I feel bad. The guy is a great player, but people are ragging on him because the coaches and management(especially) put him in a position he couldn't succeed.
I was actually defending that pick at the beginning, probably one of the few to do it. I had confidence in his all-around game and how he succeeds in faceoffs, something he wasn't too great when needed so far.
I agree that it was impossible for him to get his groove going. Still, at this point, he's not helping and shouldn't be playing. That's what playing with that many players should be all about. You have to go with the hottest 12 up front and hottest 6 back down.
The Sportsnet guy said the same thing with Seabrook.
They showed the last dying minute of the game again on TV. Having the chance to watch it again more carefully, I can count at LEAST 3 infractions from the Slovaks (grabbing, interfence, tripping and things like that). If it wasn't the last minute of the game, there could have easily been 3 penalties to the Slovaks.
How they could have chosen Bergeron over Mike Fisher is a complete mystery to me, role for role Fisher is better and much more physical.
Fisher?..I don't think it would have changed much.
Bergeron barely plays, got to cut him some slack. I thought it was solely a good pick based on his faceoff skills, but he's even struggled with that.
I don't think Fisher would have been much better.
I'd have chosen Lecavalier-St.Louis-Stamkos-Carter-B.Richards before. You can even make a case for Zajac and Vermette.
At the end of the day though, we're in the Finals, so really this team is a success.
You could probably change 1/3rd of the players on that team and still make it to the Finals. That's how much depth there is.