It was a joke. I'm not sold on Byfield as a franchise center, but by all accounts from people I know in the industry he's a good kid and works hard. ISS are such cowards they deleted the tweet. Joke of an institution and haven't been the same since original ownership. The only thing that keeps them around is training bad scouts and RinkNet.
C Quinton Byfield - Sudbury Wolves, OHL (2020 Draft) II
- Thread starter garnetpalmetto
- Start date
- Status
Sens of Anarchy
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 65,253
- 49,873
Samsquanch
Raging Bull Squatch
I was just speaking with a friend whos an amateur scout, and he had something interesting to say about Byfield..
Its probably been said before, but despite being a highly touted potential #2OV prospect, hes at a disadvantage because the vast majority of the time hes being scouted his team is playing on the road, and not on home ice.
This guy (the scout) is originally from Sudbury and the OHL is his region, and he says that like 95% of teams dont even go to Sudbury once over the course of the season. They might have a quick look at the NOJHL (junior A) every once and a blue moon, but not usually up here just to see the Wolves.
The Wolves get scouted almost entirely during their southern road trips, which makes sense with the teams obviously all being much more concentrated together, and Sudbury being 4-5 hours north of Toronto.
Scouts always plan their schedules around trying to view at least 2 kids that are eligible at once in the same game, and seeing as many games as possible obviously, with the least amount of travelling on winter roads.
And so for a 17 year old kid like Byfield thats already playing on a poor team and seeing all of the toughest minutes and hardest matchups, this factor has surely led to some somewhat skewed opinions of his play from people only watching those games, imo. Hes far more dominant and assertive at home in my viewings, which is likely in large a symptom from the above factors, mostly age.
And fwiw, this scout (who works for a team that will likely not have any chance at a top 3 player) said that he would have no problem taking him at #1. And that with the right trainer and another few inches, the athletic advantage that he could have over his peers could be comparable to the one that Lebron had over his peers in the NBA in his prime.
My own opinion, and I get that its different sports and athletes obviously, while Lebron is easily the GOAT of this generation of basketball players, he was never the most skilled player in the league.
But what he is was the most athletically gifted specimen to ever play the game of basketball. His power and explosiveness paired with his size and speed, and of course having the offensive talent of what is normally a much smaller star, is exactly how he was able to achieve the heights that he did.
Point being is that Byfield could very possibly have that same combo of athleticism, size and skill that somehow makes him even greater than the sum of his parts - sort of like Lebron was.
Its probably been said before, but despite being a highly touted potential #2OV prospect, hes at a disadvantage because the vast majority of the time hes being scouted his team is playing on the road, and not on home ice.
This guy (the scout) is originally from Sudbury and the OHL is his region, and he says that like 95% of teams dont even go to Sudbury once over the course of the season. They might have a quick look at the NOJHL (junior A) every once and a blue moon, but not usually up here just to see the Wolves.
The Wolves get scouted almost entirely during their southern road trips, which makes sense with the teams obviously all being much more concentrated together, and Sudbury being 4-5 hours north of Toronto.
Scouts always plan their schedules around trying to view at least 2 kids that are eligible at once in the same game, and seeing as many games as possible obviously, with the least amount of travelling on winter roads.
And so for a 17 year old kid like Byfield thats already playing on a poor team and seeing all of the toughest minutes and hardest matchups, this factor has surely led to some somewhat skewed opinions of his play from people only watching those games, imo. Hes far more dominant and assertive at home in my viewings, which is likely in large a symptom from the above factors, mostly age.
And fwiw, this scout (who works for a team that will likely not have any chance at a top 3 player) said that he would have no problem taking him at #1. And that with the right trainer and another few inches, the athletic advantage that he could have over his peers could be comparable to the one that Lebron had over his peers in the NBA in his prime.
My own opinion, and I get that its different sports and athletes obviously, while Lebron is easily the GOAT of this generation of basketball players, he was never the most skilled player in the league.
But what he is was the most athletically gifted specimen to ever play the game of basketball. His power and explosiveness paired with his size and speed, and of course having the offensive talent of what is normally a much smaller star, is exactly how he was able to achieve the heights that he did.
Point being is that Byfield could very possibly have that same combo of athleticism, size and skill that somehow makes him even greater than the sum of his parts - sort of like Lebron was.
Last edited:
Artorius Horus T
sincerety
Byfield is easily a top 3 talent in this draft
the only reason he falls is if a team picks based on need but who doesn’t need a physically gifted and skilled top line center ?
the only reason he falls is if a team picks based on need but who doesn’t need a physically gifted and skilled top line center ?
Yeah, the only guys who could posssibly be picked over Byfield because of need is Drydale and Askarov.
Just don't see Byfield getting passed over, unless something untoward happens over the summer. There is simply too much there that makes scouts and GM's salivate.
Just don't see Byfield getting passed over, unless something untoward happens over the summer. There is simply too much there that makes scouts and GM's salivate.
