Has Quinn Hughes been underwhelming since his rookie season?

[rangersfansince08]

Having seen Ray Bourque's entire career yes Quinn Hughes is under whelming in comparison.

Compared to anyone else Quinn Hughes is very good. He came into a much worse situation than Makar and at every age has been BETTER than Makar. Hughes is a year younger and in a much worse development situation.

But much like when Martin Skoula was better to start his career than the Sedins we will see who comes out on top after an entire career.

Makar is and will continue to be better.

Don’t really think it’s fair to compare quinn to makar who might go down as better than bobby orr

I don't think people realize how good Orr was in comparison to his peers. Makar isn't anywhere close to being that much better than his peers.

1974-75 NHL Awards Voting | Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

Orr finished with 135 points this season. Potvin finished 2nd with just 76. 59 more for Orr or 78% more.

1973-74 NHL Awards Voting | Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

Orr had 122 pts this season. 40 more than second place Park. 49% more.

1972-73 NHL Awards Voting | Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

Orr with 101 this season. Lapointe in second place with 54. 87% more for Orr.

1971-72 NHL Awards Voting | Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

Orr with 117. Park in second place with 73. 61% more production for Orr.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Weird thread. I think he's been pretty good, he's not your traditional all around No. 1 but he's a top notch player at what he does.

He's only disappointing if the expectation was to stay in lockstep with Cale Makar.

 

[AvroArrow]

Explain last season then

Explain him turning the puck over in his own zone and getting bullied off the puck and being irrelevant in puck battles ?

The good thing is, the flaws in his game are coach-able, it's not a talent or lack of work ethic issue. I'm sure he'll continue to refine his game and get better, but I dunno maybe we're watching two different players. Anytime I see him in his own zone he looks lost and ineffective.

 

[Spirits]

just because a player doesn’t match Cale Makar’s development path, it doesn’t make them underwhelming.

I was told loudly and repeatedly that Hughes was better than Makar when they were both rookies by Canucks fans. Now and forever going forward I will hold Hughes to Makars standards. And yes, I realize they aren't even in the same stratosphere, just like we all told Canucks fans back then.

 

[biturbo19]

Quin Hughes is what he is. I feel like he's basically become the best possible version of what he was drafted to be. He has serious limitations in the defensive side of the game due to being a smurf. I honestly don't believe you can build a "Cup Caliber" blueline around someone like him as the sole anchor. He's not a real #1D. But he's been so hugely impactful to the overall transition game of the Canucks, you kind of have to accept it.

He hasn't been underwhelming. He's been exactly as advertised. He's just a sort of limited piece to "anchor" your defence around, because he's not really an all around, all situations stud.

 

[Dust]

I was told loudly and repeatedly that Hughes was better than Makar when they were both rookies by Canucks fans. Now and forever going forward I will hold Hughes to Makars standards. And yes, I realize they aren't even in the same stratosphere, just like we all told Canucks fans back then.

You could make an argument that Hughes was better at age 19 & 20 because... Makar wasn't in the league yet. I think that's about the only valid argument in his favor. Makar is significantly better.

 

[Spirits]

You could make an argument that Hughes was better at age 19 & 20 because... Makar wasn't in the league yet. I think that's about the only valid argument in his favor. Makar is significantly better.

Makar came into game 3 vs the Calgary Flames in the first round, April 15th 2019 and scored a goal on his VERY FIRST SHOT!! In the playoffs, vs the #1 seed in his home province. He was 20 and he was better than Hughes from that very moment imo.

I agree though, I don't think it is particularly close either. Hughes is a rich mans Samuel Girard.

 

[Regal]

Makar is the reason the Avs are a much better team though

And MacKinnon, and Rantanen, and Toews and Byram, and…

Has more to do with his inability to defend than anything else. Absolutely elite offensively, phenomenal skater, one of the worst d-men in his own zone

Not only is that not true, but what he does great offensively from the backend isn’t the same things you want in an offensive winger.

 

[Spirits]

And MacKinnon, and Rantanen, and Toews and Byram, and…



Not only is that not true, but what he does great offensively from the backend isn’t the same things you want in an offensive winger.

Byram is great and all, but he hasn't played much yet. What little he has played has been terrific though.

 

[Fulham]

He is asked to be the play driver offensively, while also having zero help defensively. Desperately misses a Tanev type.

