The Flames' handling/plan for Zayne Parekh..

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by UKflames

There are some crazy statements on CP, but this is right up there. In no way has Gridin looked like he was being held back from making plays. Just ridiculous hate towards Huska clouding your view of a young player starting out in the NHL.

Not everyone sees the game the same I guess, if you don't notice his indecisiveness compared to even his preseason games I can't help you.

You have all the right in the world to like Mr.Neuter but I have my right not to.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Not everyone sees the game the same I guess, if you don't notice his indecisiveness compared to even his preseason games I can't help you.

You have all the right in the world to like Mr.Neuter but I have my right not to.

Maybe it's because the NHL level in the regular season is far more difficult which causes young players to be more hesitant or indecisive. The moves they are used to doing don't work the way they are used to, or they need to be done quicker, etc.
It sounds like Huska demands defensive responsibility, but allows skilled players to be creative offensively... to me that sounds exactly how you should develop players - If they can't do that, then maybe they are holding themselves back and aren't actually the type of players you really want to build a team with - or, they require time to adjust to the NHL level and they need time to evolve their game so they aren't liabilities on the ice.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

I doubt I'm alone in this universe but since I have a big mouth I'll say it where others wont, I don't trust Huska or his system in allowing highly talented players to play to their strengths, anyone with a brain can already see Gridin skating on eggshells afraid to make a mistake instead of using his natural talent to make plays.

The more talented to Flames get the more reason to fire Huska to the moon.

Gridin's progression has been, and continues to be, excellent. He is playing well at both ends of the ice, and looks great. In interviews, and from clips in the room and on ice, he looks confident and comfortable.

I don't see anything concerning. To say he's 'walking on eggshells' is one seriously hot take.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

It's been 11 games, sir.

I’m drawing parallels to their circumstances, not to outcomes. It’s seasons too early for any conclusions.

[PeteMoss]

I will say in the anti-Flames development - last year's Wranglers have 4 defenseman who are at minimum part time NHLers this year - Brzustewicz, Aspirot, Solovyov, Kuzenetsov.

They put 2 of them on waivers and Aspirot left as a free agent - which isn't exactly a great sign when a rebuilding team is missing NHL calibar players they have in the AHL. Brzus is the only guy on the list that may be a difference maker.

It doesn't matter much now because the Flames have a zillion dollar in cap room, but when you get good and you are in a cap crunch - speaking $1.75M on Jake Bean vs $775k for Apsirot can make a difference.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Did you see the quote a few days ago from one of the prospects (Wyttenbach maybe?) who said (paraphrasing): "Huska is very demanding that you play the right way defensively, but he let's you be creative offensively"? And then he added something he's a great coach, or whatever.

This was an actual player who was describing his experience with Huska. To me, that carries a little more weight than the handful of posters who are convinced (for no valid reason that they can demonstrate) that Huska refuses to let people be creative offensively.

The Wyttenbach quote really isn't the slam dunk you think it is.

He basically says if you're reliable defensively, then you have the freedom to be creative offensively. That also implies that if you're not reliable defensively, you aren't allowed that same freedom. Which is exactly what the article about Parekh is getting at. Coaching Parekh that way focuses only on his weaknesses but does nothing to continue nurturing his strengths.

Parekh has holes in his defensive game that obviously need to get addressed. But the idea of making him play a defensive shell game and limiting his offense until he proves he can play the "right way" is the exact opposite approach the Flames should be taking here. Parekh still needs to learn how to translate his offensive talent to the NHL - it's not just a given that he'll be able to figure it out once he spends 2-3 years focusing solely on his defense. Offensive freedom should be a priority either way.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Apparently he can't be sent there anymore. The OHL rosters had to be finalized a few days ago.

I think they should stick with the original plan. Play him 2 out 3 games remaining on the schedule and maybe ramp it up if he starts to settle in more.

So, the situation is, he can't play in the AHL because a junior team has his rights and he can't play in junior because it's past the deadline? Seems like an issue that needs to be ironed out in the CBA, since kids should be playing

[Rhett44]

If you draft a player like Parekh, you have to live with the fact he is going to make a lot of mistakes that will end up in the back of your net. But if he can just get somewhat better defensively while still being dangerous offensively, the positives will outweigh the negative.

