Ottawa 67's 2022-23 Season Thread

[OHLoutsider2020]

So you are writing off Gil Shane and Sawyer. Interesting

Don’t forget Sirman

 

[OMG67]

Beck hasn't signed yet. He might be back as an OA?
Why do you graduate Rohrer?
Why would you graduate Smyth?

I think if Beck has the year we expect, he will be signed. All he needs is to be healthy.

For some reason O had in mind that both Rohrer and Smyth are ‘03s.

I stand corrected.

Under that circumstance, it would be a Matier and Beck trade with maybe Boucher as well.

Regardless, the team needs to show a willingness to add pieces at some point otherwise there’re is merit in advocating a slight reset.

 

[HockeyPops]

No worries, I get our 03s and 04s confused all the time. With the missed season the double cohort started at the same time and I still mix them up.

 

[OMG67]

I just want to be clear.

Plan A is to add an OA and an Import and use those two spots to fill in some gaps. With any luck, filling in those gaps puts Ottawa in contention. Then it is about whether they can maintain that contention status with additional moves at the deadline.

Plan B would be to attempt to fill in the gaps at OA and Import and be unsuccessful doing so. They end up middle of the pack and the types of deadline deals they’d need to make are not realistic. In that scenario, I could see them trade a player or two to acquire future assets.

All this to say that I really don’t see Plan B as being an option at this point. The main reason why is I don’t see them underachieving and looking at next season as being any different. If the guys we have now can‘t get it done, then I can’t see next year’s leftovers getting it done either.

 

[beastintheeast]

I just want to be clear.

Plan A is to add an OA and an Import and use those two spots to fill in some gaps. With any luck, filling in those gaps puts Ottawa in contention. Then it is about whether they can maintain that contention status with additional moves at the deadline.

Plan B would be to attempt to fill in the gaps at OA and Import and be unsuccessful doing so. They end up middle of the pack and the types of deadline deals they’d need to make are not realistic. In that scenario, I could see them trade a player or two to acquire future assets.

All this to say that I really don’t see Plan B as being an option at this point. The main reason why is I don’t see them underachieving and looking at next season as being any different. If the guys we have now can‘t get it done, then I can’t see next year’s leftovers getting it done either.

There is a Plan C but I think it is more remote than B in that Boyd and the owners throw in the towel on next year and do acquire pics for a rebuild.

While I see the possibility of gaining an OA that could help us, I doubt that we're going to see a team give us a Euro that is going to have much impact.

Personally, I think that Cameron needs to develop the 3rd and fourth lines into defensive lines that can play solid defence and not worry so much about scoring as keeping the other team from scoring.
This is not a team that will have huge offense next year from the 3rd line players.

The old fashioned development plan may be the best for this team. 1st line scoring high offense, second line scoring but also defensive 3rd line shut down line 4th line learning how to play defensive hockey and not worried about putting the puck in the net.

 

[OMG67]

There is a Plan C but I think it is more remote than B in that Boyd and the owners throw in the towel on next year and do acquire pics for a rebuild.

While I see the possibility of gaining an OA that could help us, I doubt that we're going to see a team give us a Euro that is going to have much impact.

Personally, I think that Cameron needs to develop the 3rd and fourth lines into defensive lines that can play solid defence and not worry so much about scoring as keeping the other team from scoring.
This is not a team that will have huge offense next year from the 3rd line players.

The old fashioned development plan may be the best for this team. 1st line scoring high offense, second line scoring but also defensive 3rd line shut down line 4th line learning how to play defensive hockey and not worried about putting the puck in the net.

Sorry, Beast but we aren’t coached by Stan Butler!

This is still a development league and relegating the third line to checking or defensive duties is not developing the younger players that play on them. That third line checking unit becomes the 2nd line checking unit the following year and then the first line checking unit the one after. There should be no such thing as a “Checking line” in Major Junior hockey. We don’t draft “Checkers.”

That is not to say you don’t teach players to be defensively responsible but you still need to loosen the reigns and allow the players enough freedom to be creative offensively.

The 67’s are deep enough on the wing with experienced or moderately experienced wingers that if there are gaps at centre, go out and fill them! They have an OA spot as well as an Import spot. Teams that sell off players because they are rebuilding have Imports. They do get traded. Because most teams have their full compliment of Imports, the value of an Import, like an OA, is typically less expensive.

