Derick Brassard

[3rd Guy High]

Not pinning it on him, it was Boyle's idiotic pass to begin with, just saying, the goal came from the high slot, thats the Centerman's defensive position in that scenario. Everyone else got back but Brassard, who would've been back had he not fallen, then slow to get up. If that's the case I guess I could lay some blame on Marques's sharping technique too

No, the slot is the weak side winger's responsibity, but it's irrelevant since it was an odd man rush.

Actually, looking back at the replay, Boyle should have stayed with the eventual goal scorer and tied up his stick in the slot. He was the most dangerous player. That would have allowed McDonagh to step up on the guy entering the zone (like he did, but Boyle chased him too allowing the guy with the puck to beat two guys with one pass) and Girardi to step down on the guy that passed it to Dalpe from the corner. Then Brassard and Hags would have picked up the two late guys entering the zone. Boyle especially should have known this considering he's a center.

 

[richardsequalscup*]

I trust people opinions who I've talked to for years on here.

You are a newbie

Seriously, its a combo of both watching the player over the years and peoples opinions I value since they've been on here with me for over a decade.

The kid was #6 overall. Does not matter what kind of crap a young player has to work with, if they're good, they shine regardless, and I'm not just pointing to stats. Most of these kids come from junior or college teams that were not made up of all stars yet they stand out, same thing happens in the pro game.

And welcome, you seem very opinionated for a new guy.

Honestly, people who use the term "newbie" lack creditability on these boards. I actually watch hockey players for a living. I'm sure you don't. So, you might want to be a little more open to the opinion of people based off of experience watching players instead of their post count. That isn't to say people who don't spend a lot of time watching players can't evaluate them. You can pick up an incredible amount from watching players on T.V. However, you really don't get to watch them away from the puck like you do watching them live. Not to mention see how they interact within the lockerroom or act at practice.

 

[richardsequalscup*]

I can tell you from being in Columbus many days, that the fan base there is not knowledgeable yet on hockey. The organization is also poorly thought of around the league. People do respect JD and think he will turn things around there. However, that requires creating a new culture from scratch. It's hard to do with with players like Nash and Brassard that have already been ripped by fans for underachieving when they never had any help in the first place. If you watch a lot of players you would understand there is a big difference between putting up average numbers with no supporting cast and putting up average numbers with a good supporting cast. The first is called unrealistic expectations. The latter is called underachieving.

 

[Leetch66]

The agenda would be warping the facts to fit their view. I think it's pretty obvious that is what is going on, here. The guy is not a stupid player. His hockey sense is pretty damn good and he plays like he has eyes in the back of his head.

He made a couple of very crafty passes that indeed were very eye opening . If he can get a feel for a couple of wingers as we move along and can make them kind of passes at the blink of an eye....he will be one more guy that will keep the opposition D busy...and that is a good thing !

 

[LyNX27]

Honestly, people who use the term "newbie" lack creditability on these boards. I actually watch hockey players for a living. I'm sure you don't. So, you might want to be a little more open to the opinion of people based off of experience watching players instead of their post count. That isn't to say people who don't spend a lot of time watching players can't evaluate them. You can pick up an incredible amount from watching players on T.V. However, you really don't get to watch them away from the puck like you do watching them live. Not to mention see how they interact within the lockerroom or act at practice.

"Respect other peoples opinions... My opinion is better than yours."

 

[NYR Sting]

The agenda would be warping the facts to fit their view. I think it's pretty obvious that is what is going on, here. The guy is not a stupid player. His hockey sense is pretty damn good and he plays like he has eyes in the back of his head.

What facts are being warped? LOL. Really? I've asked you two times to respond to my post in this thread, #50. You still haven't given me an answer. We all agree that he's a very talented player. So why hasn't he been able to find any consistent success? Why do other highly skilled players of his ilk generally fail to live up to expectations? What is the number one factor in those kinds of situations?

Has he had the opportunity to play with a superstar player in his career? Yes. Has he played for one of the best coaches in the league? Yes. Has he ever put up a consistent season in his career? No.

People in this thread talk about the lack of a supporting cast in Columbus. Guess what? Brassard WAS the lack of a supporting cast. He was the guy who wasn't getting the job done. He was the reason Rick Nash never had any help. Him, and the other highly touted prospects that didn't pan out for the Blue Jackets. Someone mentioned that the Blue Jackets weren't very good at developing young players, and maybe that is true. But isn't it also possible that they just weren't very good at evaluating young players to begin with? Glance at their draft history. The thought that strikes me more isn't "wow, I can't believe they didn't get anything out of this guy," but rather, "I can't believe this is the guy they picked with this selection."

Did Zherdev and Filatov go on to be successful in other situations after they got out of Columbus? Alex Picard? Gilbert Brule? The only first round picks in this franchise's history that ever amounted to anything (so far, as I'm sure Murray and maybe Johansen will join this list) were Nash and Voracek, who is the only guy to not live up to expectations while in Columbus and then turn it around after leaving (which nearly all of their first round picks did). Ken Hitchcock, too, seems to have done a great job with plenty of young players during his career, as tough a personality as he is. Why not Brassard?