- Jan 24, 2007
- 7,300
- 7,710
Does any website do home v. away split stats? I'd be curious if this showed up in his statline and I couldn't find any site that did this. Thanks.
No team is picking Askarov over Byfield just nobody.
I think there is a 95% chance byfield goes 2nd overall his combination of size,skating, skill and being a young player in the draft just makes it too tempting for any GM to pass on him at #2.
there is just no comparison between Byfield and this guy in a very weak 2003 draft where he was picked 12th BTW
ijif
Registered User
- Dec 20, 2018
- 747
- 733
A very weak 2003 draft...?
Yes at the top end is was weak, overall it was a deeper first round to be sure but a goalie went #1 that's saying something about the top end.
Did you just call one of the best draft year ever 'weak'?
It's considered a strong draft because of later picks go back and look at the top 3,5 and 10 picks decent players but none with the profile of Byfield.
newfy
Registered User
- Jul 28, 2010
- 14,771
- 8,326
It actually was kinda weak at the top end, especially given how many players made the nhl. There were some first overall type talents but a lot of them went 15th or later. The top 10 in that draft is actually probably weaker than 11-20 and isnt that much better than 21-30.
But looking at that draft, Byfields closest comparable is likely Eric Staal not Jessiman and I think and Eric Staal type career would be a fair projection for Byfield. At second overall (or first really) no one could complain about that.
Fleury going first was a sign of the times. Philosophies have changed since then but you had the likes of Dipietro, Lehtonen, Montoya, Fleury, Price, Finley, Leclaire and Blackburn all going in the top 10 during a 7 year stretch starting in 1999. The 2003 draft is known as one of the best all-time. A big part of that was the amount of good/great players that came out of it, but the top half of the 1st round produced big-time numbers in their own right.
| Year | Points from top 15 | Points from top 10 | Goalie wins from top 15 |
| 2000 | 2,802 | 3,164 | 130 |
| 2001 | 4,719 | 3,477 | 81 |
| 2002 | 4,105 | 2,981 | 310 |
| 2003 | 6,458 | 4,491 | 466 |
| 2004 | 4,739 | 3,969 | 314 |
| 2005 | 4,019 | 2,874 | 348 |
The top 10 of 2003 was still very strong, the best of that decade after 2006. There just wasn't a consensus #1. I doubt the 2020 top 10 will have as much success overall.
Roof Daddy
Registered User
- Apr 1, 2008
- 13,131
- 2,281
Just to add to your point, the fact that Jose Theodore won the Hart in 2002 (not to mention Hasek winning in 97 and 98) and there was still the cloud of the “dead puck era” still visibly over head, goalies were definitely valued highly. And Fleury was an amazing prospect.
The poster definitely misses the mark using MAF going 1st OA as justification the top 10 in 2003 was weak. I’m not saying that argument isn’t justified, but it’s not because of Fleury.
bert
Registered User
newfy
Registered User
- Jul 28, 2010
- 14,771
- 8,326
He was talking about the high end talent. Fleury is an extremely meh first overall. Horton and Zherdev pretty meh. Staal was a great 2nd overall though. I think it was phrased kinda poorly but I dont think anyone is calling that a weak draft. The depth is what makes it great, not the top of the draft. 11-20 overall are better than 1-10
I can't help but feel like Byfield is a very, very easy #2 selection. I've never seen a high end prospect so routinely nitpicked.
Elite skating, athleticism, shot, skill, size, hands. He has a much better understanding of the game than this thread would make you believe. I'm seeing "question his hockey IQ" and I don't even know what that's supposed to mean considering there are tons of things to account for when measuring a players understanding on how hockey is played. Yet no one can actually explain what he needs to improve on, they just say he's "low IQ" and "his game doesn't translate".
I've also seen people say "big players don't translate because they use their size so much". What? Have these guys watched him? He never uses his size! He only uses his skill to dominate the OHL, imagine if he actually threw these kids around while he did so? NHL teams are probably salivating at the thought of him with physicality out there.
I just don't see how a player with such an elite skillset is so consistently criticised for things that other top prospects in this draft get away with. There's no logic to it.
Elite skating, athleticism, shot, skill, size, hands. He has a much better understanding of the game than this thread would make you believe. I'm seeing "question his hockey IQ" and I don't even know what that's supposed to mean considering there are tons of things to account for when measuring a players understanding on how hockey is played. Yet no one can actually explain what he needs to improve on, they just say he's "low IQ" and "his game doesn't translate".
I've also seen people say "big players don't translate because they use their size so much". What? Have these guys watched him? He never uses his size! He only uses his skill to dominate the OHL, imagine if he actually threw these kids around while he did so? NHL teams are probably salivating at the thought of him with physicality out there.
I just don't see how a player with such an elite skillset is so consistently criticised for things that other top prospects in this draft get away with. There's no logic to it.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
Game 3 Florida Panthers @ Tampa Bay Lightning - Florida Panthers leads series 2-0Wagers: 3Staked: $3,206.00Event closes- Updated: