-highly selected D
-returned to the same level in D+1 yr.
-numbers stagnate
-disappointing millions
If Hughes stagnates statistically this yr, it will be the perfect parallel with Juolevi because think of the logic people would use to explain potential reasons for said stagnation.
History shows that if Hughes numbers remain flat, people don't take kindly to context or suggested reasons why.
Even Virtanen who was coming off of an inactive summer into his D+1 was not tolerated.
Just the way it is. Flat numbers in your D+1, widespread disappointment and hand wringing.
Only reason he would escape it may be because only a handful of people wanted another player. So being right on the internet may supercede Benning/Hughes critique.
You are absolutely correct: If Hughes stagnates offensively, he will be criticized.
There are multiple prospects over the years that have played their D+1 seasons on weaker teams and they have still bettered their draft year numbers. Why should we expect different from him? Prospects like him are expected to dominate.
This was the first red flag with Juolevi, IMO. He failed to dominate his league. In fact, lesser Dmen on the same team outproduced him --> with the same missing top line (shocker).
The context of that season is set aside and ignored by those critical of Juolevi's D+1 season.
Incorrect, the context is absolutely understood. Yet still, expectations are high, as they should be.
What I find suspect about your position is that you are indirectly calling for attention to context in Juolevi's D+1 season, but have not mentioned his draft season? In other words, if Juolevi was hurt by an exiting top line, was he then buoyed by that top line in his draft season? Were his numbers inflated? Can't have it both ways.
To be sure, his PPG in the OHL has never been impressive. Compare his PPG to defensive dmen now playing in the NHL. That should provide some _context_.