IMO a lot of hockey does it wrong when it comes to bringing in talented young players.
Putting them on the bottom to shelter and make them fight to earn it only works in certain situations and player types, as mistake how QoC/QoT/chemistry/development tends to work. https://twitter.com/bob_stauffer/status/1302293226070503430

1) Except in extreme circumstances, the QoC faced isn’t that different in % of their TOI. The top players are on the ice the most often so if you’re being “sheltered” on the bottom lines you are still facing top guys more often than not.

2a) The QoT is typically significantly worse on lower lines. This means a player will look worse and garner worse results usually when playing lower than if they were higher. This isn’t a bad thing necessarily as they may not deserve the better linemates but it means people will

2b) often underrate their performance or misunderstand the context of their results. Most players will play worse if you move them down the line up so you have to adjust expectations and that is often missed.

3b) Chemistry matters. Taking an elite passer who is one the WHL’s best playmakers & straddling him with a grinder puts the player in a spot where they can’t do what makes them a good player. Sometimes it actually compounds things and makes the grinder even worse too.

4) Related to 3, roles matter. Some players are talented in the areas of the game that makes them better for specific roles than other. I think the value of needing certain roles get overstated but putting a player in the wrong role can be poor on both team and player.

5) For some who play a certain way, starting on the bottom and working their way works, but for some others it may not... and most people do not adjust expectations of what success with certain players and roles looks like and how much it actually translates to moving up.
/fin