Prospect Info: Quinton Byfield (2nd Overall 2020 Draft) Discussion part II

[bland]

Again, isn't this all the same? Sure, you'll see some pundits and laymen criticize a pick because there was a "better" player, but that's, again, speaking from their own context of understanding. It's like when pundits criticized the Price pick in 2005, because they already had two solid goaltenders and needed a center.

Who do you think the BPA for Montreal was? At the time, many were saying Brule or Kopitar. Would you say the Best Fit Available would be different?

What about Blake Wheeler in 2004 with Phoenix? Who is the BPA they should have taken? Who is the BFA (Best Fit Available) they should have taken?

I REALLY need to see a good example of BPA vs BFA to see this discussion as anything beyond pedantic, and with those highly controversial picks at the time (and how their careers played out), I figure these would be the best opportunities for you to help lay out the distinction, unless there's an easier frame of reference.

The easiest and most recent example is choosing Bjornfot with the later stated decision being that there were too few options of quality defensemen projected to be available in the slot they later used on Kaliyev. Clearly their were "better" forwards available there, but they chose the fit based on the circumstances.

The Kopitar/Brule choice is another example of organizations using reasoning other than "best" player to make their choice. Non-traditional markets had a long history of failures to adapt and Brule's North American development and aggressive style overrode what was clearly the better option. Columbus may have made that determination based on prit near half of Edmonton's failed first rounders of the 90s.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, just like any amateur draft. Dave Taylor's amateur scouting department consisted of a copy of Central Scoutings rankings and a highlighter. Lombardi spent a lot of effort building a thorough infrastructure from top to bottom, and while the first rounders might have had similar results, Dean's work really improved the middle rounds.

 

[AbsentMojo]

I don't think anyone is expecting QB to be a generational talent. Expecting more from a player taken that high does not equal expectation of a generational player.


Limited scope of work? Stutzle just turned 21 years old, is in his 3rd season and is on a 44 goal, 95 point scoring pace. Do you realize how rare that is? Almost all modern players who have done what he has done at his age have gone on to be superstar HOF players, why will this be any different?

Do you believe QB's career projection is that of a Hall of Fame caliber player?
Do you believe Tim Stutzle is going to pull a Jimmy Carson?

It's not even a knock on QB to say that. Do you think its a knock on Nico Hischier and Miro Heiskanen to say their teams made the wrong picks and should have taken Makar? No, its not a knock on them, its just acknowledging how great Makar is. It's the same situation with Stutzle.

Re Stutzle im surprised they didnt pick him... the Kings for quite awhile have a had a strong European scouting org. I wonder if there was a lot of debate re this pick internally... like there was rumored to be about Turcotte v Zegras.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

I think so much more is being written into the Byfield pick than is actually there. If you start picking to fit into a timeframe or to replace certain positions that's a path that usually doesn't work out as we've seen many times before. You take what you think is the BPA and that's it.

Occam's razor, and all that.

QB and Stutzle were close in terms of BPA. So why draft the long term project given your intention on contending soon?

I think Byfield will turn into a very good player in this league, but Herby is exactly right. The Byfield pick makes no sense in hindsight considering this regime’s overall plan to contend as soon as possible. If Byfield was projected to be a generational player, sure, take him and let him develop slowly. But both Stutzle and QB were neck and neck in terms of BPA.

This gets a lot of attention because Blake potentially boinked two critical top five picks in Turcotte and Byfield. I know this triggers everyone to hear, but the Kings would be bonafide favorites to come out of the west this year if they had Stutzle and Zegras.

We crucified Lombardi over Teubert and Forbort. Blake deserves the same level of criticism.

 

[King'sPawn]

I don't think anyone is expecting QB to be a generational talent. Expecting more from a player taken that high does not equal expectation of a generational player.


Limited scope of work? Stutzle just turned 21 years old, is in his 3rd season and is on a 44 goal, 95 point scoring pace. Do you realize how rare that is? Almost all modern players who have done what he has done at his age have gone on to be superstar HOF players, why will this be any different?

Do you believe QB's career projection is that of a Hall of Fame caliber player?
Do you believe Tim Stutzle is going to pull a Jimmy Carson?

It's not even a knock on QB to say that. Do you think its a knock on Nico Hischier and Miro Heiskanen to say their teams made the wrong picks and should have taken Makar? No, its not a knock on them, its just acknowledging how great Makar is. It's the same situation with Stutzle.

