James Tanner: Rushing Players Is a Myth: Strome Should Be a Coyotes Opening Night The Coyotes need to go young and quit being so cautious.

It's pretty simple. Will Strome have a better season at 18 or 21? Because if he plays 10+ games, that's a year off his cheap ELC.

A coach or his systems can ruin a player maybe thats what happened to Turris. Jus sayin

A coach or his systems can ruin a player maybe thats what happened to Turris. Jus sayin
- Jordy8

How is Turris ruined? He's one of a the best centres in the NHL (not like Getzlaf or Tavares elite, but he's in that second tier).

It's pretty simple. Will Strome have a better season at 18 or 21? Because if he plays 10+ games, that's a year off his cheap ELC.
- Jean_Perron

I don't think you bothered to read the blog. It's basically ridiculous to hoard ECL years.

Duclair - Stome - Domi
Dvorak - Samuelsson - Perlini
Rieder - Vermette - Doan
Downie - Richardson - Chipchura

Damn that is a young top six .

I tend to agree to some degree with some of your points, but rushing young players definitely can have an adverse effect.

I do agree with your point that the maturity and confidence level of these kids is usually high - but only compared to their age group. Your idea of putting 18-19 year olds in top 6 roles right away based on skill is, more often than not, way too much to handle. Up against much bigger and stronger (usually) men who have been doing this for years and know what it takes to succeed in that role. Putting kids in roles they're used to and suddenly seeing all production disappear is obviously not good for confidence. Being productive at the right level is more important.

High end skill doesn't disappear. The point of taking time with prospects is so their confidence doesn't wane due to playing roles they aren't used to, to strengthen weaknesses in their game at their own pace, and so that they can develop more physically.

Most high end picks usually need work on the defensive aspect of the game too - the jump from junior to NHL is absurd. An extra year or two in juniors or the minors helps with overall maturity and knowing what it takes to be a pro. Even for a mature individual, there's usually a big difference in that person at 18 and 22 years old.

Not saying all high end prospects fit this - look at what Ekblad did last year - but for the most part rushing players can definitely be detrimental to development.

yakupov

How is Turris ruined? He's one of a the best centres in the NHL (not like Getzlaf or Tavares elite, but he's in that second tier).
- James_Tanner

Hes not ruined someone saved him. Someone not in Arizona. Hes a great second line center i dontthink he can carry a top line especially not in the west.

I tend to agree to some degree with some of your points, but rushing young players definitely can have an adverse effect.

I do agree with your point that the maturity and confidence level of these kids is usually high - but only compared to their age group. Your idea of putting 18-19 year olds in top 6 roles right away based on skill is, more often than not, way too much to handle. Up against much bigger and stronger (usually) men who have been doing this for years and know what it takes to succeed in that role. Putting kids in roles they're used to and suddenly seeing all production disappear is obviously not good for confidence. Being productive at the right level is more important.

High end skill doesn't disappear. The point of taking time with prospects is so their confidence doesn't wane due to playing roles they aren't used to, to strengthen weaknesses in their game at their own pace, and so that they can develop more physically.

Most high end picks usually need work on the defensive aspect of the game too - the jump from junior to NHL is absurd. An extra year or two in juniors or the minors helps with overall maturity and knowing what it takes to be a pro. Even for a mature individual, there's usually a big difference in that person at 18 and 22 years old.

Not saying all high end prospects fit this - look at what Ekblad did last year - but for the most part rushing players can definitely be detrimental to development.
- daredwingsman19

Great write up tanner. Good counter as well

Well it's a good thing you're not in charge of the yotes.
I give you points for trying to create an argument, but you overlook common sense, the sniff test, and history.

Edmonton and Buffalo were godawful last year, while playing young, young rosters. Youth is good, but too much of that good thing can spoil it altogether. Better to season them a bit than ruin their confidence.

There are exceptions but as a whole I don't agree. I have seen players have poor careers even though they were great players in junior. Put it this way, I have never seen a player have a bad NHL career because they didn't get promoted fast enough.

Toronto won't have Marner or Nylander in the lineup this year which I am very pleased with. There day will come.

I tend to agree to some degree with some of your points, but rushing young players definitely can have an adverse effect.

I do agree with your point that the maturity and confidence level of these kids is usually high - but only compared to their age group. Your idea of putting 18-19 year olds in top 6 roles right away based on skill is, more often than not, way too much to handle. Up against much bigger and stronger (usually) men who have been doing this for years and know what it takes to succeed in that role. Putting kids in roles they're used to and suddenly seeing all production disappear is obviously not good for confidence. Being productive at the right level is more important.

