When to extend Byfield?

[SmytheKing]

Not to jump on it again, as I know you're a good poster and you don't mean anything ill. I just think you could've said what you did without the first part as honestly I don't think that factors into the majority of peoples opinions when scouting a player, professional or otherwise. Kind of like, why mention it at all?

I'll say it again, but it's because I think the "Hockey IQ" thing was bullshit quite frankly. It was started early on when there was no real tangible complaint about his game and he had just come off a tremendous draft year. It took hold somehow and then, instead of criticizing anything about his actual play (which you pointed out in this post and other have done), they said he doesn't seem "smart" enough to be that good. Based on what? How is that even measured?

Hockey IQ is measured, to me, by watching a guy to see if he goes to the proper spots, or doesn't over commit to a position, or doesn't tunnel vision with the puck. Byfield always did those things right. He's never been a guy who is regularly getting beat defensively (other than what you'd expect from a young guy), he cycles tremendously in the offensive zone, does a great job disrupting on the forecheck, and other things.

His biggest issue, and I've said this before, is that he wasn't willing to really take charge of a situation and lead the attack. He'd get the puck, and almost immediately look to give it to someone else. The other night against Toronto, where he pulled that little hesitation move into the slot was EXACTLY the type of thing I've wanted to see him do. He curls up near the blue line and then drives to the middle. Before, if he even makes that curl, he's passing it off to the defender or putting it in the corner for someone to get.

The past couple of games he's like a different guy out there.

 

[Herby]

This is where it came from, backing up this narrative 100%.

There was some obnoxious stuff in that draft report and also in the threads. It was bad. And one glance at the poster histories would show that it was pretty unfortunately common (ie similar commentary on Byfuglien and others).

And it was no one here participating in that, but that's also why we're resisting the 'hockey IQ' narrative because it just becomes an umbrella for any complaints about his game that lazy people can't describe.

But doesn’t the Kings moving him to wing and him thriving at wing after struggling at C mean that some of the concerns were valid?

Game sense/IQ whatever you want to call it is a valid thing.

Some guys have very high skill level but not a ton of hockey IQ. Former King Glen Murray was like this (but still had a great career playing with the right the of guys), JJ was another guy like this. Then you have people like Quinn Hughes who weren’t blessed with God-given superstar skill, but end up being being at that level because they think the game so well.

It’s not just a racial thing or something exclusive to hockey. A guy like Davante Adams doesn’t have the God-given skill of some other guys, but he has an extraordinary game sense and ability to slow the game down enough where he can get open at will, and will be a first-ballot Hall of Famer when he retires. Same thing with Brady, nobody was able to slow the game down as much as Brady. It’s harder to judge this kind of thing and takes many games to see it play out, but it certainly is a real thing in sports, and bringing it up, especially in light of the move to winger by the team that drafted him should not be met with thoughts of saying it’s racist.

It’s a lazy pov to take and limits the discussion, IMO.

And just fyi, it’s not only Byfield who has this brought up about on these forums. This was brought up about Fantilli, Knies and Boldy from recent drafts.

 

[SmytheKing]

There's a name that I forgot about, Jack Johnson. He was a PERFECT example of a player with all the physical tools, but a 'low hockey IQ'.

...and literally no one was using that term when he was drafted or traded to the Kings. They talked about his vision and his hitting and his skating and his competitiveness. At worst they said he takes too many risks...but they'd say it's because of how hard he plays. So even his negatives were a positive. The "I'm a bit of a perfectionist" as a job weakness.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

But doesn’t the Kings moving him to wing and him thriving at wing after struggling at C mean that some of the concerns were valid?

Game sense/IQ whatever you want to call it is a valid thing.

Some guys have very high skill level but not a ton of hockey IQ. Former King Glen Murray was like this (but still had a great career playing with the right the of guys), JJ was another guy like this. Then you have people like Quinn Hughes who weren’t blessed with God-given superstar skill, but end up being being at that level because they think the game so well.

