I never compared the two -- I was basically referencing what would be considered a #1 center in the NHL. I guess you are saying he will never be that....I am saying, at this point, I have no idea...however, if he did develop into that, would it still be the 'wrong' pick?
Took Olli Jokinen almost 500 games before it was deemed he was the right pick. How many games has QB played?
View attachment 669977
First off, do you think Jokinen is a common path for players to develop? Showing a pulse only in his 6th season on his 3rd different team and really only becoming a player worthy of his slot in year 8?
If you took every player in NHL taken in the top 10 who were disappointments after 5 seasons what percentage turn it around and live up to their pick and what percentage end of continuing as career disappointments? If I told you it were 80% can I bring up those 80% since you are bringing up the 20% constantly? You bring up the minority results and think it proves something.
And you continue to equate that people saying the Kings made the wrong pick as the same as saying that QB is a bust, which is not the case. To go back to your Olli Jokinen example, if you had a pick in an NHL draft and the choices were a player who ended up being Olli Jokinen and a player who ended up being Patrick Kane and you chose Olli Jokinen you made the wrong pick, period. It doesn’t mean Olli Jokinen is a bad player or your guys favorite word “bust” . It just means presented with two choices you made the wrong one. If you can only invest in one company and after heavy research and analysis you choose to invest in one company and you make $1m and the other company would have made you $4m, you made the wrong choice, but you still end up with $1m. I just don’t get why that is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. You continue to think that praise of Stutzle as a very special player is a criticism of QB as a bust.
To answer your question, what would it take for it not to be the wrong pick for the Kings? Byfield would have to end up as a better player than Stutzle. You said in another post that you are a results guy, so you should agree with thet, since it’s the ultimate results take.
Kane---defense??? Are you kidding me, Herby.... He has been a cherry picker who back checks once every 5 or so shifts. I always say Kane is the best American forward ever. But his defense is and always has been atrocious. It is not what he was made for.
(This is also why how the Kings have handled Kaliyev in the opposite way the Hawks treated Kane makes me crazy. I did not say Kaliyev = Kane. They are both offensively elite and that part of their game should be the main focus.
Look, I didn’t say the guy was Jere Lehtinen, but from where he was when he was a young player which was a total disregard for any kind of defense (way worse than Stutzle and Zegras) he was able to at least get to a level where he wasn’t a total liability. But you are right that even in 2010 he was still really bad and they still won, that is why defensive play from offensive superstars is a tad overrated and often used more to tear someone down than anything.
As far as the other stuff, I am just continually amazed that certain people will get so angry when someone on the main forum brings up QB’s offense with the usual response being that he is still young and has room to improve, which is a very fair and reasonable response. But then you will see some of those same people in threads around these parts saying the same thing about Zegras and Stutzle’s defense, not giving them the same benefit of age improvement that they are angry QB is not given by fans of other teams, it just seems baffling to me. If QB can figure things out offensively why can’t those guys defensively? Especially with historical evidence that many one-dimensional centers do turn it around as they get older.
With the Kings development choices, I agree 100%. As RJ said, the Kings do a good job producing solid NHL depth up to decent secondary pieces. But getting the most out of guys with high end skills has continued to be a major issue, and it is certainly valid to ask why and try and dig deeper into it. I personally think it’s the reliance on heavy AHL usage coupled with roles that don’t suit skilled players. Other teams often don’t have players the caliber of Clarke and Byfield in the AHL at all, instead choosing to develop them at the NHL level. When people bring up the “QB wasn’t NHL ready” stuff to defend having him in the AHL at 18 instead of the NHL they completely ignore that many of the high picks who end up in the NHL at 18 also weren’t ready but the teams still felt that was the best spot for them. Joe Thornton was completely lost as an 18 year old in Boston, Jack Hughes made the historic jump from the NTDP to the NHL and wasn’t ready, Sasha Barkov was not NHL ready when he made the Panthers at 18. Why are these teams choosing the NHL over the AHL (Thornton wasn’t AHL eligible but the other 2 were) while the Kings did not?
The Turcotte thing, why did every other NCAA 1st round pick who wasn’t going to play in the NHL from that draft get returned to college, but the Kings decided to put Turcotte in the AHL? Please none of the canned excuses, the Kings were not the only team dealing in a Covid world, there were other NHL prospects returned to the same program. Let’s call a spade a spade, despite historical evidence that is so overwhelmingly clear the Kings went against it and chose their AHL affiliate when no one else did. Why? These are fair questions to ask about why players drafted to be skilled players either don’t make it or are so far behind schedule compared to peers.
Now with Clarke. Can we honestly say that Clarke would be handled this way by the majority of teams? Any other team? Not given a regular role so they can keep generic veterans making little impact with no long term upside to the team. Returned to a level where he isn’t being challenged at all, putting up roller hockey stats and not facing elite competition in the defensive end. And to the surprise of no one the likely situation is he ends up in the AHL next season. Owen Power didn’t play in the AHL, neither did Cale Makar, Quinn Hughes, Rasmus Dahlin, Adam Fox, Charlie McAvoy played 4 games. It’s very unlikely you will see Luke Hughes or Brock Faber in the AHL next season, both are similar age and similar caliber players to Clarke and likely to immediately jump into playoff teams as early as this spring. Why are so many other teams comfortable putting high end guys into the NHL without AHL usage first (in most cases with great success) but the Kings are unwilling to? Do we believe these type of decisions are damaging to a ceiling being hit in a timely manner or even at all?
