Prospect Info: Lane Hutson Part 2

[Galchenyuk15]

There is room in this game for dynamic playmaking Dmen. Hutson will become big enough and strong enough to make an impact.
My issue from what I have read is that he needs to improve speed and quickness. I have no doubt that he will.
4 years from now when someone says...let's do a 2022 redraft that Lane Hutson will be seen as top 5 pick of that draft. I can't believe that every team passed on him through 2 rounds. There was no risk and huge reward.

That kind of player are pretty rare, I can't remember honesty the last d-man who play the game like that, this is why I have talk about Coffey and Housley, the production is there but is the way he can create and beat his opponents; this guys have something special and you always need to respect him when he is on the ice because he can beat you with so many different ways.

I know he have some size issues not what you wanted for a defenseman but people talk about him like is 4' 100lbs, and I don't think the size is a issue anymore. Always better to be bigger but the NHL change a lot and at the time you need a lot a big guys because it's more anti-hockey than hockey in the dead puck ERA but this is thing of the past. You can't winched anyone anymore, remember Zednik, the 10X times 2 hand slash Plekanec does when he put pressure on forecheck, how Lemieux need to carry 2 guy on 3 zones or how Souray can break his stick on your back without a penalty.

He need to work on some area on his game but the perfect players doesn't exist, HM to Lemieux, but I will never understand how they didn't take a chance of that kind of player on a weak draft by some it's simply stupid! You don't need to be a genius to see this guy is born to play hockey ... The Kraken pick 4 times in the second round, they make some pretty good picks but "miss" Hutson 4 times! In how many years do you think they will have the chance to draft a guy like that? Maybe never and like you said at the rank he got pick no risk - huge reward!

Some of the better defenseman of the last decades, Markov, Lidstrom and Niedermayer and now, Makar, Fox and Hughes are all the same thing in common they play hockey and be smarter than the opponent. They don't need to broke the board to recover the puck or using his shoulders because they do it in being smarter than the opponent. Some like more the defenseman like Stevens, Pronger and Weber but I always like more the guys who is smarter before than more powerful because the way they use the ice and make everyone around him looking better!

I didn't have a doubt about Caufield before he join the big show and I feel the same for Hutson. I don't know how good he can become, I see him more like a Coffey-Housley kind of player, a offensive weapon, before a stud d-man but we never know but like Caufield from the start is already your better player at his position in Powerplay or 3 on 3 and maybe he can establish himself a lot better than we think without becoming a Guhle 2.0! If Shattenkirk and Barrie still play in the NHL, I just don't see how Hutson can't make it to the next level!

I think we have the MSL of the defenseman with Hutson and he will change the mentality of some prehistoric scout who still looking at how tall and big the guy is before looking at what he can do with the puck because they will never forget to miss the guy because of the size issue! For now, we got Caufield, Farrell and Hutson because of that mentality and I like how dumb the NHL scouts are ...

 

[Galchenyuk15]

You shouldn't be so hard on Komisarek. He was destined to play with Markov as the D partner that would make him look good once he learnt to time his checks properly..

Unfortunately, he doesn't have a grain of hockey sense and whatever you try with that kind of players you can't learn for someone else or think for him when he is on the ice. You can try to teach this guys hockey 18 hours per day and he will still the same dumb hockey players because of is limited hockey sense; you can't understand what you doesn't see.

After Stevenson and Komisarek, we have now Anderson! At least, it's the better of the lot!

 

[Matthew McConaughay]

That kind of player are pretty rare, I can't remember honesty the last d-man who play the game like that, this is why I have talk about Coffey and Housley, the production is there but is the way he can create and beat his opponents; this guys have something special and you always need to respect him when he is on the ice because he can beat you with so many different ways.

I know he have some size issues not what you wanted for a defenseman but people talk about him like is 4' 100lbs, and I don't think the size is a issue anymore. Always better to be bigger but the NHL change a lot and at the time you need a lot a big guys because it's more anti-hockey than hockey in the dead puck ERA but this is thing of the past. You can't winched anyone anymore, remember Zednik, the 10X times 2 hand slash Plekanec does when he put pressure on forecheck, how Lemieux need to carry 2 guy on 3 zones or how Souray can break his stick on your back without a penalty.