It’s not just a racial thing or something exclusive to hockey. A guy like Davante Adams doesn’t have the God-given skill of some other guys, but he has an extraordinary game sense and ability to slow the game down enough where he can get open at will, and will be a first-ballot Hall of Famer when he retires. Same thing with Brady, nobody was able to slow the game down as much as Brady. It’s harder to judge this kind of thing and takes many games to see it play out, but it certainly is a real thing in sports, and bringing it up, especially in light of the move to winger by the team that drafted him should not be met with thoughts of saying it’s racist.

It’s a lazy pov to take and limits the discussion, IMO.

And just fyi, it’s not only Byfield who has this brought up about on these forums. This was brought up about Fantilli, Knies and Boldy from recent drafts.

No, because how does one suddenly develop it? Are we to believe Byfield was low-IQ from 16 till now then suddenly grew it overnight?

Like KP says, it's nebulous and lazy. Make a specific complaint. Most people here have.

For the racial part if the shoe doesn't fit no one is making you pick it up and wear it. And we can't show you evidence because it was RIGHTLY scrubbed from these very forums. You're swinging at ghosts, so maybe just leave it. If you don't believe that exists, fine. It's only being said in the context that it limited good discussion about Byfield from the very beginning, not that exists around here now.

edit: to go back to your football analogy you know receivers will grow by getting their route tree limited until they can learn the whole playbook. That doesn't make them low IQ. that makes them "in development."

 

[SmytheKing]

But doesn’t the Kings moving him to wing and him thriving at wing after struggling at C mean that some of the concerns were valid?

I would say no and I'll explain why in my opinion it's not.

When the IQ stuff started, it wasn't couched in "I don't think he's got the Hockey IQ to be a center in the NHL. He gets beat too often defensively and he doesn't have the footspeed or agility to play that role. He should play winger where his talent will be maximized and his shot will flourish." It was, "I don't think he's as good as he's being advertised. He's got low Hockey IQ. I've got several other guys that I think are better than him."

I'd also note that people DID say that Stutzle would be better suited as a winger than a center...and I don't recall ANYONE questioning his Hockey IQ. I could be wrong, but I really really don't remember that ever being mentioned.

 

[Eagle Fang]

I'll say it again, but it's because I think the "Hockey IQ" thing was bullshit quite frankly. It was started early on when there was no real tangible complaint about his game and he had just come off a tremendous draft year. It took hold somehow and then, instead of criticizing anything about his actual play (which you pointed out in this post and other have done), they said he doesn't seem "smart" enough to be that good. Based on what? How is that even measured?

Hockey IQ is measured, to me, by watching a guy to see if he goes to the proper spots, or doesn't over commit to a position, or doesn't tunnel vision with the puck. Byfield always did those things right. He's never been a guy who is regularly getting beat defensively (other than what you'd expect from a young guy), he cycles tremendously in the offensive zone, does a great job disrupting on the forecheck, and other things.

His biggest issue, and I've said this before, is that he wasn't willing to really take charge of a situation and lead the attack. He'd get the puck, and almost immediately look to give it to someone else. The other night against Toronto, where he pulled that little hesitation move into the slot was EXACTLY the type of thing I've wanted to see him do. He curls up near the blue line and then drives to the middle. Before, if he even makes that curl, he's passing it off to the defender or putting it in the corner for someone to get.

The past couple of games he's like a different guy out there.

Focusing just on this. I've said it and I'll defend it. Though I have to say it's odd because it comes across as I'm negative on QB. I was thrilled we got him, I loved a lot of what I saw from him and I just felt that one thing was missing from him becoming an outstanding player.

Again, I'm no scout, but I've watched the game for a long time. Like anyone else, you start to notice things and can tell a good player from a bad one and the nuances that go into that.

