Jack Rathbone | #3 | D

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

7 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

I wonder if the league has the book on Hughes. Is he going to be one of those elite offensively, but struggles defensively kind of player? 

I don’t think so. I think he’s going to gain a lot from having Brad Shaw on the staff. And I also think his defensive issues are already a bit overstated, even at his current stage in development, and without any improvements. His struggles mostly tend to show themselves in the areas of the game that are most obvious, like in-zone defending, net front, and handling larger bodies. There’s a fair amount of confirmation bias in analyses that say Hughes is truly “bad” at defence. He’s already a highly effective neutral zone defender, possibly even one of the better ones on the team (he snuffs out a lot of opposition offence before it even gets to his own blue line). And his in-zone defence isn’t really all that bad (he actually does a lot of things right), and it should improve significantly with the right coaching, and just maturity, and maybe gaining a little more strength.

 

I see Hughes, in his prime, being at worst a neutral value defensive player, and elite on the offensive side. He should be able to tilt the ice enough during 5v5 that he’s not having to defend too much in his own zone. But when he does, I think he has the smarts to learn to be effective, even at his size (and like I said earlier, he’s got a great teacher in Shaw who I expect will really help Hughes refine his in-zone defensive game over the next couple seasons).

[N4ZZY]

53 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I don’t think so. I think he’s going to gain a lot from having Brad Shaw on the staff. And I also think his defensive issues are already a bit overstated, even at his current stage in development, and without any improvements. His struggles mostly tend to show themselves in the areas of the game that are most obvious, like in-zone defending, net front, and handling larger bodies. There’s a fair amount of confirmation bias in analyses that say Hughes is truly “bad” at defence. He’s already a highly effective neutral zone defender, possibly even one of the better ones on the team (he snuffs out a lot of opposition offence before it even gets to his own blue line). And his in-zone defence isn’t really all that bad (he actually does a lot of things right), and it should improve significantly with the right coaching, and just maturity, and maybe gaining a little more strength.

 

I see Hughes, in his prime, being at worst a neutral value defensive player, and elite on the offensive side. He should be able to tilt the ice enough during 5v5 that he’s not having to defend too much in his own zone. But when he does, I think he has the smarts to learn to be effective, even at his size (and like I said earlier, he’s got a great teacher in Shaw who I expect will really help Hughes refine his in-zone defensive game over the next couple seasons).

Yeah. I agree that Hughes in his prime will be able to defend reasonably enough because of positioning and the use of his stick. But he kind of reminds me of, being an undersized defenseman, as a Brian Rafalski. Remember that guy? Played for, if I remember correctly, New Jersey and Detroit. Great offensively, but struggled defensively because of players who were often larger and stronger than he was. 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, N4ZZY said:I wonder if the league has the book on Hughes. Is he going to be one of those elite offensively, but struggles defensively kind of player? 

There is a bit of a book on Hughes and it was very obvious when we played Montreal this year. They went out of their way to hit Hughes early and often.  It totally threw him off his game. 
We saw the same game plan by Edmonton and Calgary. 
 

Some of it could’ve been prevented if Hamonic wasn’t rusty and injured. Hughes looked better when he had an in shape Hamonic at the end of the season.  
 

[N4ZZY]

4 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

There is a bit of a book on Hughes and it was very obvious when we played Montreal this year. They went out of their way to hit Hughes early and often.  It totally threw him off his game. 
We saw the same game plan by Edmonton and Calgary. 
 

Some of it could’ve been prevented if Hamonic wasn’t rusty and injured. Hughes looked better when he had an in shape Hamonic at the end of the season.  
 

Yeah. So i think Hughes definitely needs a partner in the form of Tanev or Hamonic. If not, then he struggles a lot it seems. I hope we can get a Cernak, that would be my &^@#ing idea trade without having to hurt the roster, and also &^@# Seattle at the same time. 

[Sedinyoureyesontheprize]

21 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

There is a bit of a book on Hughes and it was very obvious when we played Montreal this year. They went out of their way to hit Hughes early and often.  It totally threw him off his game. 
We saw the same game plan by Edmonton and Calgary. 
 

Some of it could’ve been prevented if Hamonic wasn’t rusty and injured. Hughes looked better when he had an in shape Hamonic at the end of the season.  
 