He need to work on some area on his game but the perfect players doesn't exist, HM to Lemieux, but I will never understand how they didn't take a chance of that kind of player on a weak draft by some it's simply stupid! You don't need to be a genius to see this guy is born to play hockey ... The Kraken pick 4 times in the second round, they make some pretty good picks but "miss" Hutson 4 times! In how many years do you think they will have the chance to draft a guy like that? Maybe never and like you said at the rank he got pick no risk - huge reward!

Some of the better defenseman of the last decades, Markov, Lidstrom and Niedermayer and now, Makar, Fox and Hughes are all the same thing in common they play hockey and be smarter than the opponent. They don't need to broke the board to recover the puck or using his shoulders because they do it in being smarter than the opponent. Some like more the defenseman like Stevens, Pronger and Weber but I always like more the guys who is smarter before than more powerful because the way they use the ice and make everyone around him looking better!

I didn't have a doubt about Caufield before he join the big show and I feel the same for Hutson. I don't know how good he can become, I see him more like a Coffey-Housley kind of player, a offensive weapon, before a stud d-man but we never know but like Caufield from the start is already your better player at his position in Powerplay or 3 on 3 and maybe he can establish himself a lot better than we think without becoming a Guhle 2.0! If Shattenkirk and Barrie still play in the NHL, I just don't see how Hutson can't make it to the next level!

I think we have the MSL of the defenseman with Hutson and he will change the mentality of some prehistoric scout who still looking at how tall and big the guy is before looking at what he can do with the puck because they will never forget to miss the guy because of the size issue! For now, we got Caufield, Farrell and Hutson because of that mentality and I like how dumb the NHL scouts are ...

He's a little bit taller than Saint-Louis, if he could pick up a good 20 pounds that would be great.

 

[Wateredgarden]

there's some guy named chicken dinner on the main board who writes that his brother is an amateur NHL scout and hutson's game will never translate to the NHL.

The porch-light is on at Hockeysfuture, but no one's home

In the worst case he's a PP specialist that plays limited minutes at 5v5, kind of like Streit during his good years, not the same style of play though.

 

[Kojo]

He already plays almost 25 minutes per game, and this number is going to increase. He's going to have massive legs by the time Habs sign him.

 

[Galchenyuk15]

there's some guy named chicken dinner on the main board who writes that his brother is an amateur NHL scout and hutson's game will never translate to the NHL.

The porch-light is on at Hockeysfuture, but no one's home

We need to have his name and put him on the ignore list for a future job in Montréal! lol

This guy is blind, doesn't like the Habs or simply a scout with the old mentality "Bigger is Better". Hutson is the kind of player who will "BLOSSOM" in the new NHL and born to play in a world where the most important thing on the ice is the puck and not the opponent head.

Nobody touch McDavid, Gaudreau, Caufield, Hughes X2, everyone try to slow him down but from hockey view not physical view; they doesn't try to destroy everyone like before and I don't see how Hutson can miss is shot in that case!

At worst, he will become a PP and OT specialist and maybe got a try at forward at some point if he struggle too much for a defenseman. At best, he will be on the ice when we need a goal, playing close to each 2 shifts at Even Strength and full 2 minutes in powerplay, and be use a la Guy Lapointe with a ultra competitive team; a lethal weapon and one of the best offensive defenseman of his generation!

 

[Habs Icing]

We need to have his name and put him on the ignore list for a future job in Montréal! lol

This guy is blind, doesn't like the Habs or simply a scout with the old mentality "Bigger is Better". Hutson is the kind of player who will "BLOSSOM" in the new NHL and born to play in a world where the most important thing on the ice is the puck and not the opponent head.

Nobody touch McDavid, Gaudreau, Caufield, Hughes X2, everyone try to slow him down but from hockey view not physical view; they doesn't try to destroy everyone like before and I don't see how Hutson can miss is shot in that case!

At worst, he will become a PP and OT specialist and maybe got a try at forward at some point if he struggle too much for a defenseman. At best, he will be on the ice when we need a goal, playing close to each 2 shifts at Even Strength and full 2 minutes in powerplay, and be use a la Guy Lapointe with a ultra competitive team; a lethal weapon and one of the best offensive defenseman of his generation!

No way in hell will Hutson be used a la Guy Lapointe. This indicates to me you never saw him play. Guy had it all. Offense, defense, and physicality. From what I've seen of Hutson he'll never, never, never get Guy's physicality, might become a quarter of the defensive player Guy was if his development curve turns skyward but may bring his offensive game.