I know I'm going to be taken out of context with this, but I think we'll see a lot of comparisons of Stutzle and Byfield akin to Karlsson and Doughty. Karlsson will always put up more points, and his deficiencies will always be excused in the most absurd ways (like when Sens fans said that killing penalties is "easier" because all you do is stand there). Where as I think Byfield can grow his game to be a solid all-around player who does a lot of underappreciated things right, but won't score as much as others would like for his draft position.

That's not to say that Byfield will have a Doughty-like career. But I do think he will largely be less appreciated despite doing some things very well, because he puts up fewer points than the player he's compared to.

I think it's way too early to put career projections on either of them.

 

[bmr]

It's no coincidence that Kempe doubled his scoring once he started playing with Kopitar. He was playing with him about 20% of the time prior to 2021-2022. That year and this year he's playing with him over 80% of the time.

You're starting to see similar outcomes with Byfield.

For another example of this phenomenon see the following: Brown, Dustin

Until QB is the one driving the play and the one mostly responsible for the results of that 1st line, I'd be cautious about heaping the results on his shoulders. His play has improved, but he still has a long ways to go.

I thought QB looked pretty good with Vilardi and Iafallo early in the season. If you really look at him closely, he is really driving a lot of the scoring chances on that line.

I always thought it was a confidence thing with Byfield. He just has so much talent and needs to believe in himself.

 

[King'sPawn]

The easiest and most recent example is choosing Bjornfot with the later stated decision being that there were too few options of quality defensemen projected to be available in the slot they later used on Kaliyev. Clearly their were "better" forwards available there, but they chose the fit based on the circumstances.

The Kopitar/Brule choice is another example of organizations using reasoning other than "best" player to make their choice. Non-traditional markets had a long history of failures to adapt and Brule's North American development and aggressive style overrode what was clearly the better option. Columbus may have made that determination based on prit near half of Edmonton's failed first rounders of the 90s.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, just like any amateur draft. Dave Taylor's amateur scouting department consisted of a copy of Central Scoutings rankings and a highlighter. Lombardi spent a lot of effort building a thorough infrastructure from top to bottom, and while the first rounders might have had similar results, Dean's work really improved the middle rounds.

Isn't the nuance behind picking Bjornfot over Kaliyev/other forwards still in the realm of "best player available" though? Because they didn't think he would have been available the next time they picked?

Maybe I'm getting lost in my own argument, but hopefully you're understanding why saying "there's no such thing as BPA" doesn't quite jive with my interpretation of the meaning.

Ultimately, BPA is shorthand for "Best Player Available that fits what we want to achieve with this pick given the organization's current circumstances." People argue BPA either because:
- they don't understand or disagree with the team's circumstances
- they don't know the player personally to get a feel for how well he'd like being a part of the org
- they haven't watched the player through the lens of the decision makers.

BPA gets thrown out because people lazily look at a prospect's position, look at an org's depth chart, and throw together a mock draft saying "Team A should draft Player X, because Player X can play that position right away."

I think you're putting too much effort into differentiating between Best Player Available and Best Fit Available to accommodate people who don't care about the draft and prospects anyway.

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

I don't think anyone is expecting QB to be a generational talent. Expecting more from a player taken that high does not equal expectation of a generational player.


Stutzle just turned 21 years old, is in his 3rd season and is on a 44 goal, 95 point scoring pace. Do you realize how rare that is? Almost all modern players who have done what he has done at his age have gone on to be superstar HOF players, why will this be any different?

Do you believe QB's career projection is that of a Hall of Fame caliber player?
Do you believe Tim Stutzle is going to pull a Jimmy Carson?

If Stutzle had been the consensus #1 pick that year (which he clearly should have been in hindsight) and there was no chance he could have been a King do you still hold these views that QB could be as good or do you just acknowledge "well he's a generational talent" no reason to compare them? Which would be a logical view.

It's not even a knock on QB to say that. Do you think its a knock on Nico Hischier and Miro Heiskanen to say their teams made the wrong picks and should have taken Makar? No, its not a knock on them, its just acknowledging how great Makar is. It's the same situation with Stutzle.

Amazing how opinions on players can change for you and some of your clique with how it relates to the Kings. A year ago it was awesome to have a prospect as good as Faber, he gets traded and now people like you and TKF make mocking posts about people who still hold him in high regard, whether he is a Kings prospect or not (aka having an honest opinion regardless of team). Now praise of him is a mocking suggestion that "Faber is a generational defenseman" by your Weekly World News buddy.

