and have talent limitations that coaching cannot overcome. If Harvey-Pinard makes it as a third liner one day, coaching will havec little to do with that. It will be mostly out of will and hard work.

Also, in the past, we saw the Habs letting go young players that went on to have good careers in the NHL, the Robidas, Beauchemin, Hainsey, but none of the Leblanc or Tinordi and others were able to show Habs made a mistake with them by succeeding elsewhere. Again, most of the outcome is predetermined at the draft, either you pick a good one or not. That's it. That's why accumulating extra picks is so important. We have Roy and Farrell because of this strategy.

So it's not your point of view, but every team has sufficient coaching thus difference in coaching are irrelevant?

 

[Mrb1p]

This is not my point of view. What I repeated many time is that I believe every team is providing good enough coaching for the players with the right stuff to make it. The vast majority of impact players in the NHL are there because of their talent and will to succeed. So in line with that, I think that the draft is by far the most important factor in finding future impact players at the NHL level. So it's not that I don't believe in coach/staff, I don't believe they make or break a player with enough talent, discipline and will. Many players that fail to make it don't even sign with the NHL team. The Hendriksson, Staum, Tyszka, Walford, Ikonen, Stapley, Houde, Gorniak, McShane, Olofsson, Leguerrier, Ruscheinski.

It's normal, and it's normal that among those that signs a contrat, many will not make it either just because they are not good enough to start with. No coaches would have made an impact NHL player out of the Bourque, Vejdemo, Bitten, Fleury, Brook, Hillis., Khisamutdinov. A guy like Fleury may end up a bottom pairing D in the NHL, Bitten or Vejdemo a fourth liner. They are late picks and have talent limitations that coaching cannot overcome. If Harvey-Pinard makes it as a third liner one day, coaching will havec little to do with that. It will be mostly out of will and hard work.

Also, in the past, we saw the Habs letting go young players that went on to have good careers in the NHL, the Robidas, Beauchemin, Hainsey, but none of the Leblanc or Tinordi and others were able to show Habs made a mistake with them by succeeding elsewhere. Again, most of the outcome is predetermined at the draft, either you pick a good one or not. That's it. That's why accumulating extra picks is so important. We have Roy and Farrell because of this strategy.

Good ol' american dream, anyone can have it if they want it hard enough!

 

[jfm133]

To get impact players? Yes. Most don't play or very little in the AHL, and if you think that Plekanec got the career he had because of Claude Julien and Doug Jarvis, then good for you.. Jason Ward, Josef Balej, Alexander Perezhogin and Marcel Hossa all played along Plekanec under the same coaches in the AHL. Plekanec is a rare exception of a forward that played three full seasons in the AHL before becoming a top-6 player in the NHL, but as we can see, other high picks failed under the same coaches. Why did Plekanec ended up succeding? Dedication, hard work, will and slower maturation.

So it's not your point of view, but every team has sufficient coaching thus difference in coaching are irrelevant?

False, this is not what I wrote, is sais talent and will.

Good ol' american dream, anyone can have it if they want it hard enough!

 

[Treb]

To get impact players? Yes. Most don't play or very little in the AHL, and if you think that Plekanec got the career he had because of Claude Julien and Doug Jarvis, then good for you.. Jason Ward, Josef Balej, Alexander Perezhogin and Marcel Hossa all played along Plekanec under the same coaches in the AHL. Plekanec is a rare exception of a forward that played three full seasons in the AHL before becoming a top-6 player in the NHL, but as we can see, other high picks failed under the same coaches. Why did Plekanec ended up succeding? Dedication, hard work, will and slower maturation.



False, this is not what I wrote, is sais talent and will.

Development is multifactorial.

You are wilfully ignoring one factor.

That's my point.

Your Plekanec example brings nothing.

 

[Matthew McConaughay]

Skating can be improved, vision and hockey IQ cannot. Many very fast players will never make it because they don't have the rest, the Hayden Verbeek, Brandon Gignac, even Jesse Ylonen is no longer a sure thing because the rest of his game has holes. That reminds me of wide recievers in the NFL. You have guys running 4,3 seconds 40 yards time, but that are busts because they cannot catch the ball or read the defense well. Speed is an asset, but vision, IQ and skills are as important.