Also  you’re forgetting that’s exactly what happened in the playoffs last time, Hughes was targeted he struggled a bit but he still found a way to rise to the occasion and adapted admirably. 

 

 

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, Setyoureyesontheprize said:

Also  you’re forgetting that’s exactly what happened in the playoffs last time, Hughes was targeted he struggled a bit but he still found a way to rise to the occasion and adapted admirably. 

 

 

And Huggy Bear set the record for rookie D scoring in the playoffs.  I see Bone as a really talented, and super competitive young D man, much like Hughes.  Bone will be a 16 - 20 minute guy for us, and help us win.  Kid is beauty.  

[NHL'er]

6 hours ago, Setyoureyesontheprize said:

Also  you’re forgetting that’s exactly what happened in the playoffs last time, Hughes was targeted he struggled a bit but he still found a way to rise to the occasion and adapted admirably. 

 

 

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Setyoureyesontheprize said:

Also  you’re forgetting that’s exactly what happened in the playoffs last time, Hughes was targeted he struggled a bit but he still found a way to rise to the occasion and adapted admirably. 

 

 

I’m not forgetting the playoffs, he was great in the bubble. I was just disappointed how much he struggled this year though especially in the games against Montreal where they targeted him early and often.  
 

I think that this year just needs to be thrown out though not only for Huggy but for JT Miller and Elias as well. 

[Junkyard Dog]

7 hours ago, Setyoureyesontheprize said:

Also  you’re forgetting that’s exactly what happened in the playoffs last time, Hughes was targeted he struggled a bit but he still found a way to rise to the occasion and adapted admirably. 

 

 

The Vegas series he wasn’t able to rise to anything although neither did anybody besides Demko and to some extent Petey/Marky. 
 

Tuch had his way with Hughes all that series. 

[Dats hockey]

7 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

The Vegas series he wasn’t able to rise to anything although neither did anybody besides Demko and to some extent Petey/Marky. 
 

Tuch had his way with Hughes all that series. 

Absolute shocker Tuch on Hughes all series long, and Hughes didn’t answer it well unfortunately this is like the 10th time Hughes has made the playoff there isn’t any more time to improve and adjust for the future his career is nearing the end. Tragic really.

[Junkyard Dog]

1 minute ago, Dats hockey said:

Absolute shocker Tuch on Hughes all series long, and Hughes didn’t answer it well unfortunately this is like the 10th time Hughes has made the playoff there isn’t any more time to improve and adjust for the future his career is nearing the end. Tragic really.

That's one way to look at it.

[Dats hockey]

6 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

That's one way to look at it.

Idk I thought that playoff run him and Petey had were unbelievable for their first time being in against a veteran vegas squad.

[86Viking]

13 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

I’m not forgetting the playoffs, he was great in the bubble. I was just disappointed how much he struggled this year though especially in the games against Montreal where they targeted him early and often.  
 

I think that this year just needs to be thrown out though not only for Huggy but for JT Miller and Elias as well. 

Was his sophomore slump season too, I don't count his College playing year he burnt an ELC year as anything more than a way of getting out of a full year of his cheap ELC. The biggest reason is he didn't have his rock defensive partner Tanev beside him to stay back and protect the D zone will Quinton did Quinton things offensively. He needs a long term D partner, Hamonic is okay but he is a placeholder not a longer term solution

 

[Junkyard Dog]

6 hours ago, Dats hockey said:

Idk I thought that playoff run him and Petey had were unbelievable for their first time being in against a veteran vegas squad.

I saw Hughes look like a rookie that series and only Demko played good. Petey and Marty had a couple good games. We were outplayed for the majority of the series and if not for Demko we would have been out in 5.

 

I see that series as a benchmark to where we need to improve as a team. That series brought to light our glaring issues like team D, the reliance of elite goaltending to win games, lack of significant secondary scoring, etc. Some of these issues carried over into this year. That run we went on mid-way this year was because Demko was playing elite. Secondary scoring was an issue again and team D looked even worse this year than years prior. 
 

Thankfully we hired a coach that can help with the team D and we have some interesting forward prospects on the cusp. It looks like we’re taking steps to address it. If it all pans out and we continue to take steps that eliminate issues we can perhaps take that next step as a team toward cup contention. 

