The Copper & Blue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Headlines: BC Beats BU 4-3 in 58th Beanpot Championship

Progression?

As I often do, I'm about to take issue with something said in the Edmonton Sun. This particular statement comes from an article by Rob Tychkowski, who in my opinion is a competent journalist, and who also writes on the Oilers for The Hockey News. Today, however, he said this:

A lot of Edmonton's prospects took a big step forward in the last year, something Buchberger and his staff take satisfaction in.

"I think everybody in the organization is happy with the development of our young players," he said. "You take a little pride, but what it really comes down to is if the players really want it, they're going to make it by themselves.

When I first read that, I thought, 'absolutely, we have so many prospects improving'. Then I tried to name a bunch of them. Most of us have seen the top-20 prospects list over at Hockey's Future, which generally does a good job, although the exact order can sometimes be quibbled with.

The first two prospects, Petry and Chorney, both played in the NCAA, as did the 4th, 6th, and 8th ranked prospects (Nash, Vande Velde, Wild). Others played in junior or Europe. If we narrow down the list to just those who spent good chunks of last season in the AHL, we get the following:

3. Rob Schremp
5. Jeff Deslauriers
7. Theo Peckham
9. Devan Dubnyk
10. Ryan O'Marra
11. J.F. Jacques
14. Colin McDonald
15. Slava Trukhno
16. Liam Reddox
18. Sebastien Bisaillon

Let's also filter out the goaltenders, since I think we can all agree that it is rarely the head coach who is the major influence on goaltender progression. This leaves us Schremp, Peckham, O'Marra, Jacques, McDonald, Trukhno, Reddox and Bisaillon. Bisaillon and Jacques both missed large chunks of the season with injury, so let's remove them too (it works out to a wash anyways- Jacques is on the downward slope while Bisaillon is improving).

Not exactly a group of blue-chip prospects, but I guess the best jump directly into the NHL anyway. So let's examine them and see who took a big step forward.

Looking at Schremp's last two seasons, we see a big PPG jump, from .77 to .97. Filtering that through Desjardins' equivalency numbers (.44 AHL to NHL) and expanding it over the course of an 82 game season, it works out to a difference of seven points at the NHL level - significant. So Schremp is one prospect who has taken a step forward.

Theo Peckham made a seamless transition from the OHL to the AHL, although his offense took a slight hit. That isn't terribly surprising or particularly relevant, given that he's never been regarded as an offensive defenseman, and that he never showed any offense even at the OHL level until his final season. Scouting reports all agree that he excelled at the minor-pro level, and the fact that he has passed several more veteran prospects on the chart indicates his upward momentum. Score 2 for Buchberger.

Ryan O'Marra's season was an unmitigated disaster, for the second year in a row. In 2006-07 he suffered a serious knee injury that ended his season, after a year where his offense stagnated as a 19-yr old OHL player. In 2007-08 he spent a good portion of the year in the ECHL, performing well there, but he only scored two goals in thirty-one AHL games. At this point, he's become more suspect than prospect.

Colin McDonald has always been a bit of a question mark throughout his NCAA career, posting poor numbers, but playing for a Providence team that would have made Martin Brochu look like Martin Brodeur. Oilers' brass have always described him as a player who would be "better as a pro", so expectations were perhaps higher than they should have been for his first AHL season. After putting up 23 points and a brutal +/-, McDonald has virtually disappeared as a legitimate prospect.

Slava Trukhno entered 2007-08 as an extremely promising offensive prospect (Lowetide at one point had him ranked #2 on his list) who was described as gritty and unafraid to play in traffic. Over the last half of the AHL season he certainly improved, but 2007-08 must be considered disappointing for him, as his year end statistics show only 35 points in 64 games.

Liam Reddox is the final player we'll consider, and this was unquestionably his finest season. After posting 26 points in 70 ECHL games last year he put up 44 points in 65 AHL games this year. The progress season-to-season is exponential, and he's put himself back on track as a prospect.

To review, we see three players (Schremp, Peckham, Reddox) took steps forward under Buchberger, while three others (O'Marra, McDonald, Trukhno) struggled. I'm not making any definitive statements about Buchberger's abilities as a coach, but what I am saying is that no definitive statements can be made, if that makes sense. Buchberger had a middling record of progress in an extremely small sample size, with some players taking big steps and others falling flat on their faces.

The Oilers have already made their decision on Buchberger, and if I were guessing, I'd say his promotion indicates that they feel his talents will be better used in areas other than player development.

