krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 16,902
- 9,580
If you think Hughes is going to step in this week and singlehandedly change the look of this team, you are an absolute fool who deserves a mismanaged dumpster fire of a hockey team. End of story.
I'd like to see any sort of metric to suggest Quinn Hughes is
1) better than Zach Werenski
2) better than Elias Pettersson(????)
3) tracking to be a generational defenseman
Back up these harebrained claims with metrics, please.
why does he need metrics to have subjective opinions?
but since you are setting exams for posters as a condition of them having opinions, here's a response:
1. there's definitely an argument hughes is much better at offence than werenski was. both players were ppg in the ncaa but hughes clearly had less to work with and was far more important offensively to his ncaa team than werenski was. hughes led his ncaa team in scoring. kyle connor had twice the points werenski did, and two other players outpointed werenski by 20 points. werenski's michigan team had it going on enough to make tyler motte look like a phenom.
2. i have no idea why this poster likes hughes better than pettersson but where do metrics come into that? it's not insane to think that he could be better. if you get in a time machine back to the end of pettersson's d+1 season so as to compare apples to apples, hughes looks fairly competitive to pettersson as a prospect. they are two skinny highly touted guys who have excelled in other leagues, who have shown unusual elite too good to be true skills, and who people doubted/doubt are big enough for the nhl. pettersson is way ahead on trophies but he also played on a championship team full of men where they were able to gradually break him in, playing him on the wing most of the season. i am not going to count out hughes after a season where he went ppg as an 18- 19 year old dman with the offence opf an ncaa team on his shoulders and when his best forward was will lockwood.
3. hughes being projected as generational obviously rests on the eyetest that he shows unique elite gamechanging skill at every level he's played. i am not sure how you provide a "metric" for that. if you're asking for point production to prove it, i guess i would say that he has scored everywhere.
for me, i am very curious to see whether he gets squashed like a bug or is a stunning elite offensive d-player in the nhl. i think both are entirely possible up to and including being worse than pouliot or better than pettersson.
can't wait to see. in the meantime, i like rmb's wildeyed goofy optimism.
Last edited by a moderator: