🚨 The Zayne Parekh show has arrived 🚨

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

Very good article in the Herald today by Kent Wilson. He’s pretty much spot on in this. I’d put up a link if I knew how.

https://calgaryherald.com/sports/can...p-zayne-parekh

[Ashasx]

nvm

[Domoic]

Article is spot on. I hope Huska reads it.

[Hot_Flatus]

Which is why he should be dressed every game moving forward in some capacity whether its a 7th defenseman and PP QB on the road, and in a more traditional second pairing at home where it's easier to line match and control starts.

There's no reason he shouldn't be thrown over the boards for big PP minutes the rest of the way at minimum. Given the trajectory of the Flames season, it is downright dumb to not feed him minutes here once his health is cleared.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Which is why he should be dressed every game moving forward in some capacity whether its a 7th defenseman and PP QB on the road, and in a more traditional second pairing at home where it's easier to line match and control starts.

There's no reason he shouldn't be thrown over the boards for big PP minutes the rest of the way at minimum. Given the trajectory of the Flames season, it is downright dumb to not feed him minutes here once his health is cleared.

Not smart, however, if he still is injured. He has the ultimate advantage of youth: time.

[Jiri Hrdina]

It is a tricky thing. I agree that Zayne is totally unique and therefore requires a unique approach. If you focus too much on the defensive side, you risk losing the very things that make him special. If you don't get him to address those gaps though, you will end up with Evan Bouchard.

That being said, not sure what the article says that offers anything really additive. All these things are already known.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It is a tricky thing. I agree that Zayne is totally unique and therefore requires a unique approach. If you focus too much on the defensive side, you risk losing the very things that make him special. If you don't get him to address those gaps though, you will end up with Evan Bouchard.

That being said, not sure what the article says that offers anything really additive. All these things are already known.

The thing is, Parekh and his teams haven’t really suffered from any of his defensive issues. He’s been good enough to recover from any errors in position or decision making. There’s less room for error in the NHL - those guys will jump all over a miscue or a gap. I think if those pile up they will hurt him and his confidence offensively more than coaches trying to help him reduce them.

He needs coaching to help that area of his game, confidence that any errors that do come up aren’t fatal and won’t affect his game, and a good partner to help all of that.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by wireframe

https://calgaryherald.com/sports/can...p-zayne-parekh

I couldn’t agree more, and is basically what I was trying to say above. The Flames have an organizational arrogance that they do things “the right way” and their players have to play “the right way”. Honestly, despite almost all evidence to the contrary.

We do a good job of bringing players’ floors up, and recently have done a good job of making players into NHLers. The question remains whether we have any ability to let budding superstars actually develop into superstars or if our arrogance will just get in the way.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I couldn’t agree more, and is basically what I was trying to say above. The Flames have an organizational arrogance that they do things “the right way” and their players have to play “the right way”. Honestly, despite almost all evidence to the contrary.

We do a good job of bringing players’ floors up, and recently have done a good job of making players into NHLers. The question remains whether we have any ability to let budding superstars actually develop into superstars or if our arrogance will just get in the way.

There’s no real evidence of this.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There’s no real evidence of this.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I think it's fair to point out Sam as a failure of the organization, but what is the evidence that the root of that was organizational arrogance or making him play a certain way.
If anything wasn't it more about lack of consistent opportunity including at the center position? Were they trying to change him into a player he wasn't?

A lot of this is conjecture not evidence.

[Steve's Stick]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I couldn’t agree more, and is basically what I was trying to say above. The Flames have an organizational arrogance that they do things “the right way” and their players have to play “the right way”. Honestly, despite almost all evidence to the contrary.

We do a good job of bringing players’ floors up, and recently have done a good job of making players into NHLers. The question remains whether we have any ability to let budding superstars actually develop into superstars or if our arrogance will just get in the way.

On the evidence, it's not organizational; but Huska is certainly a continuation of Sutter in this regard (but Sutter at least allowed for elite skill to some degree).

Contrary to assertions here by some, Huska can coach youth (he is not Sutter in this regard), but only if the youth is mid-level skill and can be shoe-horned into his system or if the youth is a defenseman (for which he likes to allow them to gestate).

My concern is that there is no evidence Huska can coach skill: in fact, the evidence is to the opposite (exhibit P1: Jonathan Huberdeau).

I think the Wilson article is very astute: he's not putting blame anywhere, emphasizes ZP's skill, but leaves it to someone within the Flames to hopefully read between the lines.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Steve's Stick

On the evidence, it's not organizational; but Huska is certainly a continuation of Sutter in this regard (but Sutter at least allowed for elite skill to some degree).

Contrary to assertions here by some, Huska can coach youth (he is not Sutter in this regard), but only if the youth is mid-level skill and can be shoe-horned into his system or if the youth is a defenseman (for which he likes to allow them to gestate).

My concern is that there is no evidence Huska can coach skill: in fact, the evidence is to the opposite (exhibit P1: Jonathan Huberdeau).

I think the Wilson article is very astute: he's not putting blame anywhere, emphasizes ZP's skill, but leaves it to someone within the Flames to hopefully read between the lines.

I got back to some of what Conroy has talked about. That there needs to be a high degree of accountability and commitment to the system on the defensive side of the puck, but he wants the team to be able to create offensively.

I can't find the exact words he used but something like that. I remember us talking about it being the reverse mullet: business in the back, party up front.

But I also acknowledge that there may be a disconnect between that state intent and what we see on the ice. And it's hard to discern how much of the lack of creativity is a skill/talent gap v. a systems issue, though I know some have strong views on that.

And it's an open question if Huska is the right guy to develop higher end talent as it comes into the pipeline but equally I think it's premature to say he can't.