Let’s let the team first resolve the issue with too many D-Men and then let them add to the Centre group. We’ll see where they sit after that.

 

[OMG67]

A lot of discussion about which D-Men are on the outside looking in. Ten competent D-Men does make the decision difficult. That is for sure.

I think we need to add a few assumptions before we look at the real possibilities:
1> If the team does decide to sell because of less than anticipated performance, this decision would be made closer to the deadline and would not affect decisions currently.
2> Based on Cameron’s previous comments, they will keep 8 D-Men on the roster

In light of this, I think we should look at the D-Men that are definitely not going anywhere or would be a significant surprise if they were moved. We cannot anticipate if there is a player that is not happy and wants to move so a lot of times a surprise is related to that.

Players not moving:
1> Jack Matier RH
2> Matthew Mayich LH
3> Frankie Marrelli LH
4> Henry Mews RH

Matier is our #1 D-Man. He is a potential Team Canada invite for the pre-tournament Evaluation camp.
Mayich has been given every opportunity to step into a higher level role. He played with Matier most of the season last year as a rookie and has shown well in camp so far this season. I would be shocked if MAyich were moved
Marrelli and Mews are ineligible to be traded. However, Marrelli could be sent down to jrA on an affiliate card. I just don’t think that is ideal at this point. They picked him with their comp pick in the 1st round. I can’t see the 67’s sending him down.

Players potentially on the block:
1> Teddy Sawyer 19yo LH - Sawyer had some injuries last year and by all accounts didn’t perform up to expectations. This has put a target on his back by many of the fans. However, he does have a higher ceiling than what we’ve seen. He has a bit of a mean streak and can move the puck from his own end. He needs to translate his skill set into offence. That is the area that I question. Do the 67’s roll the dice on him developing that and actually performing. With him coming back from injury just recently, I don’t think he is going to get an opportunity to show what he can do.
2> Anthony Costantini 20yo RH - I like what Costantini brings to the team. He is a solid all around D-Man that plays from the Right Side. If Costantini is replaced, the 67’s would need to be assured in his replacement. They’d also likely need to be motivated by replacing his OA Status with a more needed forward Where the net benefit of the trade lies in their ability to add more bang up front. We’ve highlighted the 67’s weakness in the physicality area up from. Costantini’s roster spot may be better suited adding a bigger forward.
3> Thomas Sirman 18yo LH - I think Sirman is in the same situation as Sawyer was last year. There is an expectation for him to make a leap forward. HE has a mean streak and can move/shoot the puck. The question surrounds his ability to play in front of the net and his overall defence.
4> Derek Smyth 18yo LH - Seems to have slimmed down and is making a physical impact. With MAtier and Mayich, is it needed? The 67’s do need more slick D-Men to help the offence. I question whether his roster spot is necessary. I don’t see a reason to keep both Sirman and Smyth. I think it may come down to whether the coaching staff feels the physical side is needed more than the puck moving side. However, if Mews does fit in the top 6, Smyth may be a great option on his left.
5> Ranvir Gill-Shane 18yo RH - Had a poor season last year. I expect a lot more form him based on his skating ability. At times he seems a little most in his own end. He has size but doesn’t seem physical. He’s a bit of an enigma. I think Mews’ ability to play top 6 right from the start may impact his role. Same with Costantini.
6> Gavin Ewles 17yo RH - Looked pretty decent in his limited time last season. Seems to be looking good so far this season. The right shot is important. But he is eligible to be sent down at least in the interim.

As Beast has mentioned, some of the decisions may partially be dependent on the trade value of certain players. However, that still necessitates the overlap of roles to make players expendable. They won’t trade a player strictly because the trade return is better while leaving open a gap.

I see one of the RHD and one of the LHD being traded/sent down. This maintains balance.

I truly think that Sawyer needs some time to start the season and either build in his worth to this 67’s team or build his trade value. As much as I still target him as the most likely candidate, I am unsure if his trade value is boosted enough to make that trade viable at least in the short term. I sense he will stay for the time being.

