View Single Post
Old
09-03-2008, 09:22 AM
  #118
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
This is a good point and I think he's often overlooked. Dowm the stretch he was consistently playing 20 min/game for the Isles and by most accounts, didn't look too out of place. Now I don't expect him to log that type of ice-time for the Canucks but I could see him being a solid 5th/6th guy that can play 14/15 min/game and provide a tough, physical presence while being a reliable stay-at-home guy. Could make a Bieksa move more palatable.
Davison is also a 28 YO dman that has *never* been a regular in the NHL... last season down the stretch when he was getting big minutes, it was on a team that had more serious injuries on their defense than the canucks did - on a defense that was weaker to begin with! It was also a team that was out of the playoffs, and giving more icetime to other players when the team didn't have playoff hope.

Down the stretch last year, they were missing 4 dmen that were higher on their depth chart - Campoli, Gervais, Sutton and Witt... the remaining guys - Freddy Meyer and Martinek - hardly quality players, where getting insane icetime as well, while Berard was still playing hurt down the stretch. Davison was the #8 dman on *that* defense, and only got a lot of icetime when 4 of those guys were out, and another one was playing hurt, while the team's season was done.

IMO Davison's icetime last year was because of the situation he was in - on a team with a weak defense to begin with that were missing 4 of their top 6 guys down the stretch, giving guys like Davison (and Meyer for that matter) much more icetime, during a time of year when the team was already out of the playoffs.

Davison has never been a regular NHLer before this.... and now at 28, expecting him to go from being a #7/8 guy to a regular guy, is a stretch IMO... just because he did it on a team that lost 4 of their top 6 guys down the stretch, doesn't mean much IMO.

I think we'd be a weaker team overall inserting Davison into a regular spot on this team... especially considering just how injury-prone this defense is - you put Davison as a #6 guy, and he'll be forced to play top 4 minutes for stretches this year due to injuries, and that doesn't help this team much. Davison is a solid #7 guy (although IMO not exactly what we needed, as McIver is ready IMO to be that #7 guy and brings similar intangibles to what Davison brings).

I also don't see how he - in any way really - makes moving Bieksa more palatable. Bieska is not only a physical presence on the backend (which is the only intangible that Davison brings), he's also a 20+ min a night defender, who can play on your PP, one of the best puck rushers on the team, and one of only 2 right handed shots on the team, along with the injury-prone Salo, unless you count the #8/9 guy like Baumer who's sure to start the year in Manitoba.

Davison doesn't come close to replacing Bieksa.... given his skill set, and his previous experience, Davison will likely force McIver out of the #7/8 spot and see him spend most of the season on the farm. Personally, I think McIver is much closer to replacing someone like Davison, than Davison would be replacing someone like Bieksa.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote