Timothy Liljegren Highlights
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
herman
Well-known member
Zee said:
He'd have to blow everyone out of the water to make the team off the hop. I see them giving him a full length look training camp.
Usually the ones that jump from draft to NHL are getting picked by garbage teams due to garbage depth. We have lots of depth now at RD, but we don't have the franchise-level of player that a contending team prefers to have back there. Liljegren has a shot at becoming such a player and I don't mind slow rolling it a bit to get him up to speed and adjusted on NHL ice.
The Marlies is the best situation for him to grow at the moment: NHL ice, Leafs system training (esp. for defense), SO MANY Swedes on that team, and future teammates to grow with.
Kin
New member
Zee said:
Why he didn't play well is a combination of things. He did, however, return from the Mono and the Leafs aren't the only team that know that Mono is a temporary condition. The reasons for his drop are more varied than just him having mono. Scouts clearly saw things in his return they didn't like.
We all hope he can have a solid career but we shouldn't put the burden on him of a draft position higher than where he was actually drafted.
herman
Well-known member
It's just interview talk after the fact, but Liljegren has stated that he accelerated his return from mono (i.e. before he was 100%) and tried to do too much on the ice in reaction to seeing his draft stock falling as others climbed.
A lot of his issues on the ice are largely decision-making ones, rather than a lack of skill or physical capability.
A lot of his issues on the ice are largely decision-making ones, rather than a lack of skill or physical capability.
herman
Well-known member
Nik the Trik said:
And I enjoyed that conversation, so let's have it again!
Yes it is very much a skill that can be developed. I think it's also pretty contingent on who else is on the ice, who you trust to do what, the structure of the team you're playing on and against.
We saw similar with Gardiner. He had many visible decision making gaffes that were a function of a) how much he had the puck (due to skillz); b) how often he was left on his own (due to teams structure and teammates).
Kin
New member
herman said:
And this was our impasse. I still don't agree that it can be developed the way you do. I think a lot of it is as innate as size or speed. Even with Gardiner, he still has the tools and quickness to make some very good decisions but he also is prone to the occasional brain cramp.
Some guys are hardwired to be risk takers. There are elements of positional play that get better with age and players can retrain themselves to use their talents in different ways but, again, that's true of other abilities that you probably would say can't be taught.
A player's capacity to grow and develop in that way is a big question mark at the draft. Sure, someone like Liljegren isn't going to have physical impediments in his way but outside of size, which I think we both agree is overvalued, anyone picked in the first round is going to have the same question marks of whether or not they can train themselves to improve at the mental side of the game.
Bullfrog
Active member
I'm on Nik's side. I'm dumbing it down, but it's like saying "anyone can get smarter." That's just simply not true (within reason.)
Sure, a smart hockey player can learn more about the game through coaching and experience, but there's still finite limits on a player's capacity to think extremely quickly and to be creative in applying their skills.
Sure, a smart hockey player can learn more about the game through coaching and experience, but there's still finite limits on a player's capacity to think extremely quickly and to be creative in applying their skills.
herman
Well-known member
Nik the Trik said:
Are we discussing decision making as a skill or as an innate talent?
The definitions I'm going by:
talent: innate capability for performing a certain task (prior to formal training)
skill: ability to perform a certain task
I think both play a part, as there are some that are better at quick decision making, just as there are some that have longer strides, or better hand-eye coordination and spatial cognition out of the box. I also think those non-physiological talents can be (laboriously) taught and refined, or compensated in other ways that yield a similar effect, but not as good as if they had that talent headstart.
So Liljegren's (and Gardiner's) penchant for riskier plays, for what they perceive to be a higher payoff, can be accommodated by team structure/linemates as well as coaching (positioning, pre-programed decisions based on reference points).
If you'll recall Frank Catalanotto, bench player for the Jays some years back, he was not the most talented physically or skill-wise, but he found his place in the game by being obsessively prepared. He wrote his own scouting report on every pitcher/catcher and umpire he ever encountered, logging every pitch and what he did with it, how the pitchers moved for those pitches, and whether there were any tipping signs.
To Bullfrog's point about applying creativity, that was sort of where our previous discussion on teaching defense vs teaching offense went. Offense has a very narrow win-condition (goal), whereas defense has a lot of outs to work with. Liljegren has oodles of talent and skill for the offensive side of the game. His defense is not bad, but it's really how he deploys his skills and chooses to play that's the issue for him.
Kin
New member
Bullfrog said:
Yeah, I think even calling it "decision making" is probably misleading because it's not, you know, sitting down and deciding whether or not a fixed rate or variable mortgage is best for you. It's like you say it's really more a case of reflexes than thought process.