He just isn't the prototypical Flames type player that is great defensively. Huska has developed players before, but never a defenseman with this kind of offensive skill. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by JayP

The Wyttenbach quote really isn't the slam dunk you think it is.

He basically says if you're reliable defensively, then you have the freedom to be creative offensively. That also implies that if you're not reliable defensively, you aren't allowed that same freedom. Which is exactly what the article about Parekh is getting at. Coaching Parekh that way focuses only on his weaknesses but does nothing to continue nurturing his strengths.

Parekh has holes in his defensive game that obviously need to get addressed. But the idea of making him play a defensive shell game and limiting his offense until he proves he can play the "right way" is the exact opposite approach the Flames should be taking here. Parekh still needs to learn how to translate his offensive talent to the NHL - it's not just a given that he'll be able to figure it out once he spends 2-3 years focusing solely on his defense. Offensive freedom should be a priority either way.

It doesn't say that, so no worries.

I was addressing the people who claim that Huska won't allow offensive creativity, and that he demands everyone play dump and chase, then trap. He doesn't. And the quote backs that up, so yeah, it provides what I suggested it provides.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

So, the situation is, he can't play in the AHL because a junior team has his rights and he can't play in junior because it's past the deadline? Seems like an issue that needs to be ironed out in the CBA, since kids should be playing

This isn’t a CBA issue. The NHL and OHL are two different, disconnected leagues operating under a transfer agreement.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

If you draft a player like Parekh, you have to live with the fact he is going to make a lot of mistakes that will end up in the back of your net. But if he can just get somewhat better defensively while still being dangerous offensively, the positives will outweigh the negative.

He just isn't the prototypical Flames type player that is great defensively. Huska has developed players before, but never a defenseman with this kind of offensive skill. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I dunno,

Tyson Barrie
Jamie Benn
Tyler Myers
Rasmus Andersson
TJ Brodie

Etc etc. All offensive players, all developed by or at least in part by Huska. None known as particularly staunch defensive players but high scoring Juniors and AHL players.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I will say in the anti-Flames development - last year's Wranglers have 4 defenseman who are at minimum part time NHLers this year - Brzustewicz, Aspirot, Solovyov, Kuzenetsov.

They put 2 of them on waivers and Aspirot left as a free agent - which isn't exactly a great sign when a rebuilding team is missing NHL calibar players they have in the AHL. Brzus is the only guy on the list that may be a difference maker.

It doesn't matter much now because the Flames have a zillion dollar in cap room, but when you get good and you are in a cap crunch - speaking $1.75M on Jake Bean vs $775k for Apsirot can make a difference.

They can't keep every fringe defenseman and don't need too right now. I don't think they missed them and decided they were fine losing them. Kuz would have been a miss but Soloyov and Aspirot are non-factors

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bonded

They can't keep every fringe defenseman and don't need too right now. I don't think they missed them and decided they were fine losing them. Kuz would have been a miss but Soloyov and Aspirot are non-factors

Yeah, Soloyov was just traded for a minor leaguer so the Avs could avoid waiving him again. Aspirot is 26 years old (ancient according to some here) and filling in for better injured players in Boston. He's getting ice time but hasn't exactly lit it up. He's have Bahl, and Kuz ahead of him here, and when Parekh arrives, he'd have Weegar on the left also.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It doesn't say that, so no worries.

I was addressing the people who claim that Huska won't allow offensive creativity, and that he demands everyone play dump and chase, then trap. He doesn't. And the quote backs that up, so yeah, it provides what I suggested it provides.

It provides nothing. Do you actually expect an NHL coach's philosophy to be "I don't care about offense. I just want you to be reliable defensively and we don't care about scoring goals"? Every defense-first coach's philosophy is the same as Huska's. Worry about perfection in your own end first and then we'll talk about offense.

