I think it speaks more loudly towards not doing proper due diligence on attitude when drafting. Kids need to be coachable. Too many aren’t. They think they know better and/or want to work on skills they already possess. Not enough of them want to put in the required work to improve an area of their game that is lacking, or worse, they don’t feel they lack in that area at all!
Some kids just dont’ have the internal fortitude to make sacrifices. They are uber talented as young players and they rely heavily on that natural ability but as they age, they can no longer rely on that natural ability/skill. It needs to be refined through hard work and dedication.
Look at Jack Beck. Good kid. Pretty good skill. Basically stayed at 165ish his entire OHL career. He suffered injuries and needed to be more durable and he didn’t work hard enough. Granted, it is possible his injuries really took a toll on his ability to gain weight but maybe if he dedicated more time as a 16 and 17 year old to adding muscle, he wouldn’t have had the injuries to begin with.
Mews is a great offensive D-Man. There is no questioning his ability with the puck and his instincts when it comes to generating offence. But, he is lacking greatly in his defensive awareness. He is also lazy defensively. It is one thing to be active and trying to be where you need to be but it is completely another when you are lazy at getting back into the play.
A coach cannot teach a kid how to be motivated. The player needs that to come from within. Based on the eye test, Mews “seems” to lack motivation and he relies on his superior skill to carry his game. That will only get him so far.
Is Cameron the right guy to get him to the next level? I cannot say one way or the other. As you mentioned, there seems to be issues behind the scenes. This is why I question their draft strategy. IF Cameron demands a certain level of internal fortitude with respect to effort and sacrifice, they need to do better identifying that trait in players going forward. Either that or go get a players coach that has a stronger ability to work with the mindset of teenagers. Personally, I think the latter is the way to go but there is still something to be said about attitude. There needs to be a give and take at least.
Being able to find the players and get the ones with the best attitude is a skill that most GM/s have no idea about now. Killer, Bert, and Hunter all had one thing in common. They went to watch games they talked to the families and the kids before the draft. They got the players to understand and to commit. If they did not want to play then they ended up traded.
London is good because Hunter knows what he wants, and players know when they go there what is expected from the franchise and in the dressing room.
How many teams passed on Galbraith because he was a wild child? The Killer gave him an ultimatum, and when he got here, he was shown what was expected and that he was not going to be treated as a star.
DC is a good coach for a team of older players, He knows how to coach the game. I just do not think he knows anything about developing players or saying to a player if you do not do what I want, you can sit in the stands.
Not every player loved playing for Killer or Bert T, but they knew what was expected. The same was true of Tourigny. He told the players what he wanted them to do, considering that when we were playing with Andre, his son had to dress and did not do that badly.
I agree it is too early to draw any lines, but if Whitehead is pencilled in at the fourth line, he is going home. Same with Yanni I think.
I still think Boyd and DC have to go. They did not do much together in Mississauga, and I really can't see them doing much here.
If players are wanting out and not reporting that says that the team front office has a Huge problem.