I've mentioned a number of times that I have my doubts about Hutson. He needs huge work with his defensive play. I will not rule out Hutson becoming a good defenseman but mentioning his name with Guy Lapointe, jeeze, that pushes me off the deep end.

 

[Habs Halifax]

How hungry is the small little dude at proving the doubters wrong in terms of his size? I think that if he is obsessive with overcoming that, he will be a very good NHL player. So yeah, he's putting up impressive production but he's likely still hearing the doubters comments. Part of development is how much work he is willing to put into it to shut them up.

 

[Adam Michaels]

Hutson nominated for Hocket East Rookie of the Year & Player of the Year.

 

[Pompeius Magnus]

Hutson nominated for Hocket East Rookie of the Year & Player of the Year.

He has a solid case for both. The rookie of the year one is pretty much a lock IMO, although Wood and Gauthier both had real good seasons.

 

[Sterling Archer]

I wonder what posters would offer in a trade to get Hutson if he wasn't property of the Canadiens lol

I imagine something like Fla's 1st, Harris and Ylonen/Beck/Roy etc type deal.

 

[McGuires Corndog]

I wonder what posters would offer in a trade to get Hutson if he wasn't property of the Canadiens lol

I imagine something like Fla's 1st, Harris and Ylonen/Beck/Roy etc type deal.

Because he’s a Hab he’s only worth a 5th to the main board. Lol

 

[Tanknation]

Because he’s a Hab he’s only worth a 5th to the main board. Lol

That's being generous. He's actually already a cap dump before even signing a contract.
Habs 1st this year must go before anyone even considers taking on Hutson.

 

[Galchenyuk15]

No way in hell will Hutson be used a la Guy Lapointe. This indicates to me you never saw him play. Guy had it all. Offense, defense, and physicality. From what I've seen of Hutson he'll never, never, never get Guy's physicality, might become a quarter of the defensive player Guy was if his development curve turns skyward but may bring his offensive game.

I've mentioned a number of times that I have my doubts about Hutson. He needs huge work with his defensive play. I will not rule out Hutson becoming a good defenseman but mentioning his name with Guy Lapointe, jeeze, that pushes me off the deep end.

Compare the role not the player ... Lapointe play the 3rd violon behind Savard and Robinson in some way and got use more for the offensive mission versus the other one who do more the defensive mission, Robinson and Lapointe doing both for a good part of their career but all the 3 three can do the job in all the area of the game. They call him the Big 3 because all 3 can be number 1 ...

Hutson like Lapointe will be use for his offensive side in a much more specific role, the guy who can generate offense from nothing and make people around him better when he has the puck on his stick, when others like Guhle will do the Savard-Robinson part with more all around play! Doesn't want to compare Lapointe and Hutson but simply the way I see how to maximize the offensive side and the strength of Lane in a 3rd violon role.

Lapointe is a stud d-man in all area and he will never get the credit he truely deserves. Hutson have his offensive side but not the complete package but he can produce pretty good numbers offensively and be a lethal weapon if they use him the right way like Lapointe at the time.

 

[ChesterNimitz]

Compare the role not the player ... Lapointe play the 3rd violon behind Savard and Robinson in some way and got use more for the offensive mission versus the other one who do more the defensive mission, Robinson and Lapointe doing both for a good part of their career but all the 3 three can do the job in all the area of the game. They call him the Big 3 because all 3 can be number 1 ...

Hutson like Lapointe will be use for his offensive side in a much more specific role, the guy who can generate offense from nothing and make people around him better when he has the puck on his stick, when others like Guhle will do the Savard-Robinson part with more all around play! Doesn't want to compare Lapointe and Hutson but simply the way I see how to maximize the offensive side and the strength of Lane in a 3rd violon role.

Lapointe is a stud d-man in all area and he will never get the credit he truely deserves. Hutson have his offensive side but not the complete package but he can produce pretty good numbers offensively and be a lethal weapon if they use him the right way like Lapointe at the time.

Actually, the ‘Big Three’ moniker was an adaptation of the Big Three ‘tag’ used to describe Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin when attending the Yalta conference during World War II. A pivotal conference where the two western leaders agreed to a Soviet hegemony over eastern Europe that sowed the seeds for a Cold War that lasted for the next half century.