0 recs  |  Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I wrote about Bucky just yesterday ;)

I'm not sure Bucky is great at developing prospects but for what its worth, the top 3 prospects had good seasons.

3. Rob Schremp
5. Jeff Deslauriers
7. Theo Peckham

I don't think its a coincidence that after a season under Bucky, Schremp is now training with the vets. IMO Bucky is being brought in (in a complimentary role) to work with players on their workouts, fitness, diet and in being a pro. I think its a good match for him. He's not being brought in to run the PP, thats done by MacT,Moores and Huddy. Personally, I think he's better in that role than as a AHL head coach.

by Sean on Jun 4, 2008 10:54 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I'm not sure Bucky is great at developing prospects but for what its worth, the top 3 prospects had good seasons.

So, are they the top three prospects because they had great seasons, or did they have great seasons because they are the top three prospects?

by Jonathan Willis on Jun 4, 2008 11:03 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Ok I see where your going with that. Taking a look at the progression from 2007 fall to 2008 spring,

2007 Fall

3. Robert Nilsson, LW/C - 22
5. Rob Schremp, C – 21
6. Marc-Antoine Pouliot, C – 22
8. Slava Trukhno, LW/C – 20
9. Ryan O’Marra, C – 20
11. Denis Grebeshkov, D – 23
13. Devan Dubnyk, G – 21
15. Jean-Francois Jacques, LW - 22
16. Kyle Brodziak, C – 23
17. Jeff Drouin-Deslauriers, G – 23
18. Colin McDonald, RW – 22
19. Theo Peckham, D - 19

2008 Spring

3. Rob Schremp
5. Jeff Deslauriers
7. Theo Peckham
9. Devan Dubnyk
10. Ryan O'Marra
11. J.F. Jacques
14. Colin McDonald
15. Slava Trukhno
16. Liam Reddox
18. Sebastien Bisaillon

one could easily make the argument that with the graduation of so many prospects (Gagner, Cogliano, Nilsson, Pouliot, Gilbert, Grebeshkov, Brodziak), staying the same is regressing. So it looks like your assessment was bang on (according to Guys list anyways).

Trunko regressed, O'Mara stayed the same and McDonald regressed slightly. Schremp, JDD and Reddox moved up (although Schremp mostly because 3 guys ahead of him made the show).

Anyways, I got way off track there but I guess my point is that I'm much more concerned about developing players with higher end potential because 3rd and 4th liners are valuable but for the most part interchangeable. I guess Detroit proves that draft number is not a sign of potential but for the rest of the teams it is still a good indication. Regardless, IMO developing Schremp is more valuable than developing McDonald.

PS I would add Pouliot (first rounder) as a small success, his last 10 NHL games were much improved.
PSS Sorry for the ginormous comment.

by Sean on Jun 4, 2008 2:03 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Anyways, I got way off track there but I guess my point is that I'm much more concerned about developing players with higher end potential because 3rd and 4th liners are valuable but for the most part interchangeable. I guess Detroit proves that draft number is not a sign of potential but for the rest of the teams it is still a good indication. Regardless, IMO developing Schremp is more valuable than developing McDonald.

PS I would add Pouliot (first rounder) as a small success, his last 10 NHL games were much improved.
PSS Sorry for the ginormous comment.


First off, no problem with long comments ;)

Secondly (continuing in reverse order), Pouliot's AHL season this year was pretty much on par with his last one.

Thirdly, I agree that developing the top end guys is more important than developing role players; that said, I'm not convinced that's what Bucky did. Does Peckham, for example, have a higher ceiling than O'Marra? Reddox than Trukhno?

My actual point was that Guy's rankings are based on performance- ie Reddox's ranking improves with a good season, so there's a cause and effect thing happening there.

by Jonathan Willis on Jun 4, 2008 2:15 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Pouliots AHL numbers were on par but his NHL game looked alot better at the end of the season. Perhaps is was just a result of the teams hot streak but he looked better IMO.

My actual point was that Guy's rankings are based on performance- ie Reddox's ranking improves with a good season, so there's a cause and effect thing happening there.

Agreed.

Does Peckham, for example, have a higher ceiling than O'Marra? Reddox than Trukhno?