I disagree he did those things right on a consistent basis and I'll explain again what I mean rather than using it as a blanket statement. It has nothing to do with his defensive play.

One of the most glaring things I noticed is on puck retrieval, especially on the PP. Generally when you watch the PP players, their rim around goes to the point man or someone else along the boards. More than a few occasions, he's rim around would go to none which led to the other team clearing.

When carrying the puck in, he would make some pretty bad decisions as to what to do with it. Be it a dump in or pass. Not all the time, but enough where it was something I started to notice.

As spectators, it's easy for us to see plays develop. We can kind of see the open man on TV and most of us kind of know... that guys open. Of course it's a totally different story on the ice, but the good players tend to find those open men. A player like Kopitar for example generally always makes the play. With Byfield, I started to find myself saying "why'd he do that?"

And this goes back to the WJCs.

My point is this. It's not uncommon to hear "All the tools, no toolbox". Maybe it's a generalization, but a player with elite physical attributes is only held back by the ability or inability to process the game. It's wouldn't be unique to QB. It's why Gretzky would be an example of a player lacking physically but dominating the NHL with his understanding of the game.

But AGAIN, I'm happy to say that's wrong and perhaps it was more just him needing the time to adjust.

I 100% agree with you, he's looked like a completely different player and I'm more than thrilled to see it happen.

 

[Eagle Fang]

...and literally no one was using that term when he was drafted or traded to the Kings. They talked about his vision and his hitting and his skating and his competitiveness. At worst they said he takes too many risks...but they'd say it's because of how hard he plays. So even his negatives were a positive. The "I'm a bit of a perfectionist" as a job weakness.

To be fair, I don't know that we, as fans, had the chance to watch him like we're able to watch the players now, but I think it became pretty clear at the NHL level once the hype died down. Whether it was hockey IQ or what, the guy was a disaster in his own zone.

 

[SmytheKing]

To be fair, I don't know that we, as fans, had the chance to watch him like we're able to watch the players now, but I think it became pretty clear at the NHL level once the hype died down. Whether it was hockey IQ or what, the guy was a disaster in his own zone.

I'm only talking about scouts though in JJ's case. Not fans or message board nerds.

Also, I think there's a big difference between saying a 17-18 year old kid needs to learn discipline and structure and saying they have "low Hockey IQ". One statement is saying, basically, that this kid's been the top dog for some time and needs to know they can't get away with it in the NHL, and the other implies they're just not smart enough to ever get it.

That sort of thinking has been used to discredit the talent of Black athletes for decades now and it often just gets couched in more nebulous terms to say the same thing today.

 

[Sol]

Yes Herby. People are still racist these days and do have it factor into their opinions on 17-year old kids. They also get their opinions from YouTube "scouts" that feed their confirmation bias.

This is a reality and it's not a terrible take and certainly not something we should "move away from". As I already stated, I'm not talking about people who have pointed out very real criticisms of Byfield. I've got tons of them and have brought them up time and time again.

It's honestly so weird how defensive people get about this when they aren't being brought up.

I mean race is a hot button issue in the world and to throw it around so casually is just a bit weird to me. Byfield had a very underwhelming WJC and he hasn't looked impressive wherever he played. This is the first time I'm seeing something happening with him. This season right now. I don't know where you got these issues with scouting but he has been underwhelming for sure so I don't know where you see the "racism" when you consider the fact that this is the only time he's looked good since he's been drafted. He seems like he JUST put it together.

Maybe you're just phrasing it weird to me, so I apologize if I am misunderstanding you.

 

[johnjm22]

I think that's a very high ask from his camp and one I don't think he has the leverage for yet. If he finishes the year with around 80 points I think it's maybe more likely to be close to that...but he needs to put together more than a handful of games for that.

Jack Hughes signed on Nov 30th 2021. 8x8M.
19/20: 61gp, 7g 14a 21pts
20/21: 56gp 11g, 20a, 31pts

Tim Stutzle signed Sep 7th 2022. 8x8.35M
20/21: 53gp 12g 17a 29pts
21/22: 79gp 22g 36a 58pts

They signed these deals before having huge breaks outs.