Readers here have to remember that when those great Montreal Canadiens’ defencemen were at their peak, many of the fans and journalists at that time had fought and lived through the war.

The reference to the ‘Big Three’ in the early 1970s had a much more evocative meaning than it would have to most fans today.

 

[McGuires Corndog]

Actually, the ‘Big Three’ moniker was an adaptation of the Big Three ‘tag’ used to describe Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin when attending the Yalta conference during World War II. A pivotal conference where the two western leaders agreed to a Soviet hegemony over eastern Europe that sowed the seeds for a Cold War that lasted for the next half century.

Readers here have to remember that when those great Montreal Canadiens’ defencemen were at their peak, many of the fans and journalists at that time had fought and lived through the war.

The reference to the ‘Big Three’ in the early 1970s had a much more evocative meaning than it would have to most fans today.

I love that there’s still people around that get the reference.

I’m only 37, but I have a deep interest in history so I know a lot of stuff like this that no one my age knows lol

 

[GobigorGohome]

Actually, the ‘Big Three’ moniker was an adaptation of the Big Three ‘tag’ used to describe Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin when attending the Yalta conference during World War II. A pivotal conference where the two western leaders agreed to a Soviet hegemony over eastern Europe that sowed the seeds for a Cold War that lasted for the next half century.

Readers here have to remember that when those great Montreal Canadiens’ defencemen were at their peak, many of the fans and journalists at that time had fought and lived through the war.

The reference to the ‘Big Three’ in the early 1970s had a much more evocative meaning than it would have to most fans today.

The Big 3 refered to GM,Ford ,and Chrysler. .

 

[BaseballCoach]

Compare the role not the player ... Lapointe play the 3rd violon behind Savard and Robinson in some way and got use more for the offensive mission versus the other one who do more the defensive mission, Robinson and Lapointe doing both for a good part of their career but all the 3 three can do the job in all the area of the game. They call him the Big 3 because all 3 can be number 1 ...

Hutson like Lapointe will be use for his offensive side in a much more specific role, the guy who can generate offense from nothing and make people around him better when he has the puck on his stick, when others like Guhle will do the Savard-Robinson part with more all around play! Doesn't want to compare Lapointe and Hutson but simply the way I see how to maximize the offensive side and the strength of Lane in a 3rd violon role.

Lapointe is a stud d-man in all area and he will never get the credit he truely deserves. Hutson have his offensive side but not the complete package but he can produce pretty good numbers offensively and be a lethal weapon if they use him the right way like Lapointe at the time.

Hutson is much smaller than Lapointe was.

I found the right comparable for Hutson yesterday. It's Girard. Man does Girard play a lot like Hutson!

BTW, Lapointe was not the third violin/wheel, LOL. He was the guy who actually carried whoever was number four on his back.

Guy did slow down with injuries after 1979, but from 71-76 was our #1D, and even after Robinson broke out, and even during Larry's first Norris season and +120 year, it was Lapointe and Savard on the ice to kill off the last minute of a 1 goal victory.

 

[dauv]

Actually, the ‘Big Three’ moniker was an adaptation of the Big Three ‘tag’ used to describe Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin when attending the Yalta conference during World War II. A pivotal conference where the two western leaders agreed to a Soviet hegemony over eastern Europe that sowed the seeds for a Cold War that lasted for the next half century.

Readers here have to remember that when those great Montreal Canadiens’ defencemen were at their peak, many of the fans and journalists at that time had fought and lived through the war.

The reference to the ‘Big Three’ in the early 1970s had a much more evocative meaning than it would have to most fans today.

the big 3 actually was in reference to Big Bird, Burt & Ernie

 

[kyne]

I didn't realize there was a reference to the Big Three at Yalta. I simply thought it was a media label given at the time because they were three Hall of Fame calibre defensemen playing on the same team. Only Orr, Park and Potvin were in the same class. Not many since then.

 

[CHwest]

The Big 3 refered to GM,Ford ,and Chrysler. .

Nope, Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas. The only days I am allowed to make shrimp dip and go crazy.

 

[MarkJ]

 

[Adam Michaels]

 

[Kudo Shinichi]

Hutson robbed of H-East player of the year. Levi won.

 

[GobigorGohome]

Hutson robbed of H-East player of the year. Levi won.

Great for the Montreal's Levi