Or Schremp or JDD? I guess time will tell. I think the onus eventually falls on the player. If your skilled enough you don't play in the NHL, otherwise, you make it by working harder than the other guys. Bucky is an excellent guy to illustrate that lesson. However, Bucky probably lacks technically as a coach. Thats why I think its the right decision to promote Truit and put Bucky in a complimentary role.

by Sean on Jun 4, 2008 2:27 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I think the onus eventually falls on the player.

Absolutely. The ultimate responsibility always falls on the individual. Some coaches however, are better at getting the most out of individuals- for example, Buchberger's mentoring of Peckham makes me think that he had a large role to play in that player's development.

I do feel, however, that we aren't at a stage to really judge how good Bucky is at development, and the reason I generally take a negative slant to it is that there are plenty of coaches out there with a good track record in that department who were bypassed to give Bucky the job. I'm not convinced he's bad; I am convinced that there were better options out there as head coach of an AHL team.

As an assistant, I think MacT should have the right to chose his staff.

by Jonathan Willis on Jun 4, 2008 2:52 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

"I think everybody in the organization is happy with the development of our young players,"

I don't see where that statement is limited to HF type prospects. Lots of those young players are right here on the big league roster. A bunch of them -- off the top of my head Smid, Nilsson, Roy, Stortini, Pouliot -- spent time in SF this year, so Buchberger is justified in feeling good about their development. The system is to my mind working as it should; for every career Oiler who stuck in the bigs right out of the gate -- Hemsky, Gagner, Cogliano -- there's two or three who spent time in the system -- Pisani, Horcoff, Stoll, Greene, Gilbert, Brodziak, plus those guys named above who were in Mass Transit this past season.

Let's also filter out the goaltenders, since I think we can all agree that it is rarely the head coach who is the major influence on goaltender progression.

Maybe it's just because I'm a disagreeable sumbitch, but every time I read "I think we can all agree" I immediately take the challenge, if only to play Devil's Advocate. Which in this case is, why the hell wouldn't the head coach influence the player's development? When it comes to goalies, emphasis on "head" coach. Sometimes it can be as simple as having belief in a player who maybe needs a little TLC, other times it can be tough love, and still other times the coach can fuck the goalie right up. At least Bucky didn't appear to do the latter to either JDD or DD; both seemed to make forward strides on his watch.

by Bruce on Jun 4, 2008 5:13 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I don't see where that statement is limited to HF type prospects. Lots of those young players are right here on the big league roster. A bunch of them -- off the top of my head Smid, Nilsson, Roy, Stortini, Pouliot -- spent time in SF this year, so Buchberger is justified in feeling good about their development.

...all of whom, with the possible exception of Nilsson, did most of their developing this season with the big club.

Which in this case is, why the hell wouldn't the head coach influence the player's development?

Anything in Bucky's background make you think he's qualified to teach/develop goalies?

Yes, he might have shown confidence in them, or whatever, but to me, beyond the amount of ice time he gave each of them, I really don't see Bucky (or most head coaches) having a large effect on goaltenders.

Incidentally, I didn't say the head coach had no effect, or was never the biggest factor; I said he's rarely the major influence on a goaltenders' development. Do you really think that's wrong?

Anyways, I wasn't making big, dramatic statments about Buchberger; I was simply pointing out that I believe the facts (in a limited sample size) show a middling track record.

If I'd really wanted to review all the prospects I would have mentioned guys like Young and Syvret too- they certainly didn't take strides forward.

In point of fact, I think you could make the case that middling results mean Bucky has done a bad job (previous caveats about sample size applying) given that most players develop as they age regardless of coaching.

by Jonathan Willis on Jun 4, 2008 5:26 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

...all of whom, with the possible exception of Nilsson, did most of their developing this season with the big club.

Pouliot spent 55 GP in SF, and was a completely different player on his recall. Smid, Stortini and Nilsson all had much shorter demotions, but all returned with a successful stint under their belts and performed better thereafter. Roy shuttled between the two clubs and the IR and is hard to judge.

Incidentally, I didn't say the head coach had no effect, or was never the biggest factor; I said he's rarely the major influence on a goaltenders' development. Do you really think that's wrong?

No. But if the head coach isn't THE major influence on a goalie's development, he can certainly be A major influence.

In point of fact, I think you could make the case that middling results mean Bucky has done a bad job (previous caveats about sample size applying) given that most players develop as they age regardless of coaching.