If you want QB to sign an 8 year deal, the ask will likely be something similar. Stutzle had a 58 point season under his belt. QB looks to be on pace for something similar.

I think, as others have suggested, it's going to be a 2-3 year deal taking him to the end of the Kopitar deal and then, depending on what he is at the end of that one, he'll get a longer deal.

They could do that, but it would likely cost them more in the long run. You really only get one opportunity to lock up a star player to a long term discounted contract.

 

[Sol]

Jack Hughes signed on Nov 30th 2021. 8x8M.
19/20: 61gp, 7g 14a 21pts
20/21: 56gp 11g, 20a, 31pts

Tim Stutzle signed Sep 7th 2022. 8x8.35M
20/21: 53gp 12g 17a 29pts
21/22: 79gp 22g 36a 58pts

They signed these deals before having huge breaks outs.

If you want QB to sign an 8 year deal, the ask will likely be something similar. Stutzle had a 58 point season under his belt. QB looks to be on pace for something similar.


They could do that, but it would likely cost them more in the long run. You really only get one opportunity to lock up a star player to a long term discounted contract.

If the Kings can afford to swing for the fences and give someone like PLD a max term contract, I dont see why the Kings cant play it safe and give Byfield a bridge deal, and then pay more in the long run. Money has never been an issue with the team. This team has taken too many high risk high reward contracts that has ended poorly. No reason to do that again.

 

[SmytheKing]

I mean race is a hot button issue in the world and to throw it around so casually is just a bit weird to me. Byfield had a very underwhelming WJC and he hasn't looked impressive wherever he played. This is the first time I'm seeing something happening with him. This season right now. I don't know where you got these issues with scouting but he has been underwhelming for sure so I don't know where you see the "racism" when you consider the fact that this is the only time he's looked good since he's been drafted. He seems like he JUST put it together.

Maybe you're just phrasing it weird to me, so I apologize if I am misunderstanding you.

Hey dude I COMPLETELY agree with what you said about his first WJC and his second. Those were both after he was drafted though and, while the first one I thought you could brush off as "he was playing 3rd line minutes and not really getting a lot of shots as a younger guy", the second one the following year definitely made me question whether he had "it". I still need to see more consistency from him too. I don't think these last 4-5 games erase the previous couple of years, but I DO see a night and day difference in the TYPE of player he is.

...and that's the thing. No one was ever questioning his actual skillset or ability. There were people, like you and others (including me) who questioned whether he had the drive to take that next step. Whether he would stop being passive and start being more demanding. Where potential would turn into results. There were other people though who, before he was drafted said he sucked because of "Hockey IQ" and that he was only getting by because he was bigger than everyone else. Completely ignoring that he wasn't a physical guy by any stretch of the imagination in juniors. It stank. Badly. Once that narrative started to exist, it became a soft landing for other people who didn't watch but wanted to explain why he wasn't performing.

Bottom line, I was saying that the "Hockey IQ" language started from, in my opinion, a bad place and because there wasn't enough push back on it, sort of took on an actual "truth". I'm not implying that you or others on this board think he's bad because he's Black and that you don't like him because of it. I hope that clears some of it up.

Jack Hughes signed on Nov 30th 2021. 8x8M.
19/20: 61gp, 7g 14a 21pts
20/21: 56gp 11g, 20a, 31pts

Tim Stutzle signed Sep 7th 2022. 8x8.35M
20/21: 53gp 12g 17a 29pts
21/22: 79gp 22g 36a 58pts

They signed these deals before having huge breaks outs.

If you want QB to sign an 8 year deal, the ask will likely be something similar. Stutzle had a 58 point season under his belt. QB looks to be on pace for something similar.


