View Single Post
03-06-2013, 08:54 AM
Registered User
joestevens29's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24,752
vCash: 688
Originally Posted by misfit View Post
Really? I wasn't impressed with him at all. I know he scored a goal, but I really don't think he was in any way good tonight. Not to mention that goal was a travesty. It was a decent shot and all, but how is he allowed to just walk in like that?

My biggest problem with the idea of trading for Johnson is that you'd have to pay a top pairing price to get him (not to mention top pairing salary once you did) and he's just not a top pairing guy IMO. And while 26 isn't at all old, I don't know if there's really any more growth left in his game.
Originally Posted by Bryanbryoil View Post
He damn near scored on another shot which he rang off the bar. He adds a guy that can lug the puck up ice, has a big shot, and can play a physical brand of hockey.
Originally Posted by misfit View Post
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the tools. Jack Johnson looks exactly like you would want a defenseman to look like. He can get around the ice well on his skates, he can hammer the puck, he's 6'2" and well north of 200lbs. He's an absolute specimin. Unfortunately, he's kind of just a collection of desireable parts.

Jack Johnson to me is like a 12 year old driving a Ferrari. The machine is capable of amazing things, it's just that the guy behind the wheel was never taught to drive.

EDIT - I know this post makes it seem like I think Johnson is completely useless. I don't, I just don't think he's more than a 2nd pairing defenseman (at least not on a team that's going anywhere).
I agree with both of you the issue for me is as long as you aren't giving up 1st pairing assets for him I think you have to take him. We need to be able to push one of the current top 4 down to the bottom pairing and get back that theory of defense by committee.

joestevens29 is offline