TheWhiskeyThief
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2017
- 1,625
- 497
We have also over the years seen how the best teams have a tremendously much better record than the worst run organization to develop players. Teams like Detroit, NJ, Colorado and co produced a huge chunk of all talent that broke into the league during those tough years. Of course there is a bit of a hen and the egg situation, where they good because they drafted 50x better than the rest or did they develop kids well because they could put them in a position to succeed? It’s hard to say, but I think it’s more of the later.
When Jersey were winning those cups, a huge chunk of those guys were from the 87 drafts and up and they had 50 drafted(or signed as UDFA) and developed players playing in the NHL. They gave them chances, but would quickly move them for upgrades in on ice talent or picks because they had so many players in the pipeline or didn’t like something about their makeup.
They used the NCAA & European systems to let their prospects develop, then teach them how to play a NHL game on the farm until they were the finished product, but also would take risks on specimens and literally teach them how to play hockey from scratch(Oliwa.) They would take coaches who they had relieved and have them coach down on the farm or work as traveling position instructors rather than have them golf before getting hired elsewhere.
The last few CBAs that introduced 50 man rosters have altered the development paths somewhat, but where the Devils went south was that their US scouting network had a bit of entropy as they hit the turn of the century.