Similarly, I think Costanini being traded to open an OA spot isn’t likely in the short term. I think the overall team needs time to evaluate in regular season speed.

We also need an opportunity to see Mews in the regular season before a decision can be made regarding the RHD.

Because of this, I think it is highly likely that Ewles and Marrelli will be given affiliate cards to start the season and be sent down to JrA with the message that it is temporary in an effort to ensure they both get much needed ice time.

Ultimately, if things go as planned and no D-Men fall flat ont heir face, I see Sawyer and Costantini on the block to make room for both Ewles and MArrelli moving from JrA to the 67’s. The 67’s need time to assess their options and allow their existing forwards to earn a role or be replaced by an OA or Import. I do think they need a Centre regardless and they may very well add that player during the preseason or in the first week when teams start waiving players.

So, unless a player like Sirman requests a trade, I don’t see them trading D-Men early. I think the D-Men they have are solid enough to burn two player cards on time. That doesn’t mean that they won’t make a deal. I think if they do move a body it will be either Sirman or Sawyer but I don’t think either has the trade value necessary at this point that moves the needle on a move. They need at least a 2nd round pick plus a mid round pick to make either of those deals.

 

[dirty12]

Sorry, Beast but we aren’t coached by Stan Butler!

This is still a development league and relegating the third line to checking or defensive duties is not developing the younger players that play on them. That third line checking unit becomes the 2nd line checking unit the following year and then the first line checking unit the one after. There should be no such thing as a “Checking line” in Major Junior hockey. We don’t draft “Checkers.”

That is not to say you don’t teach players to be defensively responsible but you still need to loosen the reigns and allow the players enough freedom to be creative offensively.

The 67’s are deep enough on the wing with experienced or moderately experienced wingers that if there are gaps at centre, go out and fill them! They have an OA spot as well as an Import spot. Teams that sell off players because they are rebuilding have Imports. They do get traded. Because most teams have their full compliment of Imports, the value of an Import, like an OA, is typically less expensive.

Let’s let the team first resolve the issue with too many D-Men and then let them add to the Centre group. We’ll see where they sit after that.

Call it a checking line, or putting players in a position to succeed; if you don’t have a line that can be counted on to keep the opposition’s top line in check, you’re not winning; and the way I see it, unnecessarily exposing some to injury.

I’m sure you don’t think that at any time matching up 2-3 of Pinelli-Foster-Dever against the top lines of Petes, Battalion, Colts, Steelheads is a good idea.
A ‘checking line’ in a developmental league like the OHL can be a thing. For the battalion, the so-called checking line (possibly Ertel-Arnsby-MacDonald) will also be the #2 scoring line; and parts of the PK and PP. For the wolves, the ‘checking line’ should have 2-3 (19 yr olds) because 5 of the 6 most skilled forwards on the team are 16-18 and just cannot be matched all game with the ~1200 lbs of 19-20 yr olds in the battalion top six.

 

[Monster66]

OMG could we also see a trade not for picks but for an OA center. We also have to look at who is going to NHL camps and who will be back.

You mentioned earlier that Boucher could go to the AHL.
Who will be going to NHL camps this year other than the players that are drafted?
Did anyone get an invite to rookie camps?

Sawyer coming back is IMO only because he needs to show teams that he can play and is worth their looking at him.

It will be interesting to see how this team pans out.

I agree that the lineup is relatively set.

But a player can always come out of the gate and surprise people. There is usually one every season. Who thought Mackenzie would be better than Donoso in camp last year?

I am looking at a forward or as you said, Ewle may show something that makes Constantini expendable.
Imagine playing with 2 open OA cards at the deadline.

What is the projections for the 67's this year? Top four team in the east? if they add a true number 1 OA center where does that put them?

 

[OMG67]

Call it a checking line, or putting players in a position to succeed; if you don’t have a line that can be counted on to keep the opposition’s top line in check, you’re not winning; and the way I see it, unnecessarily exposing some to injury.

I’m sure you don’t think that at any time matching up 2-3 of Pinelli-Foster-Dever against the top lines of Petes, Battalion, Colts, Steelheads is a good idea.
A ‘checking line’ in a developmental league like the OHL can be a thing. For the battalion, the so-called checking line (possibly Ertel-Arnsby-MacDonald) will also be the #2 scoring line; and parts of the PK and PP. For the wolves, the ‘checking line’ should have 2-3 (19 yr olds) because 5 of the 6 most skilled forwards on the team are 16-18 and just cannot be matched all game with the ~1200 lbs of 19-20 yr olds in the battalion top six.