If Anderson would have Roy's vision and hockey IQ, he would be a hell of a player.

 

[jfm133]

Why are saying that? Ward, Perezhogin and Hossa were first round picks and they failed under the same coach. Balej was a similar player (same size, both 3rd round picks) with similar offensive output on the same team, same coach. One succeeded, the othe one failed. Why? The only answer is that Pleky put it together by himself in the end. So I think this example is very relevant. It shows that Plekanec did not make it because of the AHL teams he played on, and coaches he played for. In the end he was responsible for his success. He was the determining factor in his success. He had the right stuff. The other ones did not.

Your Plekanec example brings nothing.

 

[Treb]

Why are saying that? Ward, Perezhogin and Hossa were first round picks and they failed under the same coach. Balej was a similar player (same size, both 3rd round picks) with similar offensive output on the same team, same coach. One succeeded, the othe one failed. Why? The only answer is that Pleky put it together by himself in the end. So I think this example is very relevant. It shows that Plekanec did not make it because of the AHL teams he played on, and coaches he played for. In the end he was responsible for his success. He was the determining factor in his success. He had the right stuff. The other ones did not.

Because development is multi-factorial.

You would have a point if I said coaching was everything, which I didn't.

I assume you also think teachers have nothing to do with student success? All teachers are sufficient?

 

[jfm133]

I made it clear. I don't think a coach make or break a future impact NHL player. I never said coaching is not needed in the process. I repeated that coaching is now good enough throughout the AHL. J-F Houle was an assistant coach in the AHL for many years. He finally got his chance this year as head coach and did a very good job. Joel Bouchard was praised here by many, with good reasons, as a very good coach. He left for Anaheim organization, and got poor results and was fired. He says it's a normal move because Verbeek is the new GM, but if his team would have finished high in the rankings this year with San Diego, he would still be the coach there. Did Bouchard ruined Jacob Perreault or Brayden Tracy this year? I don't think so. Is Bouchard a bad coach now. I don't think so either.

Because development is multi-factorial.

You would have a point if I said coaching was everything, which I didn't.

I assume you also think teachers have nothing to do with student success? All teachers are sufficient?

 

[Treb]

I made it clear. I don't think a coach make or break a future impact NHL player. I never said coaching is not needed in the process. I repeated that coaching is now good enough throughout the AHL. J-F Houle was an assistant coach in the AHL for many years. He finally got his chance this year as head coach and did a very good job. Joel Bouchard was praised here by many, with good reasons, as a very good coach. He left for Anaheim organization, and got poor results and was fired. He says it's a normal move because Verbeek is the new GM, but if his team would have finished high in the rankings this year with San Diego, he would still be the coach there. Did Bouchard ruined Jacob Perreault or Brayden Tracy this year? I don't think so. Is Bouchard a bad coach now. I don't think so either.

Why would Bouchard getting fired this year mean he's a bad coach for development?

You don't get this at all, I give up.

 

[jfm133]

I am a big New England Patriots fan, and the NFL is a good league to put to rest the so called development thing. In the NFL there is no farm team, only a 10 players practice squad, practicing with the big team. Normally, players drafted in the five first rounds don't go on the practice squad in their first year, because they need to go through waivers before being sent there. Teams don't want to risk losing players taken in the first 4 to 5 rounds because they still have high opinion on them the first year with the team. So only 6th and 7th round picks and UDFA end up there. So all the players taken in the first five rounds normally makes the 53 men roster and are "developed" by the NFL coaches directly, no minor team coaches.