If that's Huska's philosophy, then in reality Parekh is very likely going to be a bust. Basically if he pans out to be reliable defensively, then the offense will eventually play and the Flames have Quinn Hughes 2.0 on their hands. But if he doesn't end up being uber reliable defensively, he will be limited offensively by Huska and then you have nothing. Developing a unicorn like Parekh this way takes away door #3 which is where you end up with an Evan Bouchard - a guy that makes the big mistakes occasionally but dominates offensively. Which was the most likely result for Parekh when he was drafted. And as much as Flames fans make fun of the mistakes, every NHL team would be lucky to have Bouchard on their team (just not at that contract).

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by JayP

The Wyttenbach quote really isn't the slam dunk you think it is.

He basically says if you're reliable defensively, then you have the freedom to be creative offensively. That also implies that if you're not reliable defensively, you aren't allowed that same freedom. Which is exactly what the article about Parekh is getting at. Coaching Parekh that way focuses only on his weaknesses but does nothing to continue nurturing his strengths.

Parekh has holes in his defensive game that obviously need to get addressed. But the idea of making him play a defensive shell game and limiting his offense until he proves he can play the "right way" is the exact opposite approach the Flames should be taking here. Parekh still needs to learn how to translate his offensive talent to the NHL - it's not just a given that he'll be able to figure it out once he spends 2-3 years focusing solely on his defense. Offensive freedom should be a priority either way.

Do you seriously think the Flames or Huska are asking Parekh to limit his offensive game?

Hockey is only half offense and a player that only plays an offensive game simply doesn't deserve nor will get the most ice-time possible. Having Parekh be a more defensively reliable player could mean the difference between having a 19 minute per night defenseman or a 24 minute per night one.

A player you can play in all situations and get more ice-time, you will also get more offensive opportunities. Telling him to just go out there are do what ever he wants is not beneficial to player or team.

[GioforPM]

It's funny how we mock McDavid for playing zero defence ("McAvi") but think that an actual defenceman shouldn't be asked to make any defensive improvements.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's funny how we mock McDavid for playing zero defence ("McAvi") but think that an actual defenceman shouldn't be asked to make any defensive improvements.

Yes, typical Flames homer response. Asking for a balance in development philosophy to extend beyond "focus on D first and then we'll talk about offense in a year or two" is saying he should just be able to freewheel and who cares about defense.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's funny how we mock McDavid for playing zero defence ("McAvi") but think that an actual defenceman shouldn't be asked to make any defensive improvements.

We mock McDavid because he's an Oiler. In reality we'd all give our left foot to have him on the Flames.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by JayP

Yes, typical Flames homer response. Asking for a balance in development philosophy to extend beyond "focus on D first and then we'll talk about offense in a year or two" is saying he should just be able to freewheel and who cares about defense.

LOL the latter is exactly what a lot of people have advocated, citing Karlsson as a positive example.

And "balance in developmental philosophy" is exactly what has been said by actual players about Huska, and what is borne out by the results for players he's coached, versus the hyperbole that all the clear-eyed "non-homers" seem to spout, like how he stifles players or destroys their confidence.

What exactly is Huska supposedly doing to stifle offence? Telling D not to rush (because Andersson, Weegar and even Bahl rush quite regularly)? Tell them not to pinch? Because ditto.

I would hope he's telling them to mind gaps, make a good pass out of the zone, avoid blind passes up the middle, etc. because that would be bad coaching otherwise.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Do you seriously think the Flames or Huska are asking Parekh to limit his offensive game?

Hockey is only half offense and a player that only plays an offensive game simply doesn't deserve nor will get the most ice-time possible. Having Parekh be a more defensively reliable player could mean the difference between having a 19 minute per night defenseman or a 24 minute per night one.

A player you can play in all situations and get more ice-time, you will also get more offensive opportunities. Telling him to just go out there are do what ever he wants is not beneficial to player or team.

Yes, that's very obvious. Did watching Parekh play with the Flames feel like a guy who could make a mistake and not be afraid of getting benched?

You obviously want Parekh to develop his defensive game but developing offense at the pro level is not as easy as stereotypical hockey culture acts like it is.