They could do that, but it would likely cost them more in the long run. You really only get one opportunity to lock up a star player to a long term discounted contract.

There you go. I guess it's not that far fetched. I might suggest that it could be less only because he's also got a couple of years behind him that don't look as good as Hughes and Stutzle's first ones which might give the Kings some pause. I'm not going to say he's only getting $5M per for 8 years, but $9M might be on the top end. I'm ok with being wrong on this.

 

[Herby]

I would say no and I'll explain why in my opinion it's not.

When the IQ stuff started, it wasn't couched in "I don't think he's got the Hockey IQ to be a center in the NHL. He gets beat too often defensively and he doesn't have the footspeed or agility to play that role. He should play winger where his talent will be maximized and his shot will flourish." It was, "I don't think he's as good as he's being advertised. He's got low Hockey IQ. I've got several other guys that I think are better than him."

I'd also note that people DID say that Stutzle would be better suited as a winger than a center...and I don't recall ANYONE questioning his Hockey IQ. I could be wrong, but I really really don't remember that ever being mentioned.

But hockey IQ not being good is something that’s hard to see until you reach higher levels where it’s more exposed. That was true of JJ as a d-man and it’s and it’s also true of QB as a C. That is in response to both your point about nobody bringing it up
About JJ and RJ’s about suddenly having a bad IQ. Sometimes the pure athleticism can get you by, it can even get you drafted in the Top 3 of the draft like both players were. But if you are going to be a great C or great D who lives up to that draft spot you have to have more than just pure talent.

The concern with Stutzle as a C has more to do with size, strength and defensive commitment. And he still isn’t very good defensively eithe.

I just feel like, as someone who originally wanted the Kings to draft QB, but then never saw a player with the game sense to play C effectively and wanted him moved to wing and said so many times on this forum it’s a bit of a shot to say “tinged in racism”. I wanted the Kings to draft him, and I wanted the Kings to move him to wing because everything about his game is better suited for that role, and him being at wing will result in better success for both the Kings and the okayed himself. And I’ve been saying as much for almost a year now.

RJ, every prospect gets dumped on.

Fantilli was constantly dumped on last season while having the best draft eligible season for a college player in 3 decades, for the same reasons as QB.

Stutzle was dumped on plenty here.

Jack Hughes was dumped on his rookie year by people like the Turcotte fanboy from the main board and many others.

Quinn Hughes was dumped constantly on HF. To small, bad shot, can’t play D etc.

Cole Caufield had comments made about him on this very forum that have aged about as well as Tara Reid.

Zegras was and still is massively dumped on by people on this forum.

You can find very negative comments about just about any prospect either on this forum or HF as a whole. But criticism of Byfield is now implied to be race based? Sorry I don’t buy it, people on this forum are just critical of every prospect. Black, White, Asian, Hispanic. American, Canadian, German, Slovenian

 

[SmytheKing]

But hockey IQ not being good is something that’s hard to see until you reach higher levels where it’s more exposed. That was true of JJ as a d-man and it’s and it’s also true of QB as a C. That is in response to both your point about nobody bringing it up
About JJ and RJ’s about suddenly having a bad IQ. Sometimes the pure athleticism can get you by, it can even get you drafted in the Top 3 of the draft like both players were. But if you are going to be a great C or great D who lives up to that draft spot you have to have more than just pure talent.

The concern with Stutzle as a C has more to do with size, strength and defensive commitment. And he still isn’t very good defensively eithe.

I just feel like, as someone who originally wanted the Kings to draft QB, but then never saw a player with the game sense to play C effectively and wanted him moved to wing and said so many times on this forum it’s a bit of a shot to say “tinged in racism”. I wanted the Kings to draft him, and I wanted the Kings to move him to wing because everything about his game is better suited for that role, and him being at wing will result in better success for both the Kings and the okayed himself. And I’ve been saying as much for almost a year now.

