View Single Post
Old
09-06-2011, 09:57 AM
  #20
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
How is this different from any other defenseman? The guy stopped getting big PP minutes in Chicago, and his overall numbers went down. Again, how is that different from any other defenseman?

Campbell is the perfect example of how what seventieslord said during the assassination thread has a lot of truth to it - a defenseman's overall numbers are largely determined by the amount of PP time he got.

Campbell put up great numbers his first year in Chicago, but then Duncan Keith emerged as a better player, first Keith took over Campbell's role as primary PP QB, then Seabrook replaced Campbell on the first PP unit entirely because of his chemistry with Keith.

Again, how is this different than any other defenseman? Do you think there are MLD-calibre defensemen out there who will score at the same rate whether they are on the PP or not?

Also why on earth are you slagging Campbell for relying on his forwards to put up points - how is that different from any other defenseman in history, MLD or ATD level?
Because Campbell is one of the most overrated pieces of **** in the entire league.

You claim Campbell lost PP time to Keith and Seabrook in Chicago. Why is that? According to your bio, they were proud to get an elite PP defenseman, yet he lost time on the first unit to ****ing Seabrook of all people. Why is that?

I noticed that you completely ignored the PK'ing deficiency of Campbell. Why is that?

You also don't seem to be in too much of a hurry to challenge Campbell being soft, or weak defensively. Why is that?

Also, why am I slogging on Campbell? Because he did NOTHING.. NOTHING.. could barely put up 10 points in a season before 2006. Maybe once I see comparisons to the other defensemen in this series, I'll change my mind, but I think he's AAA level. You can't even call him a specialist at what he supposedly specializes at.

Dreakmur: No, he was not a "must have been" anything in 2007. He was what he was. A solid, but unspectacular defenseman playing for the best team in the league at the time. Yet with all those big PP minutes for a team that was finally scoring, he could only put up 4 more points in 4 more minutes played per game. I can concede that he might have been decent enough in his own zone that year, but that doesn't make up for half a career of incompetence. Besides, they probably looked at his shiny plus minus, and were like "ohhh, shiny!". Vanek was plus 47. I watched that team play. They did anything but play defense.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote