View Single Post
Old
06-17-2011, 05:06 PM
  #170
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Which is my point: the Bruins' blueline lacks depth to the point that a player like Boychuk ends up being used as a second-pairing D-man. Predictably, he did terribly at it, being outchanced in virtually every game, more so than any other Bruin. Without Thomas's awesome goaltending, he would have been exposed.

But he's big and physical, something which is commonly mistaken for defense. And which makes him the kind of player the CBC commentators like, so he was hyped up in spite of his ineffectiveness.



Well, we are talking about a guy who couldn't crack the top-6 of the 29th-worst club in the league when he played there.

Suppose that the Habs acquire this awesome defenseman from Boston for a pick. (Whether it's for a first or a fourth is irrelevant). Where do you see him fitting in the Montreal depth chart?
He played over 20 minutes a game for the cup winner in the playoffs. The year before he played 26 minutes a game. To say the Bruins lack depth is one thing, to say a guy who played solidly in the top four of a cup winner is something else entirely. Boychuck was +12. Your logic is a minus. You don't like Boychuck, fine. The fact that he took time to develop is supposed to prove that Thomas played defence for him? 20 minutes a game, plus twelve, Stanley Cup versus.... "Well he didn't break in with Colorado a few years ago so I have proven he sucks." Based on his play in the past two seasons I think that in Montreal, like almost any team in the NHL, he'd be in the top four. Yes he makes a lot of mistakes, and yet he manages to be a core part of one of the best defenses in hockey. In the playoffs it was the best. But no, I guess you have him behind Hall Gill cause... cause you say so.

Geez, MathMan, yer not living up to your handle on this topic.

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote