I've always been a big believer that some guys best traits are their IQ, and those guys tend to perform better when playing with better teammates at higher levels, guys who can process the game the same way they can. Think Faber was one of those. Think Haight can be.
Yeah, guys with high IQ usually need other players who can think on their "level" to perform best. Granted, sometimes it's also good to have a more straightforward north/south guy (think Hartman w/ Zucc and Kap as a most recent example) to "break the mold" and provide energy, too, but usually you need smarts to form on-ice chemistry - doubly so in top 6.
But... there's also another part to it. Hockey IQ and "smarts" are difficult to see. We tend to think of guys who make nice passes and are playmakers as "high IQ" guys. It's a line parroted by scouts and fans alike. Yet I think it's more complicated, albeit not groundbreaking.
Adaptability.
Let's say you've got a straightforward shooter type on right wing, and a grinder guy on the left. Both play pretty north-south, don't usually go for crafty plays. So, you can pass to the shooter who will most likely do just that: Shoot. You realise there's a pass back available, and you slow down to take the middle lane. Got space, time, now the guy just needs to do a diagonal drop pass and it's a grade A chance. Well, they don't. They shoot from a meh angle, left wing crashes the net but gets blocked off by the D, it's a juicy rebound... and you slowed down for that drop pass which would've been the correct play but was never going to happen because Mr. Shooter over there has those blinders firmly strapped.
Those with high hockey IQ (or any game IQ) tend to think of the game on a different level, but they may not get recognised by coaches because what they see is the incorrect play in that situation. It may also be considered a lack of toughness by scouts, and lack of production from onlookers/stat-watchers. There's plays like that in every game, where one guy thinks shoot and other thinks pass. Or in forecheck, where team plan says A but the correct play is B; one recognises the correct play/weak point in that situation, but teammate applies the pressure on the wrong side and you're suddenly hopelessly late to the backcheck.
That's why it's important to try players in different situations and different lines, recognise not only individual abilities and tendencies but also those of the entire team, and form lines accordingly. We as fans get stuck too often to the line of thinking where a playmaker and a shooter will mesh and a two-way forward/defensive forward type is good to complete the trio, thinking it's a good chemistry. In reality, a line of three primary playmakers might work even better, if they think on the same wavelength. Yes, even if they pass up the occasional shot.
Of course, a truly smart player is also adaptable, and recognises what is not only the ideal play but the play which is
most likely to result in a good outcome. Good ones will ensure that play happens by holding onto the puck themselves; best ones can use their teammates as tools to accomplish said play, adjusting accordingly to their role and tendencies.
Sorry for the slight rant. Wasn't really directed at you, more so as a response and to expand on what you said. I know you're probably aware of these things too, but it's an important consideration/reminder to us when we think of IQ in hockey and what "smarts" entail.
