Teams that play a lot of rookies tend to lose a lot of games
View Single Post
07-17-2013, 05:25 PM
Join Date: Jan 2011
Originally Posted by
This reminds me of how people rationalized all of the players we lost after 2010, people thought we'd keep on chugging. I mean, Andrew Ladd only had 6 points in the playoffs that year, how hard could he be to replace? Obviously the step back isn't going to be the same as after 2010, but to think you can just plug in rookies into spots held by vets, even in depth roles, is silly.
Ugh, please don't tell me you're comparing Stalberg and Ladd. they could not be more different. Stalberg was and has become so overrated. He wouldn't even be in the NHL if he didn't have the wheels he does, and now we're comparing him to a guy who - even in Chicago - was a great all-round player?
I would hope that the only people that thought there'd be little drop-off were bandwagoners that couldn't name more than 4 Hawks before they won the Cup. The Hawks weren't going to replace Buff, Ladd and Versteeg with Bickell, Skille and Stalberg..
IMO there's a pretty good chance Pirri/LeBlanc will be better than Bolland/Handzus were as the 2nd line centre, and IMO, there's a very strong chance Jeremy Morin's as (or more) impactful than Stalberg was. Personally, I don't care about the veteran tag. Stalberg doesn't have as many tools as Morin, therefore, I think Morin will be just as impactful - at least - despite being a rookie.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by HockeySensible