Player Discussion Lane Hutson Part 2

Estimated_Prophet

Registered User
Mar 28, 2003
11,121
12,294
Wow, so much naysayers lol, a lot said the same thing about Caufield, too small, not fast enough, not good defensively, his goal scoring ability will not translate to the NHL, a guy with the skill level of Hutson will adapt to the NHL, i have no doubts, just enjoy that we got a gem like this in second round instead of nitpickin.

Nobody on this board was saying any of that,.

Once again the formula is at work:

1) Establish bias
2) When unable to directly refute statements build a Strawman
3) Use non sequitur to arrive at conclusion after burning Strawman

There are zero comparables between Caufield and Hutson other than height where Lane has the advantage. Caufield was always a good skater but just needed to add an extra gear, which he did. Caufield is also a little tank compared to Hutson who is very stick-like and they play totally opposite positions where size advantage is least important on the wing and most important on D.

Come on guys, this board is not RDS Talkback/Facebook/Twitter. This is a board where true hockey fans come in earnest to have intelligent, critical, honest conversations. There is nothing wrong with being wrong as long as you are willing to learn
 
Last edited:

Estimated_Prophet

Registered User
Mar 28, 2003
11,121
12,294
Skating backwards is becoming less and less important as coaches want pressure and pivots happening sooner.... but yes I do agree that Hutson will need to become a stronger skater. I think there is time for that.
It is absolutely not becoming less and less important, quite the opposite as skating backwards and pivoting in and out of it effectively is the only way to consistently/effectively stop attackers with speed entering the zone.
 

WinterLion

Registered User
Oct 1, 2017
5,399
5,481
It is absolutely not becoming less and less important, quite the opposite as skating backwards and pivoting in and out of it effectively is the only way to consistently/effectively stop attackers with speed entering the zone.

You don't remember MSL telling his defenders he didn't want them skating backwards earlier in the season?

Coaches want the D to pressure sooner and retreat less because of the back pressure... but yes obviously pivoting is important... Hutson is very agile
 

Estimated_Prophet

Registered User
Mar 28, 2003
11,121
12,294
You don't remember MSL telling his defenders he didn't want them skating backwards earlier in the season?

Coaches want the D to pressure sooner and retreat less because of the back pressure... but yes obviously pivoting is important... Hutson is very agile

Definitely not as he certainly never said that as a rule. If he said it at all then it was purely situational. He must be uber pissed at every one of our dmen if he banned backskating which he most assuredly did not because all of them do it a lot....every game.

He likely is asking them to create a bigger gap before pivoting into a backskate or asking them to attack and kill the play instead of sagging too low. This attack is almost always launched from a backskate. These are general principles that have been around forever as Marty just wants the team to be aggressive. He certainly has never usurped Robidas and attempted to impose such a Draconian measure on the D corps.

Perhaps I understand what you are trying to say if it is that he is looking to kill plays early but that doesn't make backskating less important. As dmen still need to use it a ton especially on odd man rushes. You can not defend an odd man rush if you can't backskate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WinterLion

morhilane

Registered User
Feb 28, 2021
8,876
11,508
You don't remember MSL telling his defenders he didn't want them skating backwards earlier in the season?

Coaches want the D to pressure sooner and retreat less because of the back pressure... but yes obviously pivoting is important... Hutson is very agile
Hutson has issues defending against players with longer reaches than him (Hutson has like none) because his mobility (and explosiveness) is limited when not moving forward. The limited reach to cut line/space is still there until is skating improve regardless where he plays in the dzone.

But I'm not too concerned about him improving his skating.
 

BaseballCoach

Registered User
Dec 15, 2006
21,251
9,583
Okay sure but why was Craig 17 years old? And what about the other guy?

