I think that if a player is too good for their level, there is a risk of developing lazy habits. But I doubt that would have been the case for Tkachuk in the NCAA.
Well, since that Brady scored 8 goals in his NCAA season, that probably wouldn't apply to him. But I wonder if he did develop that god awful defensive zone coverage and laziness in the NCAA, or if he played there would it have become worse or better.
On one side, did he learn to cheat to produce more in the NCAA ? Or did he start to cheat because the clip at which he was producing was good enough to land his team wins ? If he stayed one more year, could he have consolidated his offensive game to a higher level where he wouldn't need to cheat so much and be able to expand enough energy defending ? I think thats plausible, much more so than that year ruining him in some capacity.
Of course this all comes down to player development and/or (In the case of Bergevin lead teams..) the player. If I drafted Shane Wright, I would've sent him down with the goal to diversify his offensive game and impose his will on games, explain to him that playing a "pro" game and being content with moving the puck up ice and maybe notching a goal every few game is fine for a 4th liner, but not for a guy with his talent. Does he learn more from that than what happened this year? If you have someone working, like Adam Nicholas, Like Francis Bouillon, like Vincent Lecavalier, like whoever does the OHL job that Bouillon does, why can't he just sit down with the guy and say something like: "This will not work in the NHL, do not do it, its a waste of time and not why we sent you down, do this if you want to get better."
Its pretty funny how people that claim that rushing player doesn't exist and being in the NHL quick is the best way and or that development doesn't exist, also put their full trust in the management and say "They know better" but they can't contextualize that the teams hand goes a lot further than the 10/30 or Bell center.
