I haven't been shy about my disapproval of the Bruins' handling of Seguin this season, but I respect their motives. Seguin hasn't been too impressive given the expectations, and the stresses of big-league hockey -- let alone the entire lifestyle changes of living on his own -- may definitely be catching up to him. With a rookie like Seguin (19 years old), it's marathon; not a sprint. Boston hopes that this kid grows into a man, a superstar, a legend, all while wearing the black and gold sweater.
Ultimately, this team is still capable of bringing a Cup home this season. It would be nonsense to put the success of the team in jeopardy to give the young kid more ice time. Right now, Hamill deserves a look. He, too, was a highly coveted draft pick a few years ago. His time is running out, but Boston has elected to give him one last shot to prove himself. But I do hope this doesn't last long. After all, when the Bruins made the decision to keep Seguin instead of sending him to juniors for another year, it was with the understanding that he would play and develop this season. Nights off aren't the worst things for a teenage phenom, but let's hope Julien doesn't make this into more of a regularity.
What is the typical rookie development time for the NHL? I'm kind of naive when it comes to hockey. I know that in football you have to give a rookie about 3 years, but in basketball rookies contribute right away. So when should I expect to be able to turn on a B's game and see fully developed Seguin?
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely not like the NBA, but it also isn't like the NFL either. I'll use the example everyone has used with Seguin. Steven Stamkos of the Tampa Bay Lightning. He was the top overall pick in 2008. His first season, he struggled a lot early and he finished with a mediocre 46 points, turning up the heat at the end of that rookie season. The beginning was rough though, and ironically, Mark Recchi was his tutor on the Lightning to help him develop. People expected the same course for Seguin, and it has been similar... he doesn't have as many points as Stamkos did his rookie year, but his 17 points in 51 games is much like the slow start Stamkos had.
ReplyDeleteIn Stamkos' second season, he exploded for 51 goals and 95 total points. Now, he leads the NHL in both goals (40) and points (73) just 55 games into the season. He's developed very quickly in his third year, and he was already a superstar in his second year. But there was definitely an adjustment period for him.
It's definitely not time to panic and expect that Seguin might be a bust -- top NHL draft picks are very rarely busts, because the skillset is so clearly present. It's just a question of Seguin getting his mindset and strength up to par with the NHLers. It's easy to forget how big of a lifestyle change it is, too -- an 18-year-old kid going to live on his own, like college. Except the expectations are just a tad higher for him than the average college student. He's got a lot on his plate this year, so it's understandable that the Bruins would pull the reigns a bit and make it a learning experience for him. Personally, I would let him play and find his game. That's what Tampa did with Stamkos.
So is the Stamkos development process the exception or the rule? I know Crosby, Ovechkin, and Kovalchuk were all top picks, but were they stars after one year?
ReplyDeleteP.S. "The beginning was rough though, and ironically, Mark Recchi was his tutor on the Lightning to help him develop."
I believe this is a coincidence.
Coincidence - A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.
Bob Rodgers would be ashamed.
Crosby and Ovechkin were pretty much stars right away, both getting over 100 points their rookie seasons. Kovalchuk wasn't fully developed right away, but his goalscoring numbers were there from the start, which has mainly been his claim to fame. But it's not like every top pick has excelled like these guys have, either. So that's why it's not the worst thing for Seguin to be starting slow. Guys like Joe Thornton, who was a Bruin also, started somewhat slowly and took a few years before developing into the MVP caliber player he is today (unfortunately it took him longer than the Bruins were willing to keep him in town). We can only hope the same doesn't happen with Seguin. But the thing with Seguin is that most people believe the skill and the speed is there right now, it's mainly his toughness, his composure, just his all around mindset that needs to develop. There have been situations this year when he just loses the puck when a guy with his skill doesn't lose it. He almost seems overwhelmed. Hopefully he'll settle in and become the player we all expect... sooner rather than later.
ReplyDeleteAnd I was never an expert on the irony and coincidence thing, either. But I do see the mistake there and totally agree that the correct choice would have been coincidence, for there is nothing contrary to what one might believe. It is merely coincidental. It would be ironic, for example, if 19-year-old Tyler Seguin was tutoring 43-year-old Mark Recchi.