So if QB develops into an 85-point, #1 center for the Kings, replacing Kopitar for like the next 12 years…is he still the ‘wrong’ pick?

(FYI, I think TKF is living rent-free inside your head)

 

[Herby]

QB and Stutzle were close in terms of BPA. So why draft the long term project given your intention on contending soon?

I think Byfield will turn into a very good player in this league, but Herby is exactly right. The Byfield pick makes no sense in hindsight considering this regime’s overall plan to contend as soon as possible. If Byfield was projected to be a generational player, sure, take him and let him develop slowly. But both Stutzle and QB were neck and neck in terms of BPA.

This gets a lot of attention because Blake potentially boinked two critical top five picks in Turcotte and Byfield. I know this triggers everyone to hear, but the Kings would be bonafide favorites to come out of the west this year if they had Stutzle and Zegras.

We crucified Lombardi over Teubert and Forbort. Blake deserves the same level of criticism.

It's tough to say, because there is some luck factor involved for sure. If you go back and read the reports on Turcotte he was seen as a relatively safe pick with a Mike Richards upside(Toews comparison was a bit much) and a downside as a solid character 2C wioth above average skill. This was a consensus opinion across all the publications. And almost immediately those predictions failed to even come close to materializing and he's been nothing close to upside and way lower than floor. Zegras was seen as the way riskier pick, with a bigger ceiling (Kane type) but a much lower floor. Taking Zegras would have been more of a dice roll. Hard to blame the Kings because everyone was wrong on Turcotte. The selection of Turcotte wasn't poor, but they should have obviously developed him way differently and cashed out way sooner.

With QB/Stutzle the Kings did the opposite, they passed on the more sure thing and rolled the dice for a variety of reasons (size, ability to play center, more proven development league) and unfortunately again made the wrong decision. But there was no consensus with who the #2 pick was, some liked QB, others liked Stutzle.

The tough thing with the two picks is had the Kings just been consistent both years they'd be in a way better spot. If you gambled both years you have Zegras and Byfield and if you played it safe both years you have Turcotte and Stutzle.

I know I'm going to be taken out of context with this, but I think we'll see a lot of comparisons of Stutzle and Byfield akin to Karlsson and Doughty. Karlsson will always put up more points, and his deficiencies will always be excused in the most absurd ways (like when Sens fans said that killing penalties is "easier" because all you do is stand there). Where as I think Byfield can grow his game to be a solid all-around player who does a lot of underappreciated things right, but won't score as much as others would like for his draft position.

That's not to say that Byfield will have a Doughty-like career. But I do think he will largely be less appreciated despite doing some things very well, because he puts up fewer points than the player he's compared to.

I think it's way too early to put career projections on either of them.

I just don't see QB being a similar C to what Doughty was as a defenseman, where as Stutzle's early returns project a player who could be comparable with Karlsson as a defender.

Doughty is probably going to go down as a clear cut top 5 d-man of his era, a Norris winner and multi-time finalist and a clear cut Hall of Fame defenseman who shined on the biggest stages. It's just tough to see QB ever achieving similar status to Doughty, and again that is not a knock on QB, Doughty was a really special player.

I also think there is a bit of an overhyping of QB as a two-way player to try and compensate for the offensive shortcomings thus far, the guy wasn't exactly Patrice Bergeron as a center, and while he has thrown the occasional big hit, he really hasn't been a physical force much at all. Size does not always mean someone is going to be physical or good defensively.

 

[bmr]

QB and Stutzle were close in terms of BPA. So why draft the long term project given your intention on contending soon?

I think Byfield will turn into a very good player in this league, but Herby is exactly right. The Byfield pick makes no sense in hindsight considering this regime’s overall plan to contend as soon as possible. If Byfield was projected to be a generational player, sure, take him and let him develop slowly. But both Stutzle and QB were neck and neck in terms of BPA.

This gets a lot of attention because Blake potentially boinked two critical top five picks in Turcotte and Byfield. I know this triggers everyone to hear, but the Kings would be bonafide favorites to come out of the west this year if they had Stutzle and Zegras.

We crucified Lombardi over Teubert and Forbort. Blake deserves the same level of criticism.

In hindsight, it's really easy to say this. Traditionally, we have hit really well on our later draft picks. However, you also have to look at all the other first round picks we really did hit on (Vilardi/Kempe/Clarke (still early)).

Byfield has 6 points in his last 7 games. He had the same type of impact in Ontario after he settled in. He may just be one of those guys who hits his peak a little bit later. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that he can become a ppg player at some point. Will he score higher than Stutzle? Probably not, but like some of you said there are other aspects to his game that Stutzle does not have.

