View Single Post
Old
05-01-2006, 12:29 PM
  #23
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8
A team without 'fillers' would be a good team.
Then I guess we're not a good team, are we?
Quote:
None of Kozlov, Hrdina, Mogilny are playing when it counts, so they don't enter the equation. (Hrdina's on Colombus anyhow)
I was talking generally about the last couple years there. I'm sure there were others who qualified too, but I don't care enough about it to look it up.
Quote:
Brylin's been solid this year. He's been logging roughly the same amount of ice time as Gomez has this post-season for New Jersey. So no, I don't think he's replaceable. He's been a top six forward for NJ down the stretch and in the playoffs.
Maybe. I haven't noticed him that much, but I don't really follow the Devils closely enough to have anything but my vague impression that he's a bit off his former value.
Quote:
Stick Bulis on NJ and take away Brylin and the team would be worse.
Or Bulis would be better. But either way, I don't think it would be by enough to affect the "goodness" of the New Jersey team.
Quote:
Yes, which is why Bulis is a useless player for the team and should not (and likely will not be) brought back.
Not "useless", because we didn't have anybody better, and 20 goals was definitely useful. But going forward, anybody who is "filler" has to be on the bubble.
Quote:
Who else do you feel are fillers?
Zednik has played like filler most of the year. I appreciate some of what Bonk does, but ultimately he's filler. Ribeiro does his job adequately too, but is entirely replaceable by similar players. Sundstrom is clearly filler. Downey, waiver players are obviously filler. Simpson. You could say Murray, technically, but maybe not all easily-replaced players need to have the negative connotation of "filler" attached to their names.

Blind Gardien is offline