 

[kanucks25]

Quin Hughes is what he is. I feel like he's basically become the best possible version of what he was drafted to be. He has serious limitations in the defensive side of the game due to being a smurf. I honestly don't believe you can build a "Cup Caliber" blueline around someone like him as the sole anchor. He's not a real #1D. But he's been so hugely impactful to the overall transition game of the Canucks, you kind of have to accept it.

He hasn't been underwhelming. He's been exactly as advertised. He's just a sort of limited piece to "anchor" your defence around, because he's not really an all around, all situations stud.

I think he can be the #1 on a contender, just that he can't be on a matchup pair.

Has to be an Oduya - Hjalmarsson or McDonagh - Cernak situation on the 2nd pair. Unfortunately we don't have anything close to this behind him (OEL - Myers did okay last year in this role but both have been bad this year and probably won't be any better going forward).

 

[Chainshot]

The strengths of his game, his ability to move the puck quickly and accurately in transition as well as his ability to create plays from the blueline once in the offensive zone, remain excellent. Having an PMD on a team that is not playing a solid defensive game among all, including and especially the forwards, not look good at times due to that is not new. He's dynamite as a play starter. Not sure where the beef about his play is coming from?

 

[biturbo19]

I think he can be the #1 on a contender, just that he can't be on a matchup pair.

Has to be an Oduya - Hjalmarsson or McDonagh - Cernak situation on the 2nd pair. Unfortunately we don't have anything close to this behind him (OEL - Myers did okay last year in this role but both have been bad this year and probably won't be any better going forward).

I look at it as like...yeah...Hughes can be your "top guy" in the same sense as Ehrhoff was. But if that's your "top guy", you need to have a lot of other really high quality defencemen around them to make it work. Including that other actual high quality "matchup" pairing (HamJuice at the time).

It's why Ehrhoff, despite playing a ton of minutes, generating tons of points, and generally having robust underlying numbers...was never anywhere near a True #1D.

 

[kanucks25]

Luke Schenn has actually done an admiral job at replacing Tanev, but at the end of the day, he's not Tanev.

However, Hughes's partner hasn't really been one of his problems, instead:
- he's inconsistent defensively especially because his size limits him
- he has absolutely no shot from the point

He can play 25-27 every night and be excellent in transition but you will have to live with a few iffy moments in his own zone every game. When he's on a bad stretch that can turn from a few moments to 5 or 6.

The PP in general has been fine ever since he's been the quarterback but if he was a shooting threat it could be lethal.

I look at it as like...yeah...Hughes can be your "top guy" in the same sense as Ehrhoff was. But if that's your "top guy", you need to have a lot of other really high quality defencemen around them to make it work. Including that other actual high quality "matchup" pairing (HamJuice at the time).

It does sound like it's asking for a lot but if you look at all the recent champs and contenders, they have that sort of stacked D anyway (other than the Pens I guess).

I'm not someone who would suggest he's as good as Makar but imagine if he had a Toews like player as his partner with Girard/Byram/Manson behind him - that would prop him up big time. Right now he's asked to carry way too heavy a load and it wears on him.

 

[SupremeTeam16]

Definitely one of the better forwards playing defense in the league.

 

[biturbo19]

Luke Schenn has actually done an admiral job at replacing Tanev, but at the end of the day, he's not Tanev.

However, Hughes's partner hasn't really been one of his problems, instead:
- he's inconsistent defensively especially because his size limits him
- he has absolutely no shot from the point

He can play 25-27 every night and be excellent in transition but you will have to live with a few iffy moments in his own zone every game. When he's on a bad stretch that can turn from a few moments to 5 or 6.

The PP in general has been fine ever since he's been the quarterback but if he was a shooting threat it could be lethal.



It does sound like it's asking for a lot but if you look at all the recent champs and contenders, they have that sort of stacked D anyway (other than the Pens I guess).

I'm not someone who would suggest he's as good as Makar but imagine if he had a Toews like player as his partner with Girard/Byram/Manson behind him - that would prop him up big time. Right now he's asked to carry way too heavy a load and it wears on him.

I think the difference is...Hedman is a guy who can kind of stand on his own as a #1 Matchup D. If you asked him to. I think Makar probably fits that description too, but we might not ever know about that for real.

With Hughes situation, we do effectively have negative confirmation of his ability to play that role. He's not an all situations guy, he's not a matchup defenceman. Even as a PP Quarterback offensively, he's limited by his lack of an imposing shot from the point.


