You do understand that those same people can think that Zadorov’s prime is yet to come as well, but that they simply have very little faith of much improvement?
the prime seems to be synonymous with plateauing.
Zadorov may have better years ahead, but after so many games played at the NhL level, some people don’t believe the increase is all that much. Are they correct? Who knows? It’s their opinion.
The same person can equally think that Toews has more to give. Doesn’t mean they expect him to make massive increases in his quality of play. It could simple mean they’re hoping and expecting a slight uptick in play during his « prime » years.
clearly though, they have a higher base appreciation for Toews’ game than they do Zadorov.
I’m not sure why you have to be so confrontational all the time about the « games played by a dman » factor that people use. Is there not even an inkling of possibility for you to accept that as you move up in difficulty of leagues, there is a potential to learn more and grow more as a player. If Mackinnon played his entire adult career in the AHL, would he be as good as he is now in the NhL at the same point?
There’s a certain level of playing up to your competition that people acknowledge. Some people will accept more of it, some less. These posters seem to simply believe that after certain amount of NHL games played, there is less and less probability that a player will continue to make improvements. Or that the improvements are not drastic. Are there exceptions? Of course.
But i see no inconsistency. I see the opposite actually.
I don't think you're characterizing it accurately.
What happened was Zadorov was understandably being criticized for his poor play and inconsistency when he was 22 and 23 on the Avalanche. It was pointed out by myself and others that defenseman are continually developing into their mid 20's, as evidenced by Graves and even Toews himself not making the NHL until they were 25.
The counterargument for that by Zadorov's detractors was that he was a finished product and done developing because he was 23 years old and played 300 NHL games. Meaning that there was some mysterious factor that ended a players development in the NHL, but kept it going in the AHL. Which makes no sense to me.
This resulted in the same bad joke repeated daily about Zadorov "only being 23/24/25."
Now Toews comes in as a guy who spent three years in college, then spent three years in the AHL because he wasn't ready for the NHL yet, and didn't make the NHL until he was 25. But because people like Toews, instead of disliking him like Zadorov, the argument has shifted to him being "only 26."
With the very poor argument that because he wasn't rushed into the NHL like Zadorov, that apparently allows him to continue developing indefinitely.
Whether you're in the NHL or the AHL doesn't matter. What matters is however long it takes a specific individual to develop both mentally, physically, and emotionally to play their best. Sometimes a defenseman develops early, and sometimes they develop later into their mid to late 20's.