Quote:
Originally Posted by Ped
Not to pick on your post specifically, but this is my issue with development. You consider Ruzicka a plus because the Flames develop him, but Valimaki's failures on him and not the Flames.
Shouldn't it be one or the other?
I think development is kind of a catchall term that most people (including myself) don't really understand other than to point and say "good" or "bad." In reality, I suspect that most of development falls on the player - are they willing to put the work in to adapt their game if they have to? Are they even able to?
I mean, you look at Crosby who was famous for working on something until he mastered it and then moving on. But the Flames, as any team, presumably try to work with each prospect and work on their weaknesses.
Sometimes they can. Sometimes they can't. Sometimes they're just not willing to. I think how we should look at it is not so much development, but identifying a young player's weakness and if they can be fixed.
But I really think whether or not they can depend more on the player than the team. Of course, teams can royally screw up progress, but unless they're consistent at it, it's hard to point at the Flames and say what did they do right with Ruzicka and what did they do wrong with Valimaki.
|
I don't disagree necessarily. However, Ruzicka looked good in the AHL, he looked pretty good in preseason and his NHL call ups. Valimaki looked amazing at first, then injuries, and lost development time threw him off course I think. My point really is that I don't think the Flames are doing anything egregiously wrong with their young prospects. I think there are plenty of examples of giving prospects an opportunity. So when they aren't giving a player an opportunity, I assume it isn't random, or personal - but rather they see something that we as fans either can't see or don't have access to.