The Patriots example is good because the team was a dynasty for 17 years in the NFL and Belichick is seen as the best coach ever in the league and he is also the GM with the final word on draft picks. Go look at Patriots draft history. They have more spectacular busts taken in the first two rounds that they have star players taken there, and these players were "developed" under the best head coach of all time and his chosen team of assistant coaches. Why some of these high draft picks are busting under the best coach ever? The answer is simple, just because they were bad draft picks to begin with. On the other hand, the Patriots are notoriously good at getting at least one undrafted free agent on the team every year, sometimes very good ones.

Best example, the 2018 draft, Pats took cornerback Duke Dawson at the end of the second round, #56, and cornerback JC Jackson was signed as a UDFA. Dawson was quickly a bust, never showed anything of value. He was traded with a 7th round pick for a 6th round pick after only one year with the team. JC Jackson went on to become one of the best cornerback in the NFL. It is just an example, but there are many of them. Belichick had a very bad stretch in the draft between 2016 and 2020. Many awful picks that he was unable to do anything good with. Belichick the coach has always been good, but the GM was very bad in the draft at times, and the great coach was not able to make up for his draft mistakes.

The same applies in the NHL, and it's even worst because in the NHL they draft teenagers, while in the NFL they normally draft 21-24 yo players. So much more possibilities of mistakes in the draft, but that does not change the fact that if you draft poorly, coaching won't make up for it. That does not mean coaching is not essential.

 

[jfm133]

Players "developed" by Bouchard in four AHL seasons? Ryan Poehling, a third line center. Jake Evans, a bottom-6 center and Michael Pezzetta, a 4th liner at best. Are they in the NHL now because of Bouchard. Would have it been the same under J-F Houle for example? I think so. RHP worked as hard this year under Houle as he did under Bochard.

Why would Bouchard getting fired this year mean he's a bad coach for development?

You don't get this at all, I give up.

 

[ChesterNimitz]

Skating can be improved, vision and hockey IQ cannot. Many very fast players will never make it because they don't have the rest, the Hayden Verbeek, Brandon Gignac, even Jesse Ylonen is no longer a sure thing because the rest of his game has holes. That reminds me of wide recievers in the NFL. You have guys running 4,3 seconds 40 yards time, but that are busts because they cannot catch the ball or read the defense well. Speed is an asset, but vision, IQ and skills are as important.

Well, without speed at the NHL level, unless you are exceptional, you will not have the time or space to use your vision, IQ or skills. Speed is what separates NHLers from AHLers and rep players from house league players.

 

[jfm133]

I said skating can be improved. If Roy cannot improve his skating in the next three years, he won't play in the NHL. But he is still only 18 and I am quite sure he will be faster at 22, probably before that.

Well, without speed at the NHL level, unless you are exceptional, you will not have the time or space to use your vision, IQ or skills. Speed is what separates NHLers from AHLers and rep players from house league players.

 

[ChesterNimitz]

I said skating can be improved. If Roy cannot improve his skating in the next three years, he won't play in the NHL. But he is still only 18 and I am quite sure he will be faster at 22, probably before that.

How much wiser to draft players who already possess the skating ability to succeed in the NHL rather that selecting players who you hope can improve their skating.

 

[BenchBrawl]

How much wiser to draft players who already possess the skating ability to succeed in the NHL rather that selecting players who you hope can improve their skating.

Are you implying the Roy pick was unwise?

Bad skaters have been dominant in the NHL since forever. It's never gonna change. Some will always find a way.

 

[jfm133]

At #150, with his vision, hockey IQ and shot. He was a pure steal. No brainer. He will make the whole NHL look bad for not taking him much earlier. He will improve his skating and make it as an impact player.

How much wiser to draft players who already possess the skating ability to succeed in the NHL rather that selecting players who you hope can improve their skating.

 

[ChesterNimitz]

At #150, with his vision, hockey IQ and shot. He was a pure steal. No brainer. He will make the whole NHL look bad for not taking him much earlier. He will improve his skating and make it as an impact player.

You sound like his agent. I hope you’re right. But drafting any prospective hockey player with questionable skating is akin to drafting a water polo player who has difficulty in swimming. In the former case you are getting an AHLer. In the latter case, you are getting a drowning victim. Both are unsavoury outcomes.