I truly believe it's ultimately up to Byfield how far he wants to go in this league. He could be a force on the ice if he continues to develop and wants it bad enough.

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

Byfield has 6 points in his last 7 games. He had the same type of impact in Ontario after he settled in. He may just be one of those guys who hits his peak a little bit later.

Oh, so you mean I shouldn’t be worried if he hasn’t ‘hit his peak’ AT 20-f***ING YRS OLD?!

Jesus Christ, people…..Jesus f***ing Christ.

 

[Herby]

So if QB develops into an 85-point, #1 center for the Kings, replacing Kopitar for like the next 12 years…is he still the ‘wrong’ pick?

Since you are living at the absolute top end of projection, I guess we can do the same and say Stutzle will be a MacKinnon type player in your universe, so yes I would take MacKinnon over Kopitar. Wouldn't you? But I'm guessing you will think Byfield has tons of progression left to do while Stutzle will plateau or even regress, right?

In a more balanced and realistic range what if Byfield is a PLD caliber center and Stutzle does plateau and is a 95-100 point player every year. You still think the Kings made the right pick?

You amazingly continue to think praise of one players greatness means criticism or "OMG YOU THINK HES BUST" of another

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

Since you are living at the absolute top end of projection, I guess we can do the same and say Stutzle will be a MacKinnon type player in your universe, so yes I would take MacKinnon over Kopitar. Wouldn't you? But I'm guessing you will think Byfield has tons of progression left to do while Stutzle will plateau or even regress, right?

In a more balanced and realistic range what if Byfield is a PLD caliber center and Stutzle does plateau and is a 95-100 point player every year. You still think the Kings made the right pick?

You amazingly continue to think praise of one players greatness means criticism or "OMG YOU THINK HES BUST" of another

how about this because I have no idea what the f*** you are blabbering about...

Let's just forget about Stutzle....LET'S SAY, QB develops into what I've already described...are we happy with the pick or do we still need a binky to sleep at night?

 

[AbsentMojo]

Oh, so you mean I shouldn’t be worried if he hasn’t ‘hit his peak’ AT 20-f***ING YRS OLD?!

Jesus Christ, people…..Jesus f***ing Christ.

You keep that up and your avatar will grow horns

 

[Herby]

how about this because I have no idea what the f*** you are blabbering about...

Let's just forget about Stutzle....LET'S SAY, QB develops into what I've already described...are we happy with the pick or do we still need a binky to sleep at night?

Well considering the debate was between only two players, and if the other one ends up way better you don't consider it the wrong pick?

Was Alex Smith not the wrong pick for the 49'ers instead of Aaron Rodgers? That was supposedly who they were deciding between. Even though Smith ended up still being a pretty good player wasn't it the wrong pick because the other player ended up as a Hall of Famer?

Doesn't mean Smith was a bad player or a "bust", just that Rodgers was a superstar. But that point seems difficult for you to grasp.

 

[Lt Dan]

Minus Axl's usual gibberish, I am really enjoying this debate

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

Well considering the debate was between only two players, and if the other one ends up way better you don't consider it the wrong pick?

No, I do not.

Alex LaFreniere was the CLEAR CUT #1 Pick by every 'expert' imaginable. So basing this stupid argument off of less than 200 NHL games played, are we saying that everyone is wrong or are we saying there is just no real way to determine what each player will ultimately be, nobody can predict the future and it's just a f***ing crapshoot?

 

[Herby]

No, I do not.

Alex LaFreniere was the CLEAR CUT #1 Pick by every 'expert' imaginable. So basing this stupid argument off of less than 200 NHL games played, are we saying that everyone is wrong or are we saying there is just no real way to determine what each player will ultimately be, nobody can predict the future and it's just a f***ing crapshoot?

"Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan was not the wrong pick" - Axl Rhoadz

 

[bmr]

Minus Axl's usual gibberish, I am really enjoying this debate

I think everyone would feel a lot of worse if our team sucked. I'm super happy where we're at right now. It really seems like we can compete with the top teams in this league. Our core is so young - the hardest part for Blake is trying to keep the key pieces together and restock the cupboard when it's needed.

 

[BigKing]

Fact of the matter remains that both Byfield and Clarke have to "hit" for this team to be a legit Cup contender down the road and they have to be good contributors while Kopitar and Doughty are still 1 C and D. When I say "legit" that means you like their chances at the start of the season and not at the TDL because "anyone can come out of the West".