1.
3.png
Craig Redmond (D)
1982-198317Univ. of Denver341638541.5944-
2.
3.png
Curt Giles (D)
1976-197718Univ. of Minnesota-Duluth371237491.3264-
3.
6.png
Brian Leetch (D)
1986-198718Boston College37938471.2710-
4.
6.png
Lane Hutson (D)
Active
Montréal Canadiens
2022-202318Boston Univ.351233451.292423
Neither Giles nor Redmond were freshmen in their D1. In both cases, they were drafted later. Similar to Fantilli this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nicehiss

jfm133

Registered User
Nov 6, 2015
2,593
1,736
The elite talent was always there, but the size at the draft was a real concern. Remember, Caufield did not grow at all after his draft, he was 5'07" and still is 5'07". Habs were able to pick him at the end of the second round because he was 5'08" with no guarantee he would grow more. It was a gamble, and now that he is 5'10", and maybe ending up like his brother at 5'11". It is clear now that this gamble was a great one.

Still very early to be definitive on that, but there is a chance that Hutson will end up compensating for picking Slaf at #1. At least we know Hutson has real elite talent. In fact, he was picked for the total opposite reasons as Slafkovsky. Slaf was pick primarily because of his size, as for Hutson, it was totally based on talent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeffreyLFC

JeffreyLFC

Registered User
Sep 29, 2017
10,776
7,936
The elite talent was always there, but the size at the draft was a real concern. Remember, Caufield did not grow at all after his draft, he was 5'07" and still is 5'07". Habs were able to pick him at the end of the second round because he was 5'08" with no guarantee he would grow more. It was a gamble, and now that he is 5'10", and maybe ending up like his brother at 5'11". It is clear now that this gamble was a great one.

Still very early to be definitive on that, but there is a chance that Hutson will end up compensating for picking Slaf at #1. At least we know Hutson has real elite talent. In fact, he was picked for the total opposite reasons as Slafkovsky. Slaf was pick primarily because of his size, as for Hutson, it was totally based on talent.
Even at 5'8 he would still have a chance to play in the NHL. He is electric with the puck and his vision/hockey IQ is also unreal
 

Gaylord Q Tinkledink

Registered User
Apr 29, 2018
33,361
36,589
The elite talent was always there, but the size at the draft was a real concern. Remember, Caufield did not grow at all after his draft, he was 5'07" and still is 5'07". Habs were able to pick him at the end of the second round because he was 5'08" with no guarantee he would grow more. It was a gamble, and now that he is 5'10", and maybe ending up like his brother at 5'11". It is clear now that this gamble was a great one.

Still very early to be definitive on that, but there is a chance that Hutson will end up compensating for picking Slaf at #1. At least we know Hutson has real elite talent. In fact, he was picked for the total opposite reasons as Slafkovsky. Slaf was pick primarily because of his size, as for Hutson, it was totally based on talent.
The funny (?) Part is he went out and went above and beyond to show teams he would drow because he knew the concerns were about his size.

Jared Sprugeon is 5'8, or '9 and he's more of a stay-at-home dman than he is offensive.

Habs got lucky, but also good on them to not wait any longer and take him when they did.
 

jfm133

Registered User
Nov 6, 2015
2,593
1,736
He would have been a PP specialist at best. He was not just 5'08", he was 150 lbs. It's not Torey Krug or Francis Bouillon at 200 lbs.

Even at 5'8 he would still have a chance to play in the NHL. He is electric with the puck and his vision/hockey IQ is also unreal
 

JeffreyLFC

Registered User
Sep 29, 2017
10,776
7,936
He would have been a PP specialist at best. He was not just 5'08", he was 150 lbs. It's not Torey Krug or Francis Bouillon at 200 lbs.
Size is another concern but Rafalski, Spurgeon, Quinton Hughes are not heavy weight either and have/had good NHL careers.
 

SlafySZN

Registered User
May 21, 2022
7,508
16,248
The elite talent was always there, but the size at the draft was a real concern. Remember, Caufield did not grow at all after his draft, he was 5'07" and still is 5'07". Habs were able to pick him at the end of the second round because he was 5'08" with no guarantee he would grow more. It was a gamble, and now that he is 5'10", and maybe ending up like his brother at 5'11". It is clear now that this gamble was a great one.

Still very early to be definitive on that, but there is a chance that Hutson will end up compensating for picking Slaf at #1. At least we know Hutson has real elite talent. In fact, he was picked for the total opposite reasons as Slafkovsky. Slaf was pick primarily because of his size, as for Hutson, it was totally based on talent.
People are starting to underrate Slafkovsky…

Crazy to me.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad