And here you are, right on cue,
Judging by your past predictions, I'm feeling pretty good that Byfield will eventually be an impactful player.
Two examples come to mind...then and now:
Dead on. They need to ride it out as you imply.
LMAO!
While I do think that there are legit excuses, I think the worst part about the Byfield pick was taking an unnecessary risk in drafting someone like him when there were better players and ready players available. I’d rather buy in on something real than buy in purely on hope. For example there’s very few Tage Thompson, and it’s like that for a reason. I want Byfield to succeed but I do think he’s just generally underwhelming most of his time as a King and he’s shown very little growth.
The scouting consensus was Stutzle is mostly polished and ready to contribute but Byfield had more upside. Scouts get enamored with individual attributes like speed, hands, size, shot and 6'5 center w hands is very appealing. He lacks the strong will you see in guys like Durzi or Fiala.. but not everybody has it. He seems like a guy that wants to fit in and not try to stand out or take risks... so developing him is an art form.. he probably needs to wade in the kitty pool a bit longer - just doesnt seem ready to breakout yet.
For sure those 2 - Id like to hear how Tage Thompson suddenly emerged from someone who understands his development... here's a thread where people threw out late bloomers thats pretty interesting: What are some late bloomers in the NHL?
Late bloomers are legit and it happens but I am sure there’s many more players that don’t put it together vs players that do. Is there a chance that Byfield becomes a top 6 player? Yeah. But is there a bigger chance he doesn’t? Yup. Why else would is Tage Thompson captivating the NHL? Because there’s a lot of him or very few of him in the NHL? Lastly, seems like most of the time anyone goes for height in the NHL as the most important factor ends up losing. Look at the times when Kings drafted for height with DL. What happened to those players? Polished players who are ready vs tall players you HOPE fit into their body at some point is a stupid risk. There’s no Kings fan right now that you can honestly ask that would tell you byfield was a good second overall pick. Not one. Especially with better players available at the time.
I think he needs more time to marinate - he needs to stay settled in his position at center, 1st line, pp1, ot1 etc. The Kings dont really need him at this point - esp playing out of position.. its not helping him or the team (edit: with Kaliyev and Moore coming back).
I do somewhat agree but I’d like to see him with Fiala and Vilardi before sending him back down.
That may work since Fiala will lift any line by himself, and Vilardi is great at possession and passing.. QB would. have it easy and just focus on winning faceoffs and basics like picking up defensive assignment in transition
I like how you spend your time dumping on Byfield but now that I’m doing the same you’re defending him. RJ is smiling at you right now I’m sure of it. There’s much bigger issues in New York than the players they draft. Kakko busted and now so is Laf. Stutzle was considered to be the most polished with Laf. And then the Rangers amazing development kicked in. You can ask the rangers board yourself if they think that Lafreniere was handled properly.
Yep, a gamble that hasn’t payed off. The unholy trinity is rambling off talking about Jokinen a dude who’s 44 years old right now. I pray for the intelligence of this board when they use the exceptions vs typical patterns. We got a dude who thinks he knows hockey because he played NHL 13 Be a Gm mode on his PlayStation, a dude who’s holistically incoherent at any and all moments, then we got a dude who’s probably the most bad faith debater on the Kings board who’s ever existed. And they think they know hockey.
Once Moore and Kaliyev return you could make the case the Kings have the best overall forward group in the league. D-corps is another story...
When have I 'dumped' on Byfield -- I've always maintained that he's going to need time and patience to be an impact player. I'm dumping on the experts of this board who cried about the coaching staff holding him back and not giving him top line minutes. Now that he has those minutes, he's done about as much with them as he had with the lesser minutes. Wrong again, SOL!
I agree its not ideal at all - its already trending a bit toward bust.. but def not too late. I liked Stutzle from watching his youtube reels.. I also believed the hype around Byfield, but Stutzle caught my attention more at the time. Re Oli Jok - he def was a late bloomer - he didnt do shit til he was 24.
Actually, you're wrong Pal. AS USUAL!
Yeah.. Jokinen who's 44 now is being used as an example is not really confidence inspiring now is it? That's just my point.
That was all mental as well threw him in the deep end with no floaties
Ope that's just you being a f***ing morons, as usual
FWIW, I'm not worried about Byfield. He had a rough game yesterday after he took the high hit, but I look at how well a player responds and plays in the roles they're given. Byfield, on the top line, has created several chances, won puck battles, and at times the puck just hasn't gone in. He's growing into the role, and hopefully he can pot one soon so he will see the hard work rewarded.
I dunno. I think Palffy was a better shooter, but the way Fiala moves around the ice and finds open seams is pretty remarkable.
I still dont get it.. your saying its a different era so its less valid? I put up a link to an old thread on this board listing late bloomers.. its pretty common actually guys who didnt figure it out til 22,23,24...There may be an upside to his late development in that the Kings can get a cheap bridge deal before he pops.. and that could allow them to field a better team 2,3 years from now w more cap available.
Not what I intended to come across as saying. What I meant is that using players from different eras even the ones in that thread are players who have mostly retired which implies that late robust bloomers aren’t all that common. While it happens, it’s definitely not something anyone should be leaning on since it is uncommon. Defenseman develop slower than Forwards right? So that makes sense since it happens often so there’s legit stock in that mentality. However for forwards to become late blooming cannons is uncommon. The Tage Thompsons story has captivated the NHL for the reason that he’s a late bloomer who’s producing like crazy all of a sudden. Shouldn’t his story tell you that he’s the exception and not the model to build because they usually don’t pan out at all.
We all want to see him produce points. Once he does that on a semi consistent basis all the chatter will stop.
