If anyone would quietly notice, AV is not ruining Tanev's development. On the contrary, he's giving Tanev more responsibility instead of going with established vets. Even with Bieksa back, Tanev played 20mins in the LA game.
Maybe he has a clue afterall. Tanev's been great.
Partially because Ballard has been such a good mentor.
I was going to get to this one, but I'm behind! Typing too much as is and working at the same time. Tanev has been good and gotten deserved minutes as a result, and Ballard has helped to an extent with that (they talk a lot I think and work on things together and overall). I like Ballard in particular for what he does in the room and to help the team, but I still have yet to see him being more deserving than others for what some are recommending.
It's a fair enough point from our (TOML and others) side that he hasn't deserved clearly over anyone else, just as you guys (wallstreet, minister and others) are welcome to your opinion he should get better minutes in place of other players.
just ask Cody Franson of the Leafs..........16 min per game but over 2 on the PP......and producing like crazy with it.
Marek Zdlicky - 19:40 TOI, 3:54 PP TOI - 7 of 8 points on PP
Nick Leddy - 16:02 TOI, 3:05 PP TOI - 4 of 8 points on PP
There have been many players, some who helped their team to championships, who were used in this role. It's not a new invention.
There are many ways to get production out of different players. There's no reason in my mind not to try this model with Ballard at least for a bit, especially when the PP is executing poorly.
Franson is hardly producing like crazy, he has 3 PP points this year. Some teams have players who are better overall than others at certain areas and can be used in a more specialized role to be effective. Franson is being used like that (he's 9th on the team in 5 on 4 minutes, but 13th in even strength and 15th at 4 on 5) and every team does it to some extent. The others are also good examples of players that can play more specialized roles.
I don't think anyone disputes that Ballard could play a more specialized role with increased PP minutes, but we're saying is he better than our other options and if not, should he get those minutes regardless just to spread out the workload. I say he's not and shouldn't. No one's convinced me yet otherwise.
That's all fine and dandy but is Alberts and Barker a better option over Ballard?
I understand that it's hard to displace guys like Hamhuis, Bieksa, and Edler. It's debatable whether Tanev and Garrison are better than Ballard
But I think there's no denying that Ballard is better than Alberts or Barker
And I don't disagree with that. If you've been reading my posts, you'll see I've only said that I'm fine with them playing because they have to at some point. They can't just sit the whole year and expect to be ok if they have to come in for an injury. They'll get time for that alone as a result. Alberts getting time as a bigger body against LA makes sense to me as well. Ballard's been offensively our weakest D-man, so I can see that playing a large part into why he was chosen to sit over other players to make room.
Edited by elvis15, 04 March 2013 - 04:06 PM.