View Single Post
Old
01-14-2013, 09:30 PM
  #141
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Why is every analyst parrotting this nonsense about blueline depth? This is as a bad as Doug Maclean constantly harping the Canucks needed another puck moving defenseman when they had Edler, Ehrhoff, Bieksa and the league's highest scoring defense.

Which dman is higher on the depth chart than they should be? These guys haven't seen much of Jason Garrison? Is it Ballard and Tanev they see as the weak link? I fully expect the bottom pairing to be a strength of the club. Alberts is more than capable as a #7.

Jim Vandermeer isn't good enough to be the #8. Down in the 1st round!
He might have had some credibility if he said his concerns with Vancouver were with how quickly Kesler would return to form and how his absence would affect the 2nd line. But instead he singled out one of the team's best strengths as a weakness. Meanwhile he didn't even acknowledge Nashville's offensive problems or lack of depth on D, especially with losing their 5th leading scorer in Suter.

Also, Detroit missing the playoffs? They may have lost Lidstrom, but they still have Zetterberg and Datsyuk. They will muddle through for one of the bottom seeds. They certainly aren't going to miss out to an Edmonton team with a terrible back-end. Schultz could light up the AHL, but can he do it at the NHL level where forwards are a lot bigger, tougher and faster?

Hammer79 is offline