I believe Beast was suggesting taking young players and use them in a defensive role as a 3rd line. That is not ideal and at best is a fall back plan.

More in tune to what you are saying, in those situations, you try to add a veteran with a couple younger players and put them in situations where they are matched appropriately but their “role” is not to simply be defensive. Their role is the same role as the first two line except they are strategically matched against more appropriate competition from the opposition.

The concept of a 3rd line checking/defensive line in the OHL should never exist. Players don’t develop skill in that situation. They develop a system of playing that hampers their skill development.

This was a hallmark for Butler teams. Wasting talent playing a system and not properly developing players to their true potential.

 

[dirty12]

I missed the part of (young players) be put in a strictly defensive role, sorry.
However, Butler was no more demanding of playing within a system than your current coach was in his Missasauga tenure as coach/GM. Heck, he prioritized effort and attention to detail when selecting his WJC team.
I will guess that you did not see much or remember Butler’s team when he was both healthy and had talent. Those teams played a suffocating 2-1 neutral zone press without really stifling creativity of those that could create responsibly. Hodgson, Duschene, Goodrow, Paul, Amadio, and even Coe on an awful team did not have their development stalled. They were played in offensive roles at 17.

 

[beastintheeast]

Sorry, Beast but we aren’t coached by Stan Butler!

This is still a development league and relegating the third line to checking or defensive duties is not developing the younger players that play on them. That third line checking unit becomes the 2nd line checking unit the following year and then the first line checking unit the one after. There should be no such thing as a “Checking line” in Major Junior hockey. We don’t draft “Checkers.”

That is not to say you don’t teach players to be defensively responsible but you still need to loosen the reigns and allow the players enough freedom to be creative offensively.

The 67’s are deep enough on the wing with experienced or moderately experienced wingers that if there are gaps at centre, go out and fill them! They have an OA spot as well as an Import spot. Teams that sell off players because they are rebuilding have Imports. They do get traded. Because most teams have their full compliment of Imports, the value of an Import, like an OA, is typically less expensive.

Let’s let the team first resolve the issue with too many D-Men and then let them add to the Centre group. We’ll see where they sit after that.

OMG you misunderstand me.

I am not saying that they are only a defensive line to put against other top teams, although it would be nice BUT from a developmental standpoint they concentrate on playing a rounded game and not worrying about scoring goals as a priority.

You have 4 lines on a team for a reason and while we would love to have them all be scoring units that does not happen.

Line 1 Usually, players that are graduating next year have been with team for 3-4 years, have developed their game and are now the top line on the team they are the offensive and defensive leaders. 50-60% of steam scoring should come from them 1st line PP
Line 2 Usually the players that are in their 3rd year and will be back next year have developed their game but not the top line they are a line that plays well with offensive and defensive threats 20-30% of scoring comes from this line 2nd line PP
3rd line is usually second-year players and top draft picks with sometimes an older player to steady them. This is a development line that is learning to play the game and hone their skills. They are not expected to score the big goals and would not be the line that you would put out in the final minute or if you were behind in a game 10-20%
4th line - rookies hopefully the complete line is all rookies and will be around for a few years. They are counted on to get used to each other and the OHL game. minimal minutes after December 0-10% scoring

 

[OMG67]

I missed the part of (young players) be put in a strictly defensive role, sorry.
However, Butler was no more demanding of playing within a system than your current coach was in his Missasauga tenure as coach/GM. Heck, he prioritized effort and attention to detail when selecting his WJC team.
I will guess that you did not see much or remember Butler’s team when he was both healthy and had talent. Those teams played a suffocating 2-1 neutral zone press without really stifling creativity of those that could create responsibly. Hodgson, Duschene, Goodrow, Paul, Amadio, and even Coe on an awful team did not have their development stalled. They were played in offensive roles at 17.