Well, that too is implicit in Bucky's comments, which strike me as pretty modest. In addition to the guys named above who returned to make an impact at the NHL level, were encouraging results for lower-rated prospects like Peckham and Reddox, and decent strides by skill players like Schremp and Trukhno as well as those goalies. Add it all up and I give Bucky a passing grade for his rookie season. And that's about as definitive as I care to get on the subject ... jury's still out 'til next season and beyond.

by Bruce on Jun 5, 2008 1:15 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Pouliot spent 55 GP in SF, and was a completely different player on his recall. Smid, Stortini and Nilsson all had much shorter demotions, but all returned with a successful stint under their belts and performed better thereafter. Roy shuttled between the two clubs and the IR and is hard to judge.


Pouliot was a better player than he was at the start of the year, no doubt, but I didn't feel he was any better than he had been during his late season call-up last year; hence I place that improvement more on getting into game shape then on "development". Given that his numbers in the AHL were virtually identical to last season's, I'd tend to say they support my view.

IIRC, wasn't Smid demoted simply because of the numbers game and recalled as soon as Roy went down? I.E. not a performance-based demotion?

Stortini played all of four games in Springfield, and his big improvement IMO obviously came as he was tutored by MacTavish over the course of the season.

As for Nilsson, I think the demotion to Springfield really sent a message and changed his attitude a bit, but I'm willing to give Bucky credit.

by Jonathan Willis on Jun 5, 2008 7:36 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Truhkno's season went from a complete disaster to the point where he was a guy Oiler fans could once again get excited about. Calling Bucky (or Truhkno) a failure because of a disasterous start in his first year in pro hockey is a little unfair to both of them. The fact that he improved as much as he did has got to be seen as a good thing for both he and Bucky's reputation as a teacher.

McDonald hasn't done anything from the moment he was drafted (or even before hand if you ask me) to suggest that he was going to become something. Is that on Bucky, or was that more of a case of there not being anything there to develope?

Reddox has got to be a huge coup for Bucky and the minor league coaching staff. The guy went from being an ECHL journeyman last year, to a guy deserving of a call to the NHL.


I took a bit of a leap of faith with this entry, as I hadn't yet read the comments or even the entire entry before responding.

by misfit on Jun 5, 2008 3:24 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Calling Bucky (or Truhkno) a failure because of a disasterous start in his first year in pro hockey is a little unfair to both of them.

I call neither of them a failure, don't worry.

My main point is that Bucky has had mixed results, in a limited sample. I find it equally ridiculous to call him an absolute failure or success at this point.

by Jonathan Willis on Jun 5, 2008 3:37 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Edmonton Oilers community.
Start posting about the Oilers »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small
Sam Gagner back to Edmonton
Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small
Staios and Smid Return
Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small
Nick Boynton on Re-entry Waivers
1836_small
TSN: Souray's Trade List at Six
Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small
Dubnyk Down; Pitton Up; Opportunity Wasted
Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small
Sourgeray
Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small
Pat Quinn on Scoring Chances
Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small
Souray Fractures Hand; Plante to Edmonton
Picture_18_small
Major trade(s) - Phaneuf and Gigeure to the Leafs
Small
Going Going...Gone (Almost)

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Northwest Standings

GP W L OTL PT
Vancouver 57 35 20 2 72
Colorado 58 33 19 6 72
Calgary 59 29 21 9 67
Minnesota 58 29 25 4 62
Edmonton 58 18 34 6 42

(updated 2.9.2010 at 6:00 AM PST)

18 - 34 - 6

Lost 3

Oilers Stats Leaders

Stat

Forwards

Defense

TOI/G:

Horcoff (19:37)

Souray (22:46)

ESTOI/G:

Horcoff (14:59)

Grebeshkov (17:23)

Points:

Penner (44)

Visnovsky (28)

Goals:

Penner (22)

Visnovsky (9)

Assists:

Penner (22)

Visnovsky (20)

EV+/- /15

Penner (.190)

Visnovsky(.137)

Shots:

Penner (153)

Souray(111)

Corsi/15:

Penner(1.26)

Visnovsky (.945)

SCF/15:

Penner (5.347)

Visnovsky (4.751)

SCA/15:

Stone (3.364)

Gilbert (4.284)

SCDiff/15:

Penner (.688)

Visnovsky (.405)


Managing Editor

Kurri_small Derek Zona

Columnists

Cooper_small Jonathan Willis

Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small Scott Reynolds

Zorg_small Bruce McCurdy

Esaandstanley_small Benjamin Massey

European Desk

Keanu_small JohanBarrander