Hey Herby,

I think you're still missing my point about saying the INITIAL complaints about his "Hockey IQ" were tinged in it. That's what I literally said. I stated that they STARTED before he was drafted by people on this board and elsewhere who weren't bringing up anything specific as an example. Your criticisms by Byfield, as shown by my likes of those posts have ALWAYS been based in actual specifics and valid concerns. I've felt the same way. Still do.

I don't think his issues have anything to do with "Hockey IQ" though. I think it's about determination and being too passive. Constantly making the safe play and being afraid of making mistakes (be it because of reverence for a guy like Kopitar or because fear of being benched by a coach who won't let you make a mistake) has nothing to do with how he processes the game. The past couple of games show a guy who has NO problem doing such. He's always (in my opinion) made safe and smart plays but now he's doing it while being in control of the play and drawing defenders towards him. Instead of making a pass to an area where a guy is heading, he's making a move to draw people away from that spot before making that play. It's subtle differences in him that are making a huge difference in his success.

Regarding the Kings moving him to wing, they clearly weren't comfortable with him as a center at this moment, but in three years? Who knows what they'll be thinking. He's showing the playmaking and creativeness to be a center right now, it's a question of whether or not he's got the defense to do so and, quite frankly, this team isn't going to give him that opportunity to learn so we'll have to wait.

Basically, no one was taking a shot at you or anyone else specifically. It was that the "Hockey IQ" stuff was based off of nothing in particular and just became a "thing". It's still such a nebulous thing that no one can explain what it really means. It's like saying so and so has a heavy shot. There's no such thing but we believe it for some reason.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

But hockey IQ not being good is something that’s hard to see until you reach higher levels where it’s more exposed. That was true of JJ as a d-man and it’s and it’s also true of QB as a C. That is in response to both your point about nobody bringing it up
About JJ and RJ’s about suddenly having a bad IQ. Sometimes the pure athleticism can get you by, it can even get you drafted in the Top 3 of the draft like both players were. But if you are going to be a great C or great D who lives up to that draft spot you have to have more than just pure talent.

The concern with Stutzle as a C has more to do with size, strength and defensive commitment. And he still isn’t very good defensively eithe.

I just feel like, as someone who originally wanted the Kings to draft QB, but then never saw a player with the game sense to play C effectively and wanted him moved to wing and said so many times on this forum it’s a bit of a shot to say “tinged in racism”. I wanted the Kings to draft him, and I wanted the Kings to move him to wing because everything about his game is better suited for that role, and him being at wing will result in better success for both the Kings and the okayed himself. And I’ve been saying as much for almost a year now.

RJ, every prospect gets dumped on.

Fantilli was constantly dumped on last season while having the best draft eligible season for a college player in 3 decades, for the same reasons as QB.

Stutzle was dumped on plenty here.

Jack Hughes was dumped on his rookie year by people like the Turcotte fanboy from the main board and many others.

Quinn Hughes was dumped constantly on HF. To small, bad shot, can’t play D etc.

Cole Caufield had comments made about him on this very forum that have aged about as well as Tara Reid.

Zegras was and still is massively dumped on by people on this forum.

You can find very negative comments about just about any prospect either on this forum or HF as a whole. But criticism of Byfield is now implied to be race based? Sorry I don’t buy it, people on this forum are just critical of every prospect. Black, White, Asian, Hispanic. American, Canadian, German, Slovenian

So simple question--is QB getting by on pure talent right now?

 

[Herby]

So simple question--is QB getting by on pure talent right now?

He’s playing a position that is better suited for his overall game, the wing plays to his strengths and minimizes his weaknesses. And you know this is the same thing I’ve been saying since *before* they even moved him to wing, and even after everyone, including people like Hoven insisted at the end of last year he was going back to center. So it’s not like this is a new opinion or anything.

I don’t believe he will play C in the NHL again, other than maybe in a pinch. He is blocked for at least the next 2 seasons after this one, and after 3+ years at wing it’s very unlikely he’d be able to shift back to C on the prime of his career.