[Enoch Root]

Much ado about nothing, IMO.

Yes, Parekh is unique. The Flames know this, just as you and I and everyone else knows this.

And they are already handling him uniquely. But you still have to manage the fact that he is 19, not yet strong enough for the NHL, and he doesn't yet know how to take, and how to avoid, a hit.

The article is right that his style will be difficult for some to accept. My bigger worry though, is that many fans will have a difficult time accepting the fact that he still needs coaching. Simply throwing him out there, and letting him do his thing, is not how you develop a player.

[GioforPM]

The Flames "as an organization" have not stifled offensive players by making them play "the right way". Gaudreau and Tkachuk freewheeled. I see no evidence that Huberdeau's struggles are from some sort of way he's being encouraged to play (versus a lack of connection with linemates, etc.). I don't see him purposely hanging back to play defence, though he certainly covers when defencemen rush. Speaking of which, Rasmus rushes all the time. He's not being stifled.

There's no evidence that Huska is bad with offensive players one way or another. Coronato did well under him. Andersson has as well. Kadri had a couple of his best years. Huberdeau was up and down - certainly not where he was in Fla.

But more to the point, this is just a narrative. And to the extent they try to instill some better defensive awareness, so what? We mock the offensive players up north for not backchecking or playing any D at all. But now that's what we want here?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think it's fair to point out Sam as a failure of the organization, but what is the evidence that the root of that was organizational arrogance or making him play a certain way.
If anything wasn't it more about lack of consistent opportunity including at the center position? Were they trying to change him into a player he wasn't?

A lot of this is conjecture not evidence.

I think its fair to say there is a lot of 'Oilers bad/Flames good' in the fanbase and maybe the front office. The Flames do things the right way - we don't tank, we don't play our star forwards 30 minutes a game, we don't want our defense to play like Bouchard, etc.

I don't think Bouchard is a great comparable to Parekh in terms of play style, but we also have to be sensible enough to admit that having a Bouchard impact wouldn't be a bad thing (particular if his scoring isn't elevated by playing on PP with McDavid). These types of players may mistakes, but their positive outweighs the negative.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think it's fair to point out Sam as a failure of the organization, but what is the evidence that the root of that was organizational arrogance or making him play a certain way.
If anything wasn't it more about lack of consistent opportunity including at the center position? Were they trying to change him into a player he wasn't?

A lot of this is conjecture not evidence.

*gestures demonstratively in all directions*

This organization is not good at developing skill, and the evidence is everywhere. The only skill players with success that were drafted and developed by the Flames in the last 30 years are Tkachuk, Monahan, and Gaudreau. Two of those were 6th overall picks. Other organizations find skill outside of the top 10 in the draft and nurture it. Are we just unlucky in that we haven't done that outside of Gaudreau in the last 25 years? Or is something else going on?

The arrogance I see comes in several forms. The most obvious is the dogged resistance to admitting a team is bad and that it needs to be rebuilt. We saw that in the Iginla era, clinging to a declining team and refusing to trade declining assets until they had declined so far that they weren't worth anything. The jury is still out on what we're doing right now, as evidenced by the hundreds of pages of debate on this topic. As I've said above it's an arrogance that there is a "right way of doing things" that does not permit a tear it down rebuild and that seems to me to be a way of differentiating ourselves from the Oilers.

Watch this space as to whether this arrogance will get in the way of developing Parekh. Kent Wilson sees this potential failure. So do I. He was consistently the best player on the ice in the WJC. The talent is there. I'm not writing this project off, it is way too early. But if Parekh fails to develop into an NHLer, the failure will be on the Flames. And I've watched this team long enough to be entitled to some significant doubt that we will get this right, because we get almost nothing right.

[Enoch Root]

Also, EVERY team has organizational failures. The Flames screwed up with Bennett. Hard to argue with that.

However, that does not mean there is an organizational arrogance with respect to developing prospects. Ridiculous. But also pretty typical of this fan base.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I think its fair to say there is a lot of 'Oilers bad/Flames good' in the fanbase and maybe the front office. The Flames do things the right way - we don't tank, we don't play our star forwards 30 minutes a game, we don't want our defense to play like Bouchard, etc.

I don't think Bouchard is a great comparable to Parekh in terms of play style, but we also have to be sensible enough to admit that having a Bouchard impact wouldn't be a bad thing (particular if his scoring isn't elevated by playing on PP with McDavid). These types of players may mistakes, but their positive outweighs the negative.

It's fair to say that Bouchard, on the whole, is an impactful NHL player.
But it's tough when you are paying a guy that much money, that you can't trust on the defensive side of things.

So yeah - ending up with a Bouchard type player wouldn't be a disaster.
But I think Zayne can be so much more.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I got back to some of what Conroy has talked about. That there needs to be a high degree of accountability and commitment to the system on the defensive side of the puck, but he wants the team to be able to create offensively.

I can't find the exact words he used but something like that. I remember us talking about it being the reverse mullet: business in the back, party up front.

But I also acknowledge that there may be a disconnect between that state intent and what we see on the ice. And it's hard to discern how much of the lack of creativity is a skill/talent gap v. a systems issue, though I know some have strong views on that.

And it's an open question if Huska is the right guy to develop higher end talent as it comes into the pipeline but equally I think it's premature to say he can't.

I think this is the point - Gaudreau was a guy who you had to make exceptions for - he wasn't great defensively, he was not going to go 1st in after a puck on the forecheck, etc. Parekh is similar in that way - he's going to have deficiencies in his game. The Flames need to be willing to accept those to get the best out of him. If you spend all your time worrying about his accountability on defense, then you are going to miss out on the talent because you are never going to be happy.