We will have to agree to disagree regarding Stan Butler. As far as I am concerned, he is a piece of crap from a player development perspective. So many players ran through his organization and so many of them had far greater ceilings and simply didn’t develop. Reason? Butler coached a “system“ that stunted offensive creativity. Players were mostly put in a box with tight walls. At that age, you need to preach defensive responsibility but running within a defensive system waiting for turnovers is not a way to develop skill. It is a way to not lose. Butler played not to lose, year after year. And yet, he never really won. 22 years manning the bench for the Battalion. Fifteen playoff rounds won. Under .500 ten seasons.

Cameron won 14 playoff series over 8 seasons (133 games over .500) with the Majors.

I’m not too sure trying to compare résumé’s is ideal in this situation.

 

[OMG67]

OMG you misunderstand me.

I am not saying that they are only a defensive line to put against other top teams, although it would be nice BUT from a developmental standpoint they concentrate on playing a rounded game and not worrying about scoring goals as a priority.

You have 4 lines on a team for a reason and while we would love to have them all be scoring units that does not happen.

Line 1 Usually, players that are graduating next year have been with team for 3-4 years, have developed their game and are now the top line on the team they are the offensive and defensive leaders. 50-60% of steam scoring should come from them 1st line PP
Line 2 Usually the players that are in their 3rd year and will be back next year have developed their game but not the top line they are a line that plays well with offensive and defensive threats 20-30% of scoring comes from this line 2nd line PP
3rd line is usually second-year players and top draft picks with sometimes an older player to steady them. This is a development line that is learning to play the game and hone their skills. They are not expected to score the big goals and would not be the line that you would put out in the final minute or if you were behind in a game 10-20%
4th line - rookies hopefully the complete line is all rookies and will be around for a few years. They are counted on to get used to each other and the OHL game. minimal minutes after December 0-10% scoring

Sorry Beast. You are wrong. Lines are not made that way. Roster configuration in Junior isn’t as cookie cutter as Professional hockey, especially the NHL with Salary Caps.

Depth of roster is a key component of how a Major Junior team constructs its lines. More a matter of circumstance. Younger teams that are rebuilding may have a 3rd line that is not counted on to score but that doesn’t make them a defensive line. It just makes them inexperienced and they have a natural difficulty of consistently scoring. Conversely, you can have a more experienced team so deep that even their 3rd line players push a point per game.

Where we do agree is matchups. Inexperienced 3rd lines usually do not start with defensive zone faceoffs on the road. They tend to come off the bench during the play in situations where the opposing team is likely to send out their 3rd line.

Regardless, most 3rd lines at least try to put a more experienced player or a high profile rookie at centre. The wingers are usually the more inexperienced players. The 67’s are in the in-enviable situation to have that reversed. They have the depth on the wing but no depth at centre. IT is wasting the depth on the wings. If the 67’s don’t add a centre, I fear their 3rd line will be wasted. IT will neither be offensive, nor defensive. Look at last year when they added Johnston as an OA. IT was night and day from a production perspective once they had an experienced centre, both offensively and defensively. This is why I say it isn’t about prototypical line construction. Depth and age of roster is a far more important.

 

[dirty12]

We will have to agree to disagree regarding Stan Butler. As far as I am concerned, he is a piece of crap from a player development perspective. So many players ran through his organization and so many of them had far greater ceilings and simply didn’t develop. Reason? Butler coached a “system“ that stunted offensive creativity. Players were mostly put in a box with tight walls. At that age, you need to preach defensive responsibility but running within a defensive system waiting for turnovers is not a way to develop skill. It is a way to not lose. Butler played not to lose, year after year. And yet, he never really won. 22 years manning the bench for the Battalion. Fifteen playoff rounds won. Under .500 ten seasons.

Cameron won 14 playoff series over 8 seasons (133 games over .500) with the Majors.

I’m not too sure trying to compare résumé’s is ideal in this situation.