It’s not ideal to be taking a wing at #2 (unless it’s a big time star) but at this point the Kings have made the correct decision and are just trusting the writing on the wall l, with how he has played at both positions. It’s night and day.

 

[shuchukfan]

Once people start pointing out flaws, a version of the Mandela Effect kicks in and then people just start "seeing it" without definition. And this goes with the individual scouting reports.

Mandela?

 

[Sol]

It’d be a joke if Byfield doesn’t take center position. Despite him being good at wing, Kings need Kopitars heir apparent. They can’t afford to placate to Byfields weaknesses. He needs to keep this up so he can end up filling at least half of Kopitars shoes. This entire Kings era is on his shoulders. With him being the highest draft pick it was always more so on his shoulders, but the embarrassment of the Kings development system has put even more pressure on Byfield to succeed. The Kings can’t afford for any other players to not hit their potential. I don’t think Danault is going to play here after his contract so the Kings are going to be rolling with

Byfield
PLD
(Trade Acquisition)
Lizzotte

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

It’d be a joke if Byfield doesn’t take center position. Despite him being good at wing, Kings need Kopitars heir apparent. They can’t afford to placate to Byfields weaknesses. He needs to keep this up so he can end up filling at least half of Kopitars shoes. This entire Kings era is on his shoulders. With him being the highest draft pick it was always more so on his shoulders, but the embarrassment of the Kings development system has put even more pressure on Byfield to succeed. The Kings can’t afford for any other players to not hit their potential. I don’t think Danault is going to play here after his contract so the Kings are going to be rolling with

Byfield
PLD
(Trade Acquisition)
Lizzotte

What a crock of shit.....

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

What a crock of shit.....

<thumbs up>

 

[Statto]

I’m not assessing QB’s ability to play C simply because we haven’t seen him confident and comfortable there. That makes a huge difference to decision making in everyday we do, including playing hockey. If he’s assertive in that position he will play a completely different game.

 

[Herby]

It’d be a joke if Byfield doesn’t take center position. Despite him being good at wing, Kings need Kopitars heir apparent. They can’t afford to placate to Byfields weaknesses. He needs to keep this up so he can end up filling at least half of Kopitars shoes. This entire Kings era is on his shoulders. With him being the highest draft pick it was always more so on his shoulders, but the embarrassment of the Kings development system has put even more pressure on Byfield to succeed. The Kings can’t afford for any other players to not hit their potential. I don’t think Danault is going to play here after his contract so the Kings are going to be rolling with

Byfield
PLD
(Trade Acquisition)
Lizzotte

They don’t need Kopitar’s heir apparent anymore, that is going to be found in the 2027-2029 drafts when the Kings will likely be going though a big rebuild and hopefully do a better job evaluating top centers than they did in the last rebuild. Right now they need him to be able to play the wing with Kopitar and the veteran centers they brought in to win now. And he’s doing a very good job at what is clearly his best position.

 

[Sol]

They don’t need Kopitar’s heir apparent anymore, that is going to be found in the 2027-2029 drafts when the Kings will likely be going though a big rebuild and hopefully do a better job evaluating top centers than they did in the last rebuild. Right now they need him to be able to play the wing with Kopitar and the veteran centers they brought in to win now. And he’s doing a very good job at what is clearly his best position.

If the Kings don’t try to put Byfield in a center role by next season then this entire thing would have been a big waste of time.

 

[King'sPawn]

If the Kings don’t try to put Byfield in a center role by next season then this entire thing would have been a big waste of time.

Why?

 

[Sol]

Why?

I don’t think PLD is a top line center, neither is Danault. If byfield keeps this up and as a natural center, I think he needs to play center because I don’t think anyone else can once the Kopitar days are over. Byfield is going to determine if the Kings crater after Kopitar or will be just fine without him.