High end skill doesn't disappear. The point of taking time with prospects is so their confidence doesn't wane due to playing roles they aren't used to, to strengthen weaknesses in their game at their own pace, and so that they can develop more physically.

Most high end picks usually need work on the defensive aspect of the game too - the jump from junior to NHL is absurd. An extra year or two in juniors or the minors helps with overall maturity and knowing what it takes to be a pro. Even for a mature individual, there's usually a big difference in that person at 18 and 22 years old.

Not saying all high end prospects fit this - look at what Ekblad did last year - but for the most part rushing players can definitely be detrimental to development.
- daredwingsman19

You have some real good points here. Don't get me wrong, I understand the rationale of not rushing guys - and in most cases it's the right move - but if we're talking Stromes, Ekblads, etc. I say why not.

While I acknowledge that top six I listed is really young, don't forget that Duclair has NHL time, Samuelsson was drafted four years ago, Domi did two extra years of junior since being drafted. Dvorak and Perlini also did an extra year.

Strome would be the only one jumping right from draft to NHL and I have no doubt he'd handle it. #1 overalls tend to go right to the NHL and the Coyotes should view him in that way.

yakupov
- GardinerExpress

You mean the guy who scored at a 30 goal pace in his rookie season and then had a rookie coach put him on the third line?

Hes not ruined someone saved him. Someone not in Arizona. Hes a great second line center i dontthink he can carry a top line especially not in the west.
- Jordy8

Ideally you want to build a team where you can put Turris on the second line because that means you're #1 is a truley elite top-ten player and you can now try to win a championship.

BUT, he's a top 30 C and definitely a #1 C quality and miles ahead of most second line centres. I do see your point though.

Well it's a good thing you're not in charge of the yotes.
I give you points for trying to create an argument, but you overlook common sense, the sniff test, and history.

Edmonton and Buffalo were godawful last year, while playing young, young rosters. Youth is good, but too much of that good thing can spoil it altogether. Better to season them a bit than ruin their confidence.
- jackzack87

Not saying Smith is elite or anything, but Edmonton didn't have ten percent of a Smith last year and their best D was 19 year old Klefbom and Hall was hurt most of the year.

So it's not a great example, though I see your point.

As for Buffalo, they on purpose where bad. They also didn't dress their top prospect, M. Rienhart.

It's not a myth, it's a proven fact.
With the exception of some very high draft picks with generational and
elite talent.

At 18, most can't handle a tough league like the NHL.

There are exceptions but as a whole I don't agree. I have seen players have poor careers even though they were great players in junior. Put it this way, I have never seen a player have a bad NHL career because they didn't get promoted fast enough.

Toronto won't have Marner or Nylander in the lineup this year which I am very pleased with. There day will come.
- sparky

How can this be anything other than confirmation bias? How could you possibly know whether that statement is true? Lots of great junior players bust out, but just because they were rushed doesn't mean that's the reason they did.

How would you even go about proving or confirming the second sentence? While you arguments seem common-sense enough to slip by an argument with casual fans, I just don't see how we can make the leap from that to "fact" as so many do.

On the other hand, there is evidence that if given a chance, and a role to succeed, young players outperform older players despite a heavy age-bias.

As for the Leafs, if they were interested in icing a competitive team next year, they'd have both in the lineup. Ready or not, Marner and Nylander are already better than every forward they have besides Kadri and JVR.

You have some real good points here. Don't get me wrong, I understand the rationale of not rushing guys - and in most cases it's the right move - but if we're talking Stromes, Ekblads, etc. I say why not.

While I acknowledge that top six I listed is really young, don't forget that Duclair has NHL time, Samuelsson was drafted four years ago, Domi did two extra years of junior since being drafted. Dvorak and Perlini also did an extra year.

Strome would be the only one jumping right from draft to NHL and I have no doubt he'd handle it. #1 overalls tend to go right to the NHL and the Coyotes should view him in that way.
- James_Tanner

Fair enough. Domi and Duclair will very likely be on the coyotes this season. Strome will definitely get at least his 8 games - if he's productive and doesn't look out of place then keep him up, but in a role he can succeed, ie second/third line plus PP.

The other 3 should all be competing for roster spots.

Either way, whichever young players make the roster will get playing time. Arizona isn't expected to make the playoffs - in fact they're probably more likely to add another stud near the top of the draft again, which isn't a bad thing during a rebuild

It's not a myth, it's a proven fact.
With the exception of some very high draft picks with generational and
elite talent.