Hockey is by it's nature a chaotic game. The puck bounces, the ice surface shifts, people lose tires and get out of position...coaching is an attempt to effectively control that chaos as best as you can so you can drill certain repeatable processes but players are always going to be in unfamiliar situations and needing to think on their feet.
Which again, doesn't suggest Liljegren can't do it just that putting it all together for him is no more assured than it is anyone else.
Kin
New member
herman said:
What I'm saying is that you're drawing too distinct a line between the two. That basically anything anyone does is a blend of both.
herman said:
I think just about anything can be "taught" in as much as it can be instructed but the capacity to learn and execute is as much an innate quality as having them in the first place. To use an analogy, I have no doubt that advanced level math can be taught but I don't think everyone is as equally capable of learning it.
So Liljegren's (and Gardiner's) penchant for riskier plays, for what they perceive to be a higher payoff, can be accommodated by team structure/linemates as well as coaching (positioning, pre-programed decisions based on reference points).
herman said:
If you ever get a chance there's a very good baseball book called Men at Work by George Will which is basically a very deep dive on how three players and one manager study the game. It's divided into Hitting(Tony Gwynn), Fielding(Cal Ripken) and Pitching(Orel Hershiser) and then Managing(Sparky Anderson).
Anyways, in the Gwynn chapter they talk about him sort of similarly. How he never really looked like an athlete or had obvious physical gifts but it was his studious approach to hitting that made him a HOFer.
Anyways, in it, there's a bit about Gwynn trying to get a teammate, a spectacularly talented player who wasn't doing very well, to approach the game the way he did and make use of his natural talents only to find out it just wouldn't work. Gwynn then makes the case I'm making here. That his capacity to learn and study and then apply that to the things he needs to do in fractions of a second is as much a "talent" as just running fast.
Anyways, it's a good book.
I wonder what impact concussions have on this skill? Is Crosby putting up less points because of his concussion history, or is it because he's playing the game differently because he values wins over points and he has hit that point in his career where he knows when to turn it on?
Gardiner is an interesting case. I thought after his rookie year that he was going to be a different defenceman than he is now. I thought he looked more composed in his rookie year than he does now. I really felt at the time that the concussion he got at the AHL level set him back as he didn't look like the same d-man. Now I am not sure if there weren't other reasons why I felt he looked composed in his rookie season, like lack of comparables on the team, lower expectations on him, etc.
Gardiner is an interesting case. I thought after his rookie year that he was going to be a different defenceman than he is now. I thought he looked more composed in his rookie year than he does now. I really felt at the time that the concussion he got at the AHL level set him back as he didn't look like the same d-man. Now I am not sure if there weren't other reasons why I felt he looked composed in his rookie season, like lack of comparables on the team, lower expectations on him, etc.
herman
Well-known member
Nik the Trik said:
Thanks for the recommendation! That sounds very interesting to explore.
Over the weekend, I was listening to some old Infinite Monkey Cage episodes, and they were talking about brain development (specifically what sex has to do with your brain differences -- next to nothing was the conclusion) being a function of brain structure shape (which is what you're born with) and how it grows through usage (practice develops and reinforces neural pathways), which literally changes its shape (and by extension, aptitudes). This helps me understand the issue that Gwynn encountered, and also dovetails nicely with your advanced mathematics analogy.
So SI's pondering about concussions is very interesting in his case because it's such an under-studied field. We know for certain that brain trauma/injuries can cause functional and personality changes, but the how of it all is understandably hard to study. The brain has a lot of compensatory functions built into it, so it's kind of hard to know what's 'normal'. For example, in blind people, their brain areas that control the optics are used to augment the processing of the sound they hear.
herman
Well-known member
http://www.tsn.ca/radio/audio/shilton-all-signs-pointing-to-timothy-liljegren-staying-in-toronto-1.848774
Shilton believes Liljegren is likely to stay in Toronto this season, with slightly more information tomorrow when Sheldon Keefe shows up.
Right now, the players are taking part in optional sessions as the CBA limits the number of official practices teams can run. As one of the Leafs blogs pointed out (I can't remember which one, sorry), teams have been hiring former players to run some unofficial practices to get people primed for Rookie Tournaments and Training Camps.
Shilton believes Liljegren is likely to stay in Toronto this season, with slightly more information tomorrow when Sheldon Keefe shows up.
Right now, the players are taking part in optional sessions as the CBA limits the number of official practices teams can run. As one of the Leafs blogs pointed out (I can't remember which one, sorry), teams have been hiring former players to run some unofficial practices to get people primed for Rookie Tournaments and Training Camps.