Situation does matter. But there's also an element that applies in a broader sense. That's where i contextualize Hughes as a great transition defender, who isn't a "real" top pairing do-everything #1D.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Quin Hughes is what he is. I feel like he's basically become the best possible version of what he was drafted to be. He has serious limitations in the defensive side of the game due to being a smurf. I honestly don't believe you can build a "Cup Caliber" blueline around someone like him as the sole anchor. He's not a real #1D. But he's been so hugely impactful to the overall transition game of the Canucks, you kind of have to accept it.

He hasn't been underwhelming. He's been exactly as advertised. He's just a sort of limited piece to "anchor" your defence around, because he's not really an all around, all situations stud.

This is fair. You surround a player like Hughes to shore up his weaknesses and make him better. That's not a criticism, just reality. He's exceptional at what he is does well and the stuff he is poor at he'll always be poor at. It's not about coaching or even systems. It's really about talent.

 

[SnipeShowJB11]

Still funny people used to put Hughes and Makar in the same sentence. MILES apart.

Hughes puts up his PP points. Ok at ES production. Cannot rely on such a small guy to defend really. He is one dimensional.

You have to have a steady guy next to him for sure and let Hughes do his thing. Hughes is like an upgraded Tyson Barrie with more speed.

A guy like Tanev would look good next to QH

 

[biturbo19]

This is fair. You surround a player like Hughes to shore up his weaknesses and make him better. That's not a criticism, just reality. He's at exceptional at what he is does and the stuff he is poor at he'll always be poor at. It's not about coaching or even systems. It's really about talent.

That's the key. He's not the "anchor" but he can be a key part of what you're building. You're just...building around him, rather than building around him.


Doesn't help that he genuinely has not had a "Top-4 Caliber" partner since Tanev. But there's a less granular level at which that doesn't even necessarily matter. The true #1D of the league occasionally play with nobodies at times, and make their career for them. That's the difference. Though i think you could argue Hughes has somehow made Luke Schenn into a "somebody" again.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Still funny people used to put Hughes and Makar in the same sentence. MILES apart.

Hughes puts up his PP points. Ok at ES production. Cannot rely on such a small guy to defend really. He is one dimensional.

You have to have a steady guy next to him for sure and let Hughes do his thing. Hughes is like an upgraded Tyson Barrie with more speed.

A guy like Tanev would look good next to QH

Do you honestly think Makar would be the same player on the Canucks?

 

[tilly123123]

Yawn . His best season was last season wtf are you babbling about ?

 

[God]

i think makar is better than hughes, but:

- if you replaced makar with hughes on the avs, i think they still win the cup
- if you replaced hughes with makar on the canucks, i don't think they make the playoffs. this team environment sucks ass lol bobby orr couldn't even save this

 

[Three On Zero]

Hughes isn’t Makar, but the kid does fine defensively.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Oh God, Quinn Hughes is like a bat signal for absolutely stupid takes.

He's 23 and being asked to carry an atrocious defensive personnel, on a team with lazy forwards, and a broken culture.
I'm also convinced he's playing with a groin injury or something. His game is predicated on his confidence in his agility and I'm not seeing it. He's also falling over a lot, which happens when he's hurt.

Quinn Hughes is a legitimate star who will be a superstar.
People who are still butthurt over internet conversations where he was compared to Makar are tragic figures in their own lives. It was a legitimate comparison for the first 2/3rds of their respective rookie seasons.
Makar turning into an absolute franchise defining talent says nothing about Hughes.

Hughes tries to carry Luke Schenn (I like Schenn) in the top 4, whereas if Schenn played with anybody else he would basically be a number 6 due to footspeed. Like Hughes literally revitalized Schenn's career.

I'm not comparing Hughes to Makar (Makar is better) but you are absolutely lost if you don't think that some of the obvious discrepancy is due to quality of teammates.

 

[JTmillerForA1stLOL]

Still funny people used to put Hughes and Makar in the same sentence. MILES apart.

Hughes puts up his PP points. Ok at ES production. Cannot rely on such a small guy to defend really. He is one dimensional.

You have to have a steady guy next to him for sure and let Hughes do his thing. Hughes is like an upgraded Tyson Barrie with more speed.

A guy like Tanev would look good next to QH

Talk about moving the goal post. Pretty rare you'll see even the most bias of Canucks fans say they're comparable now. Their first year where they were both outstanding was where the argument could have been had. Since then Makar has continued the upward trajectory while Hughes has been more inconsistent.

But looking at your post history, none of that matters. Someone from Vancouver must have hurt you real bad.