If Blake doesn't have a 1C lined up to replace Kopitar after drafting nothing but centers and RHD at a 3:1 ratio for six drafts and counting, that will be considered a failure and force him back into the FA/trade market.

As for Byfield, that was the pick for me at the time. Based on today, I take TS because I'm still in the hope phase with Byfield while I have what looks like a baseline for TS. At the time of the pick, Blake is only one year removed from the Turcotte pick and Vilardi just put in a "full" (COVID) season. You can take the bigger swing when you think you have a 1B/2A center in Turcotte and something good in Vilardi as well, never mind all the other center selections.

Don't fault Blake for taking Byfield. Made sense. If Byfield winds up as a super frustrating 40 point guy while TS is crushing it then Blake is going to have to eat shit for being wrong even if the pick made sense. That's ultimately what sports is all about: results.

 

[Sol]

See, this is the reason why you are constantly clowning yourself -- you are willing to base a decision on limited scope of work.

Are you delusional yet again ? It makes perfect sense to say that he was the wrong pick and just look at him as just a player because if we include his draft status then he sucks in regards to where he was drafted. Yakupov was considered a bust and he drastically showed more ability than Byfield.

QB and Stutzle were close in terms of BPA. So why draft the long term project given your intention on contending soon?

I think Byfield will turn into a very good player in this league, but Herby is exactly right. The Byfield pick makes no sense in hindsight considering this regime’s overall plan to contend as soon as possible. If Byfield was projected to be a generational player, sure, take him and let him develop slowly. But both Stutzle and QB were neck and neck in terms of BPA.

This gets a lot of attention because Blake potentially boinked two critical top five picks in Turcotte and Byfield. I know this triggers everyone to hear, but the Kings would be bonafide favorites to come out of the west this year if they had Stutzle and Zegras.

We crucified Lombardi over Teubert and Forbort. Blake deserves the same level of criticism.

I don’t even think you can qualify Byfield as the BPA considering the fact that most scouts had him listed as a project with tools and Stutzle was a lot more polished. Stutzle the day he was drafted was easily the better player. Only reason why byfield was up there was because of the unicorn characteristics he had. He could be a great player or probably won’t. But Stutzle was much safer and a really good player already. The Byfield pick was complete stupidity regardless of how hopeful people are.

So if QB develops into an 85-point, #1 center for the Kings, replacing Kopitar for like the next 12 years…is he still the ‘wrong’ pick?

(FYI, I think TKF is living rent-free inside your head)

Bro he hasn’t even cracked more than 5 goals… lmao what on earth have you seen that immediately makes you think he will develop into that. By your metrics Clarke will become a 200 point season player because he was vastly superior to Byfield in talent in all regards.


Let Byfield out produce Lizotte before you make such absurd claims.

 

[LAKings88]

They Kings really didn't have skill or excitement at the time of that draft. Part of me really hoped for TS after that WJC because they didn't have that. Doesn't mean he will be more successful when all is done. I still feel like LA had playoff mindset and big body over skill mindset.

QB is supposed to be both I guess but right now he is a tweener on both.

Signs are there tho. Passing is excellent. Speed is great. Stickhandling is good but inconsistent. Scoring not there yet.

Still want to see him just dominate but I'm unsure if he will be that yet.

 

[Sol]

Fact of the matter remains that both Byfield and Clarke have to "hit" for this team to be a legit Cup contender down the road and they have to be good contributors while Kopitar and Doughty are still 1 C and D. When I say "legit" that means you like their chances at the start of the season and not at the TDL because "anyone can come out of the West".

If Blake doesn't have a 1C lined up to replace Kopitar after drafting nothing but centers and RHD at a 3:1 ratio for six drafts and counting, that will be considered a failure and force him back into the FA/trade market.

As for Byfield, that was the pick for me at the time. Based on today, I take TS because I'm still in the hope phase with Byfield while I have what looks like a baseline for TS. At the time of the pick, Blake is only one year removed from the Turcotte pick and Vilardi just put in a "full" (COVID) season. You can take the bigger swing when you think you have a 1B/2A center in Turcotte and something good in Vilardi as well, never mind all the other center selections.

Don't fault Blake for taking Byfield. Made sense. If Byfield winds up as a super frustrating 40 point guy while TS is crushing it then Blake is going to have to eat shit for being wrong even if the pick made sense. That's ultimately what sports is all about: results.