[Googlie]

It wasn't defence that cost us the Vegas series.  We lost 4 times (duh) but in 3 of these we were shut out. It was lack of offence.  (And Toffoli just missed the first game we were shut out - he wasn't a difference maker in the other 2)

 

[Junkyard Dog]

1 hour ago, Googlie said:

It wasn't defence that cost us the Vegas series.  We lost 4 times (duh) but in 3 of these we were shut out. It was lack of offence.  (And Toffoli just missed the first game we were shut out - he wasn't a difference maker in the other 2)

 

I already pointed out that secondary scoring was an issue and I didn’t pin it solely on team defence as it was only one of the problems, there were more factors.  We were overall the worse team in a lot of regards. 
 

We were outshot, out chanced badly and outplayed overall.  
 

If Demko was averaged we would have given up 5+ in games 5 and not make it to 7. 
 

Games 5-7 we have 53 shots in total. Vegas had 125. 
 

The only area we were better at was goaltending. Demko was incredibly insane given the amount of grade A chances we were giving up. He carried us on his back to game 7. 
 

If we want to succeed we are gonna have to improve in a lot of areas. Thankfully goaltending isn’t one of them and it looks like we’re taking steps to address some of these problems. 
 

Our young guys like Hughes are elite talents that need time but they are far from perfect players. I am not too worried about them but I am not afraid to critique anyone on the team where I see fit and point out areas they could possibly improve IMO. 

[HighOnHockey]

On 6/14/2021 at 11:01 AM, N4ZZY said:

Yeah. I agree that Hughes in his prime will be able to defend reasonably enough because of positioning and the use of his stick. But he kind of reminds me of, being an undersized defenseman, as a Brian Rafalski. Remember that guy? Played for, if I remember correctly, New Jersey and Detroit. Great offensively, but struggled defensively because of players who were often larger and stronger than he was. 

 

You mean the three time Stanley Cup champion with two different teams? Career plus 178? Named best defenseman at the 2010 Olympics? Is that the guy who struggled defensively you mean? I do get your point, it was the dead puck era and 5'10 defensemen just wasn't a thing you ever saw, but "struggled" seems to be a strong word here.

[N4ZZY]

10 minutes ago, HighOnHockey said:

 

You mean the three time Stanley Cup champion with two different teams? Career plus 178? Named best defenseman at the 2010 Olympics? Is that the guy who struggled defensively you mean? I do get your point, it was the dead puck era and 5'10 defensemen just wasn't a thing you ever saw, but "struggled" seems to be a strong word here.

Plus minus is hit and miss for me. 

 

5’10 isn’t even that small. But did Rafalski struggle against larger, more physical players? Cause that’s what’s happened with Quinn, especially in the Vegas series in the bubble. 

[HighOnHockey]

9 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

Plus minus is hit and miss for me. 

 

5’10 isn’t even that small. But did Rafalski struggle against larger, more physical players? Cause that’s what’s happened with Quinn, especially in the Vegas series in the bubble. 

Of course plus/minus isn't a good stat, but you can't tell me a career plus 178 means nothing. He never had a single minus season in his career.

 

5'10 was tiny during the dead puck era. It was practically unheard of for a defenseman. And yes, of course he struggled against the likes of Petr Nedved, Bobby Holik, Mats Sundin, Keith Primeau, Eric Lindros etc. But his defensive IQ and positioning were elite. Quinn Hughes has a long was to go to be considered in the same category as Brian Rafalski.

[N4ZZY]

20 minutes ago, HighOnHockey said:

Of course plus/minus isn't a good stat, but you can't tell me a career plus 178 means nothing. He never had a single minus season in his career.

 

5'10 was tiny during the dead puck era. It was practically unheard of for a defenseman. And yes, of course he struggled against the likes of Petr Nedved, Bobby Holik, Mats Sundin, Keith Primeau, Eric Lindros etc. But his defensive IQ and positioning were elite. Quinn Hughes has a long was to go to be considered in the same category as Brian Rafalski.

Right. But this worries me. If he never gets to the elite defensive IQ and positioning that Rafalski had, then what?