“They Can Teach That”

“They can teach that.” You hear that phrase around the scouting community all of the time. “They can teach it, but is the player willing to learn.”

That’s what scouts are trying to decipher and that’s exactly why so many NHL teams or any teams for that matter conduct interviews with eligible prospects. With the game evolving and the emphasis on individual skill, speed and offensive powerless, young players these days feel pressure to get points and pad their stats rather than playing the game and their position the right way.

The game has drastically changed for the best, but within that change the focus on offence has now somehow overshadowed a defensive and competitive mindset that had existed for decades. How can some organizations overlook or blatantly disregard the finer points of the game and arguably the most important attribute to winning hockey and draft a player they know damn well doesn’t have a willingness to compete or play on the other side of the puck?

Obviously, they believe they don’t have that type of player in their organization which they believe they need or they honestly think, the player will figure it out and somehow learn and be receptive to changing their style of play in order to excel in the pro game.

It’s not much wonder why NHL scouts flock to playoff games, they want to see how draft prospects and any player for that matter respond to rise in temperature which the postseason provides. Can they still produce points and contribute in that environment? Oh, that’s a great question, and perhaps important and all, but how does the player respond to the increase in physicality because that’s what every freaking game is going to be like at the next level.

Listen, I’m all for players playing to their identity, but it all comes back to the willingness to compete and at least somehow buy into sacrificing a little when it comes to the physical and defensive aspect of the game.

You want to know something, it really doesn’t matter what level, U18 AAA or Major Junior this shit is happening and some scouts continuously overlook these aspects of a player’s game in the hope that the player will be “coachable,” and “receptive” enough to correct their flaws while also providing, maintaining and potentially surpassing their offensive production and expectations at the next level.

Some shit won’t translate especially if the player in question doesn’t want to engage or assumes, “it was good enough for junior, why change now.”

Where would you draft them? vs. Where do you think they’re going to be drafted?

Those two questions get hammered out at scouting meetings all of the time, but when it comes to let’s say the ultra talented diminutive offensive defencemen, most teams are more than willing to sacrifice a higher-than-expected draft pick to take a chance on the player. The allure of what could be or what the player could become is enough for a lot of teams to roll the dice.

Isn’t “taking a chance on a player” the essence of any draft process? Of course, but are players in this era truly willing to change their style of play to succeed at the next level?

Anyone that saw Conor Garland play in Moncton during his junior days especially his final two seasons never would have thought he would become the player he is today, and if someone says differently they’re lying.

Garland epitomized the word one dimensional and he helped the Cats get to the league semi-finals two years straight to end his career, but he totally rebranded his style of play when he got into the pro ranks.

How the hell can scouts tell if a player will do something like that and completely reinvent themselves in order to have success at next level? One dead give away would be the way they compete. When Conor Garland wanted the puck, he worked is ass off. When Conor Garland had the puck on his stick he worked his ass off. Did he help the Wildcats win? Yes. Did he want to win? Yes. Was he an ultra competitive player? Yes, in spirts Garland was very competitive and looking back now that competitiveness might have provided a small glimpse into the fire and character that he possessed that has certainly made him the player he is today.

536 NHL games, 317 points and counting for Conor Garland which is incredible to see, and he deserves a ton of credit for that.

Garland’s journey in the game provides a perfect backdrop for the “players can change,” theory, but will the players in question want to change?

How can you judge, evaluate, assess and project a player’s competitive spirit, desire to change and if they want it bad enough? Well, that’s why scouting isn’t an exact art or science.

“They can teach that.”

Well, there are some things you can’t teach.

“Oh, they’re just young, there’s always room to grow, develop and change.” Yes, of course that’s right, but would you be willing as a scout to lay your job and reputation on the line and pound the table for a player that you continually question their willingness to engage compete?

I guess that’s where you would park your individual bias for organizational need?

Can you win hockey games with a player like that in your lineup?

Does your organization need players like that in your lineup?

Is the organization lacking that type of player and do you have a complementary player on your hockey club that could help that type of player excel?

The questions and potential theories are endless, but banking on, “they can teach that,” model is anxiety inducing for me. You sure as shit better believe they can teach it, but at the end of the day, will the player listen, buy in and learn? That’s the biggest gamble of all.

Today’s athletes are wired differently and perhaps it’s unfair to say that, but there’s a strong uncurrent of entitlement present and perhaps some players aren’t receptive to what their hearing from scouts in their individual meetings and maybe they assume they know best or won’t be open to changing their style of play.

Some organizations draft better than others. Some organizations are willing to take more risks than others.