I mean, Byfield has done even less than Laf. I have heard next to no hype surrounding him at all. Has he looked good in LA? Doesn’t seem to have played a game yet this year.
Another take (maybe hot) on Laf here. It’s almost like he’s known he’s going pro forever and now that he’s there he has to “play like one”. A lot of young players have a hard time because they don’t leave junior bad habits in junior, even though the best players are the ones that can pull off junior style plays in the pros. It’s almost like Laf refuses to make junior style mistakes, like he thinks that that kind of stuff has no place in the NHL, has known it forever, and doesn’t want to be seen as that kind of player.
Yes, I explicitly stated that Byfield might still turn out to be a bust. What I said was, Byfield has and had the raw tools, that if groomed properly, if facilitated positively so that he reached his full potential, would give him a higher ceiling than Laf. It's a pretty simple and straightforward statement.
And IMO, and I am not alone in this, regardless of if some believe I am, that when we are deciding between possible "franchise" players or future players, I tend to lean on higher reward even if that comes with a reasonable yet higher risk. And when two players are as close as Laf and Byfield were thought to be by many, I think it's a mistake to automatically choose the "safer" option because no prospect is actually safe. It's a matter of risk assessment. And in this regard, I do believe in the choice between Laf and Byfield, the reward would warrant the slightly higher "risk". And again, I am not alone in that. I might be in the minority. But I am not simply being contrarian here.
Everyone is trying to find reasons and/or excuses for why Laf is "under-performing", as if there is some huge mystery. Your hypothesis is plausible, but it's not exactly determinable. It's completely possible that there are and were real negative aspects to Laf's game, like speed, skating or more mental aspects like confidence or what you suggest, which I guess can be called "being a perfectionist", that are now effecting him. And at least some of these things, some of these concerns were noted and stated prior to the draft. So those aspects are, to whatever extent determinable.
But his story is far from over. Right now, every hypothesis, whether it is mine, yours or anyone else, is just that, a hypothesis at this moment because he is indeed still developing. Thus, he can correct or overcome those objectively discernible concerns about his game. But I don't think what is happening is completely out of nowhere. There was always a chance and there was always actual risk with making the decision to go with the majority opinion in this case. And I absolutely do not understand those completely optimistic he will "work out" or become a legit force in the NHL. I also do not see it as a net positive if he only proves to be a middle of the road player. If that is the eventual outcome, I don't see how that can be considered a "win".
And all of this can similarly be said about Byfield right now. But I stand by my initial assessment of the two players.
All of this, whether I stated it or whether it's those arguing with me, is at this point pontificating. So, I won't restate this further.