At 18, most can't handle a tough league like the NHL.
- StargateSG1

It most certainly is not a "proven fact."

I tend to agree to some degree with some of your points, but rushing young players definitely can have an adverse effect.

I do agree with your point that the maturity and confidence level of these kids is usually high - but only compared to their age group. Your idea of putting 18-19 year olds in top 6 roles right away based on skill is, more often than not, way too much to handle. Up against much bigger and stronger (usually) men who have been doing this for years and know what it takes to succeed in that role. Putting kids in roles they're used to and suddenly seeing all production disappear is obviously not good for confidence. Being productive at the right level is more important.

High end skill doesn't disappear. The point of taking time with prospects is so their confidence doesn't wane due to playing roles they aren't used to, to strengthen weaknesses in their game at their own pace, and so that they can develop more physically.

Most high end picks usually need work on the defensive aspect of the game too - the jump from junior to NHL is absurd. An extra year or two in juniors or the minors helps with overall maturity and knowing what it takes to be a pro. Even for a mature individual, there's usually a big difference in that person at 18 and 22 years old.

Not saying all high end prospects fit this - look at what Ekblad did last year - but for the most part rushing players can definitely be detrimental to development.
- daredwingsman19

All very good points that I agree with. I think it boils down to 3 things:

1. Confidence - you can shatter a player's confidence when they don't succeed and they shrink down what they want to do in fear of failure. Hockey is a game of milliseconds and inches and the slightest hesitation means executing a play or turning it over. Good example Look at Kreider's first 2 years.

2. Two way understanding of the game at the NHL speed and skill level. There are simply things you cannot do in the pros that you can when you are dominating the juniors. Understanding positioning and systems is critical to not get caught in no man's land and be a liability. Too many errors leads to getting benched and that shatters confidence, see above. Good Example Look at Kreider's first 2 years.

3. Maturity as a professional athlete. Living life as a Pro athlete is a ton of responsibility, restraint, and strict habits. An 18 year old kid usually hasn't developed the mindset to understand the work habit needed to be successful. They need to learn these things through tough lessons and failure, which is much easier in the AHL where the coaching staff is much more capable of developing younger players. In the NHL, this conduct is expected.

It most certainly is not a "proven fact."
- James_Tanner

I'll take Ken Holland's word on the subject over yours any day of the week
and twice on Sunday.

How can this be anything other than confirmation bias? How could you possibly know whether that statement is true? Lots of great junior players bust out, but just because they were rushed doesn't mean that's the reason they did.

How would you even go about proving or confirming the second sentence? While you arguments seem common-sense enough to slip by an argument with casual fans, I just don't see how we can make the leap from that to "fact" as so many do.

On the other hand, there is evidence that if given a chance, and a role to succeed, young players outperform older players despite a heavy age-bias.

As for the Leafs, if they were interested in icing a competitive team next year, they'd have both in the lineup. Ready or not, Marner and Nylander are already better than every forward they have besides Kadri and JVR.
- James_Tanner

Outperform is a seriously subjective term. Are we simply speaking of goals and points? Like all the kids on Edmonton have the ability score a ton and have, but are the Oilers any organization's dream team? I think 99% of coaches 99% of the time will put out veterans with hockey IQ over Kids with talent in situations like OT, defensive situations, PK, tie games, etc... and as such, will an 18 year old kid every develop those areas of his game if he never sees any ice in those situations? Thats what developing in the minors are for.

I'll take Ken Holland's word on the subject over yours any day of the week
and twice on Sunday.
- StargateSG1

If you've ever been to school beyond high-school, one of the first things you learn about if you have a teacher worth a damn, is that one of the biggest problems in developing new ways of looking at things is because of successful people who already do things a certain way.

What happens is that whenever a new idea comes up, people say "Oh, if so and so doesn't do it that way, then it must already be stupid." This is a logical fallacy and it's technical term is something like "Ceding to Experts," (although i'm bad with names).

I am not saying I am smarter than Ken Holland, but even he has things he can learn and improve upon. Take for example Ken Hitchcock's take on advanced stats where he basically said he was embarassed to rely on the eye-test for so long. That is the best coach of the last 20 years and even he said he still learns things and changes his mind about his old beliefs.

There is a proven and demonstrable age-bias in the NHL where scouts and coaches tend to play or favor or more highly rate older players but where the statistics favor young players.

they have Vermette and Hanzal to shelter him

if he looks good in camp, give him 9 games like BUF did with Reinhart