I’m sorry but it didn’t make sense then and it doesn’t make sense now. Byfields game plan was run and gun. He didnt play an NHL type of game. He was a project.

The pick didn’t make sense. It was an extremely high pick, and he took a project. On no planet could you justify that pick. You take the polished player with an NHL game style that is shown to work in the NHL. You don’t pick the tall guy whose game play was pretty much based on rushes.

How many byfield player types are there in the NHL and how many Stutzle types are there?

Spoiler alert there’s no tall fast players who are looking for the long pass in the NHL. That’s why he has no idea how to use his body. But there’s Patrick Kane kucherov and I’m sure more than that that have the Stutzle mold and playstyle.

 

[King'sPawn]

I just don't see QB being a similar C to what Doughty was as a defenseman, where as Stutzle's early returns project a player who could be comparable with Karlsson as a defender.

Doughty is probably going to go down as a clear cut top 5 d-man of his era, a Norris winner and multi-time finalist and a clear cut Hall of Fame defenseman who shined on the biggest stages. It's just tough to see QB ever achieving similar status to Doughty, and again that is not a knock on QB, Doughty was a really special player.

I also think there is a bit of an overhyping of QB as a two-way player to try and compensate for the offensive shortcomings thus far, the guy wasn't exactly Patrice Bergeron as a center, and while he has thrown the occasional big hit, he really hasn't been a physical force much at all. Size does not always mean someone is going to be physical or good defensively.

I was afraid of making the comparison for fear that some of the analogy would be misread or misrepresented. And that's not a knock against you - just that it may not have been the best analogy to begin with.

But if Byfield is a 60-70 point player, forechecks and plays a better 200 foot game on a good team versus an 80-90 point player who is more one-dimensional on a bad team, I think it's a bit of a wash.

Yes, Byfield is nowhere near 60-70 points, nor is he strong enough in his 200 foot game, but if we're talking about projections and overall impact, how a player fits in a team and career, I think that's a fair comparison. And since you brought up PLD - he's 24 years old and already has 55 points in 61 games this season.

And I don't think 60-70 points per season out of Byfield within the next few seasons is out of the realm of possibility, again assuming his need to grow. He already has 18 points in 39 games this season (and only a small chunk of that time has been on the top line). I think it's reasonable to expect this.

As far as Stutzle, it has been discussed he would reach his peak faster. And once you start hitting certain numbers (meaning 90 points), it is INCREDIBLY difficult to be that consistent production wise, as teams focus more on you. That's why the production of McDavid and Draisaitl is very special. I think it's fair to argue that Stutzle consistently hitting 100+ points is a lot less likely than Byfield growing more and putting up a much higher scoring rate than what he's currently producing.

There are plenty of fair criticisms for the Byfield pick, but right now the Kings are in a luxurious position that they can take their time with him. And he has good players to learn from.

I just think the Kings made the right picks for what they wanted and envisioned. It's certainly not passing up on Michael Jordan that you are alluding to.

Let's not also forget Stutzle is shooting at almost 19% this season. I hate to say "that's not sustainable", but I'll just say even the most revered goalscorer in modern history, Alex Ovechkin, has a career shooting percentage of 12.9. So, I also wouldn't be surprised to see a dip in Stutzle's production as soon as next season.

I know this is a long post - sorry about that. I just think Stutzle is a talented player whose early production is clouding the judgment, and right now it's very easy to say who the better player is right now. But it's just not nearly cut and dry; and I think many will be pleasantly surprised to see Byfield next season after another offseason of training, as well as a full season on the top line.

 

[Byfield]

Zegras and Stutzle are horrendous defensively. You’d all be complaining about that and not to mention the Kings never have high point total players.

This is 20/20 hindsight at its finest

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Well considering the debate was between only two players, and if the other one ends up way better you don't consider it the wrong pick?

Was Alex Smith not the wrong pick for the 49'ers instead of Aaron Rodgers? That was supposedly who they were deciding between. Even though Smith ended up still being a pretty good player wasn't it the wrong pick because the other player ended up as a Hall of Famer?

Doesn't mean Smith was a bad player or a "bust", just that Rodgers was a superstar. But that point seems difficult for you to grasp.

But you are then saying that Rodgers would have been a superstar NO MATTER WHERE HE WENT......I don't know if I necessarily buy into that (in general) sure there are players like McDavid, etc who yes......but I don't know as a general rule, that players will thrive regardless of where they land....in the pro's (minor hockey, college, junior etc, you can throw that out the window)