Cameron went to Missasauga inheriting a lot assets gained by a lot of losing from an expansion team, and left Missasauga for bigger things after burning through pretty much every appreciable asset at the end of the team’s peak cycle. It took Boyd 4 seasons to build that roster back to middle of the pack.
Butler started his time with the battalion with an expansion team. Had Butler walked away after the battalion’s first three years in NB … ‘piece of crap’ is unnecessarily harsh. In a developmental league that maybe 10% of the players make it to the NHL, it might be most important to develop kids into good young men with a better chance at a good future. Stan Butler did that.
And once again, I’m going to guess you did not watch Butler’s talented teams 5+ times live, plus playoffs, and televised games per season. I will also guess that I watched more of Cameron’s Miss team than you. I think Cameron is a good coach, but equally as demanding of players playing within a system in his Miss/St. Micheals tenure as Butler was.

 

[mianjo]

Rohrer out for 4 weeks after taking a puck to the face

 

[dirty12]

Rohrer out for 4 weeks after taking a puck to the face

Ouch!

 

[OMG67]

Cameron went to Missasauga inheriting a lot assets gained by a lot of losing from an expansion team, and left Missasauga for bigger things after burning through pretty much every appreciable asset at the end of the team’s peak cycle. It took Boyd 4 seasons to build that roster back to middle of the pack.
Butler started his time with the battalion with an expansion team. Had Butler walked away after the battalion’s first three years in NB … ‘piece of crap’ is unnecessarily harsh. In a developmental league that maybe 10% of the players make it to the NHL, it might be most important to develop kids into good young men with a better chance at a good future. Stan Butler did that.
And once again, I’m going to guess you did not watch Butler’s talented teams 5+ times live, plus playoffs, and televised games per season. I will also guess that I watched more of Cameron’s Miss team than you. I think Cameron is a good coach, but equally as demanding of players playing within a system in his Miss/St. Micheals tenure as Butler was.

You are missing the point. First, Butler rarely had success for a guy 22 seasons with one franchise.

Second and my main point was that Butler didn’t develop players. He didn’t coach to develop players. Players existed to further his plan. He wasn’t ever concerned with player development. If he were, he wouldn’t have been playing a defensive system that stiffled his offensively gifted players.

Conversely, Kilrea kept it simple and allowed players to utilize their skill. He emphasized speed and skill development to allow players to reach their ceiling whether they were elite players or “role players.”

If you strategically play to not lose games for 22 years, you are going to inevitably cycle into a good team every 8 years or so on average. You’ll take advantage of some high draft picks and snag a player here or there too 3 in the draft and ride that player. Loads of teams have done that. But Om not talking about team wins and losses. I am talking about player development and Butlers record in that regard was appalling.

 

[dirty12]

You are missing the point. First, Butler rarely had success for a guy 22 seasons with one franchise.

Second and my main point was that Butler didn’t develop players. He didn’t coach to develop players. Players existed to further his plan. He wasn’t ever concerned with player development. If he were, he wouldn’t have been playing a defensive system that stiffled his offensively gifted players.

Conversely, Kilrea kept it simple and allowed players to utilize their skill. He emphasized speed and skill development to allow players to reach their ceiling whether they were elite players or “role players.”

Butler is not a ‘killer’ comparable; Cameron and Butler though, absolutely.
If you’re thinking the battalion are >10-15% different under Butler’s disciples, you have really never paid attention to battalion games or player profile. The big difference is the result of better draft position and use of many extra 3-4 picks over 5 years.

 

[OMG67]

Butler is not a ‘killer’ comparable; Cameron and Butler though, absolutely.
If you’re thinking the battalion are >10-15% different under Butler’s disciples, you have really never paid attention to battalion games or player profile. The big difference is the result of better draft position and use of many extra 3-4 picks over 5 years.

It’s not about a comparison. It is strictly a question of whether Butler coaches not to lose games or he coaches to develop players. I’ve always taken the stance that OHL coaches exist to develop players, not run out tricky systems to stifle the opposition.

I never liked Butler’s approach. I don’t care whether he has a winning season or a losing season, he still doesn’t develop players. Players develop in spite of him.

 

[dirty12]

It’s not about a comparison. It is strictly a question of whether Butler coaches not to lose games or he coaches to develop players. I’ve always taken the stance that OHL coaches exist to develop players, not run out tricky systems to stifle the opposition.

I never liked Butler’s approach. I don’t care whether he has a winning season or a losing season, he still doesn’t develop players. Players develop in spite of him.

You don’t have to like Butler’s approach, but you can’t single out and slam his approach without admitting your ‘67s coach has had a comparable approach. Can you list the creative NHL offensive machines that graduated Cameron’s program?

