It's not just about Carlsson. It's about the all of the other prospects and the lack of introspection upon the org.
Our best youth spent four seasons in college and used last year to adapt to the NHL. Many on here didn't believe in LaCombe, but Cronin did identify LaCombe as the most improved player last season about 2/3rd into the season. This year, LaCombe built off of last year's work and took off this season.
The biggest difference in production between pre-4N and post-4N for Carlsson is being around the Swedes. That did far more to Carlsson's confidence than Cronin's coaching in a year and a half or Verbeek's load mgmt. Now imagine a full season of that good development with Orebro, just how much more dynamic and confident Carlsson would be today.
Moving forward, maybe Verbeek should let Carlsson listen to his Swedish summer coaches and trainers b/c Carlsson isn't getting the best development advice from our own org, especially if Cronin's thought on offense is that it'll come eventually.
Luneau is another piece of evidence that Verbeek possesses too much hubris that he can develop a vastly underdeveloped youth at the NHL level. Minty and Zell are still struggling how to play defense in their year 2 of the NHL.
McIlvane took a year and a half to figure out how to coach at the AHL level. Last year we had a rookie NHL HC, a rookie AHL HC, and Verbeek going into his 2nd full season as a GM. You think they're a better group than the team that developed Carlsson?! Apparently not. Thank goodness the 4N did happen and Carlsson was added to it, otherwise we all would be f***ing disappointed about Carlsson's development.
I mean again. You might be right, you might not. Hindsight can't be 20/20 because again, a big issue Leo still has is his timing when he makes plays. That's a common issue with players who come to the NHL from Europe. Some adapt quickly, some adapt with time, some don't really adapt enough and end up going back to Europe. There's a big difference between the NA game and the Euro game. Not big enough that certain skills and talents don't translate but the sport on European ice is much more wide open. There's more room and time to stickhandle and think before making plays. In Orebro, Leo showed a notable talent for making quick stickhandle plays that would confound defenders, but he had more time and space, and less of a threat to deal with physical pressure to make those plays.
So, the point is yeah Orebro could have handled development of some of his offensive talents better, but whether he came over in D+1 or D+3, there would still be an adjustment period and who knows how much better suited he would have been to adapt to NHL ice with more SHL development?
I don't say this in defense of Verbeek. My ultimate point is, it's not really worth thinking too much about unless you want it to be an argument in favor of firing Verbeek. As it comes to concerns about how Leo is developed going forward, there's nothing productive to be gained in thinking about what might have been. Whether it was the right call or not, the decision was to develop him in house in the NHL, and there is virtually zero chance he goes back to the SHL now. I'm more interested in what the kid is being taught going forward, how long it will take him to add strength and muscle to his fairly ideal build, and how well this team can foster the development of his offensive talents and teach him how to play the role of a 1C in the NHL going forward.
I'm super happy with his performance lately, but I expect a 1C to be the guy you throw out on the ice to tilt the pace and flow of a team's offensive possession, puck movement, and chance generation and that's something we've still only seen flashes of. You seem repelled when I mention that he needs to grow his strength and add muscle, but that's going to be essential to the development of that style of play, if he ever gets there. He's still not strong enough on his feet or on the puck to be comfortable enough to be the guy with the puck on his stick that is the all-around facilitator. The way Cronin seems to want him to play strikes me as more of an expectation to turn him into a Mackinnon than a Barkov. Don't get me wrong, if Leo could end up a Mackinnon, that's still an outstanding outcome, but Mackinnon gets by on the frequency of his offense. You can't argue with his numbers. But he's really more of a lone wolf net driver and less of a guy that dictates the offensive threat of his whole line. We need more of that on this team out of a 1C imo. Like maybe this is controversial, but I mean this objectively, if I'm trying to win a cup, I'd rather have a Jack Eichel or Alex Barkov type who drives the offense of his entire line at the expense of individual stats while playing strong two way defense than a Nathan Mackinnon type. I feel like this team is coaching/developing Leo to play like the latter (with better defense) when Leo's innate skills and abilities favor the former style of play.
That's what I'm concerned about. At this point I really couldn't give a shit whether it would have been better for Leo to stay in Sweden or not because we can't change the past. I mean we as fans have no say in any of this anyway, but there's nothing the team can do now about what's already passed. What matters now is what they do for this kid tomorrow and beyond. You can keep beating this drum if you want, but I don't see what you're going to get out of it. What's done is done. Let's move on.
