Seriously stop playing games. We are talking about two players, Byfield and Stutzle, who went straight from the draft to playing in the professional leagues. Your counter to my point is to bring up Iafallo who...was not drafted by the Kings and played 4 years of college before entering the league.
Blake's history, or that of the Kings Org, is not irrelevant in the slightest. We are talking about a fantasy scenario in which the the best way to predict the outcome is based off facts and probabilities. This is pure fiction, as such we do not need to add disclaimers as "might have" or "my opinion" as it is all opinion given we have zero way of proving the outcome outside of, once again, probabilities. The probabilities, based on the facts I have laid out, is that Stutzle would have started in the AHL to hone his defensive game, then joined the Kings in a role that did not play key minutes his first season.
You can argue this, I respect that. But you have given zero facts to back you claim other than stating the Stutzle was NHL ready per experts (which the majority actually stated that he "could be" NHL ready, not that he was).
Also I never said anything along the lines to warrant your statement of "You seem to think because he played in the AHL first, that he was a strong defensive player by his 1st NHL game". But this, much like your exposition on grammatical pose (no understanding that the whole discussion is theory and fiction), shows you simply do not have a decent argument to bring to the discussion.
I am playing games? WTH? I am just responding to your comments. If either of us is playing a game look in a mirror.
In post #445 you said:
It's silly to think he would have gotten the same opportunity to step right into a L1 position with the Kings. Kings would have slow burned him in the minors and then brought him up to limit him to 8-10 minutes per game. By now, he would be playing full time shifts, but his opportunity to develop would have taken a very different path.
Flip it, and Byfield would have jumped right into key minutes with Ottawa and likely have developed much faster in the process. I wouldn't be surprised had he gotten drafted by Ottawa he'd have already established himself as a regular point per game player.
So, you are painting a picture here that Stutzle and QB were at the same level of development at the draft. I disagreed with this and I clearly showed examples in my reply to you. You said it was "Silly" to think Stutzle "could" have made the Kings roster out of the draft and the Kings "would" have slow burned him in the AHL. You then claimed that QB "would" have made the Sens. I guess this is just because Stutzle did? I disagree with that as well. I and others have brought up several reasons why. You just tend to ignore everything and march on.
In post #455 you said:
Then why didn't Byfield get the chance to do so? Last I checked he was the #2 overall pick and had a ton more skill that Iafallo even on draft day.
You brought up Iafallo, I was responding to you. When I mentioned Iafallo I stated he came from college. I was trying to make the point that he was more developed than QB but still was a "rookie". (You said "Rookie", not 18 year old.) That he had been playing against older / more physically mature players. Stutzle had less, but similar experience to Iafallo. He had been playing against older / more physically mature pro players (was rookie of the year) in the DEL. QB was/is younger than Stutzle and had no similar experience playing against men. So, just because QB did not make the Kings out of the draft, that is no guarantee that Stutzle would not have.
Laf had two years of college and made the Kings roster. Stutzle with much more skill and abilities played one year against men in the DHL. If Laf made it to the NHL, I think it would be reasonable to say that Stutzle would have had "a chance". I was trying to show that it was not all about age, and that experience and abilities mattered as well. Also, by the time Stutzle started playing in the NHL he was almost 19 years old, so basically a 19 year old rookie, not a just turned 18 year old one like QB would have been. Again, I never said it "would" happen, only that it in theory it "could" happen. This is all just theory and fiction, right?
In post #467 you said:
"Stutzle was not "Kings" NHL ready either as the Kings put so much emphasis at the time of being a 2-way player."
What did you mean by this? That Stutzle would need to spend time in the AHL to learn the defensive game and become a better 2-way" player? You must also think that when QB joined the Kings that he had already developed the necessary defensive chops in the AHL. Otherwise, he would not have been "2-way" ready for the NHL. So, you implied that QB had the defensive chops to play in the NHL after his stint in the AHL.
In post #481 you said:
"The probabilities, based on the facts I have laid out, is that Stutzle would have started in the AHL to hone his defensive game, then joined the Kings in a role that did not play key minutes his first season."
This is just perfect. In post #445 you stated facts, saying "would" not could. You called people silly for saying "could", or "what if" and tried to shut them down by saying the "Kings would have". I never said Stutzle "would" have played on the Kings after coming out of the draft". I never said it was likely to happen. Some of us are participating in a theoretical and fantasy discussion. You were posting absolutes with no room for other opinions.
This is the first, or one of the first times you have been hypothetical when discussing this. You are now using words like "probabilities". If you would have said "I disagree, I think there is very little chance that the Kings would have played Stutzle in the NHL right away". That would have been great. I do not think anybody here would argue that point. Nobody has been arguing that point, well besides you.
We have just been arguing against your comments of "kings would have" and basically "would not have". You offered no proof to show you were correct when saying that. Not surprised as it does not exist. That is the crux of this argument and we have been arguing it ever since.
Again, everyone knows how the Kings treat all rookies.
You say I offered no proof to back my theories? Well, that was in my first reply to you.
