I've grown to appreciate what a sound game Byfield plays. There's nothing cheap about it. There's no unnecessary-risk in his game.
He knows when to keep it north/south and knows when to pick his spots. His "flashy" plays are always appropriate to the situation. Flashy with a purpose.
He rarely makes a bad turnover. He's not gonna attempt the low percentage pass across the ice that kills your team's o-zone shift. He's not gonna turn the puck over at the blueline when your team needs a line change.
He's becoming one of those guys you never have to worry about.
Amazing how wrong professional scouts can be. Hockey IQ seems to be one his better traits.
I've said it a few times, so sorry for being a broken record - but I think some people don't realize that hockey IQ can be broken in different categories.
And we have two polar opposites of hockey IQ examples on the team.
On one hand is Kevin Fiala. He has instincts, a better understanding of his capabilities, and processes the play very well. But the dude makes the same mistakes over and over, and gets himself in trouble when he gets overconfident.
On the other hand is Byfield. He doesn't (and didn't) have the same instincts or play processing. And the habits he learned in junior just don't work in the NHL, affecting confidence. But you can see the way he applies different skillsets differently. He's adjusting. So he lacks the same instincts, but he's learning to play in varying situations. When he's trying to figure it out, he uses his strength and speed to buy himself time.
That's also why I felt he needed more ice time, as I felt with Kaliyev. More reps and opportunity, while playing with skilled players, would also help them learn some good habits quicker. If they became overwhelmed, you can scale it back.
It's also why, for example, I'd be okay with having Clarke up and playing the third pair for now. He has the instincts that, even with less ice time, he'll generally play well. And the responsibility can be scaled up with more immediate success. He'll probably also never be a defensive stalwart. I think he can adjust, but won't necessarily learn at an elite level how to defend - he'll always go by his gut and his quick processing of the play.
Anyway, to your point, I agree that many scouts got it wrong with hockey IQ. I think a big problem is how nebulous the term is, and it's like how art is defined: you know it when you see it. And I think a lot of people refer to hockey IQ exclusively with instincts and reading the play, while forgetting how coachability and capacity to learn plays into it.