Butler definitely developed kids to be pros and good young men to be successful in their next chapter in life. Maybe your idea of development is limited to high point producers that never have an idea of, or willingness to do, what it takes as an individual and part of a team to be a winner whether it’s at the NHL or outside of the game. The Lightning, Sens, Sharks seem to appreciate Butler’s graduates.

 

[OMG67]

You don’t have to like Butler’s approach, but you can’t single out and slam his approach without admitting your ‘67s coach has had a comparable approach. Can you list the creative NHL offensive machines that graduated Cameron’s program?

Butler definitely developed kids to be pros and good young men to be successful in their next chapter in life. Maybe your idea of development is limited to high point producers that never have an idea of, or willingness to do, what it takes as an individual and part of a team to be a winner whether it’s at the NHL or outside of the game. The Lightning, Sens, Sharks seem to appreciate Butler’s graduates.

Cameron has 8 years. Butler has 22. You cannot compare in that regard. Besides, I was never talking about Cameron. I dont care about Cameron. This isnt a “whataboutism” conversation. I was talking about Butler and how trash he was. Now, Mavety was clearly worse but it is what it is.

When you have a career Coach/GM, you need to look closely at what the Mission of the OHL is and assess whether that person followed the Mission of the league. The OHL exists first and foremost as a development league that feeds the NHL, AHL, ECHL, and CIS Programs. The key word there is DEVELOPMENT. I cant understand how anyone, including yourself, can actually make an argument that Stan Butler is a strong developer of talent.

I despise OHL coaches that consistently throughout their career that preach defensive systems designed to prevent scoring as opposed to create scoring. It puts players in a tight box and doesnt allow for the type of creativity necessary to develop skill. Coaches that concentrate on skill development in real game situations typically have bigger result swings. They suffer more when their team is younger but they have the bigger advantage when they have the more experienced teams because during those lean seasons when they he team is younger, the coach is developing skills and it pays off when the team is more experienced.

Stan Butler tended to draft based on the type of game he preferred to play. He’d draft bigger players that struggled to skate at the OHL Level. He preferred bigger bodies that could “get in the way.” Why? Because he played to not lose. He tried to prevent scoring. It is a horrible approach at this level. Players that did have skill didnt have enough skill and speed around them to properly develop. They had to play within the system prescribed and didnt have the breathing room to make mistakes and push the play.

That doesnt mean they never developed anyone. You mentioned Hodgson and Duchesne. Two great players. Great kids too. But it isnt about whether your first rounders actually develop, it is about all of your players. It also isnt jsut about graduating players to the NHL. It is about developing players to be their very best and whatever opportunities come from that. My issue with Butler is he simply cared more about his own personal record and be damned with whatever happens after his players graduate.

For a guy in this league for 22 years, there sure aren't many people in his corner. Its not like there are a bunch of players that voice their appreciation for what he did for them. That speaks loudly.

Kilrea is a more valid comparison because Kilrea was also a career coach/GM. 33 seasons for him. SEVEN losing seasons Where he finished below .500. TEN losing seasons out of 22 for Butler. I will give him a pass the first two seasons because they were an expansion team so lets say 8 out of 20. He’s barely above .500 overall.

As mentioned, I dont believe Dave Cameron has a long enough coaching career to properly assess his value. Two 4 year stretches with The Majors. Seven of eight seasons were really good but like you said, he did inherit a solid team in his first four year stretch. I’d argue his second stretch wasnt quite as solid of an inherited bunch as his first group but that is a matter of opinion. I think if Cameron sticks another 6-8 years I think we would have enough of a sample size to judge in the same manner.

 

[mianjo]

67's down 6-1 to Gatineau in the 3rd period. Gardner scored 67's goal

#25 Brad Gardiner (1) scores. Assists: #28 Caden Kelly, #29 Cooper Foster

 

[GermanSpitfire]

67's down 5-1 to Gatineau in the 3rd period. Gardner scored 67's goal

6-1 now haha - Gatineau looks to have the majority of their roster dressed and they’ll be on of the favourites out of the Q this year. Not overly surprising.

 

[mianjo]

Final Gatineau 6 - 67's 1