I watched the kid play enough times in Columbus to see that sometimes he looks like a superstar, and other times he leaves you scratching your head. His decisions in the offensive zone sometimes are brilliant and indicate great vision. Other times, they display an alarming lack of appreciation for the importance of puck possession and patience in developing high quality scoring chances. I'm glad he's shown a lot more of the former than the latter in 3 games here with the Rangers, but I'm going to wait just a tad longer before I declare that all 7 years of his NHL career have been an aberration.

 

[Emptyvoid]

Some very interesting points gocbj. If he is as mentally fragile as you're telling us he can be, that is disconcerting. The issue with Brassard then may not be hockey sense (to your point sting) but being mentally weak and an inability to handle adversity.

Unfortunately, the results are the same whether he lacks hockey sense or mental fortitude. An inconsistent player that shows flashes of brilliance and utter stupidity.

He's looked good so far, I guess all we can do is wait and see.

 

[3rd Guy High]

Just went back and looked at some of the earlier posts in this thread.

This kid does not have low hockey IQ. In the offensive zone at least. Havent seen enough of his play away from the puck to really make a judgement on the defensive side and to be honest, I'm not really worried about that with Torts here. He will be molded to be a better defensive player, thats tort's M.O.

It's more a confidence thing with Brassard from everything I've heard and seen so far. When his confidence is there, he goes out there and plays on instinct. Thats how those behind the back and between the legs passes happened in the game against the Penguins. He has the confidence to push the defenders back on the powerplay and open up the space to make a behind the back pass to Richards, leading to a goal. Pushing defenders back like that is a High IQ play, but it's having the confidence out there to make a play like that that puts it all together and makes something happen.

Without confidence, you second guess yourself and make a pass 1/4th second slower, or don't make it at all. That's why you see players that go into massive slumps like Richards and even Stepan to a certain extent did earlier this season. Especially players that thrive on their high hockey IQ. It's also why you see some players that are wildly inconsistent. Now the question is whether or not Brassards lack of confidence over the years can be partially attributed to something in Columbus, and also if a change of scenery and the idea of playing in a big city infront of passionate fans can help his confidence. Seeing empty seats in the building every night isnt exactly a confidence booster.

 

[gocbj]

What facts are being warped? LOL. Really? I've asked you two times to respond to my post in this thread, #50. You still haven't given me an answer. We all agree that he's a very talented player. So why hasn't he been able to find any consistent success? Why do other highly skilled players of his ilk generally fail to live up to expectations? What is the number one factor in those kinds of situations?

Has he had the opportunity to play with a superstar player in his career? Yes. Has he played for one of the best coaches in the league? Yes. Has he ever put up a consistent season in his career? No.

People in this thread talk about the lack of a supporting cast in Columbus. Guess what? Brassard WAS the lack of a supporting cast. He was the guy who wasn't getting the job done. He was the reason Rick Nash never had any help. Him, and the other highly touted prospects that didn't pan out for the Blue Jackets. Someone mentioned that the Blue Jackets weren't very good at developing young players, and maybe that is true. But isn't it also possible that they just weren't very good at evaluating young players to begin with? Glance at their draft history. The thought that strikes me more isn't "wow, I can't believe they didn't get anything out of this guy," but rather, "I can't believe this is the guy they picked with this selection."

Did Zherdev and Filatov go on to be successful in other situations after they got out of Columbus? Alex Picard? Gilbert Brule? The only first round picks in this franchise's history that ever amounted to anything (so far, as I'm sure Murray and maybe Johansen will join this list) were Nash and Voracek, who is the only guy to not live up to expectations while in Columbus and then turn it around after leaving (which nearly all of their first round picks did). Ken Hitchcock, too, seems to have done a great job with plenty of young players during his career, as tough a personality as he is. Why not Brassard?

I watched the kid play enough times in Columbus to see that sometimes he looks like a superstar, and other times he leaves you scratching your head. His decisions in the offensive zone sometimes are brilliant and indicate great vision. Other times, they display an alarming lack of appreciation for the importance of puck possession and patience in developing high quality scoring chances. I'm glad he's shown a lot more of the former than the latter in 3 games here with the Rangers, but I'm going to wait just a tad longer before I declare that all 7 years of his NHL career have been an aberration.

I hope Brass does what Voracek is doing in Philly. I hope Tortorella (sorry for SP??) is a teacher and not just the loose cannon that the media makes him out to be. Jake and Brass are similar talents, although Jake is more emotionally tough...

one thing that is interesting about the CBJ organization, and I am curious how this stat compares to other organizations - - - we did a count and found that there are only about 25 total players in the NHL today that ever played for the CBJ. People leave the CBJ and are quickly out of hockey. I do think we are poor evaluators of talent. We are also often a "last stop" for players or close. Truly, I am not sure we have ever had more than about 6 to 8 guys who would beat out a guy on the Blackhawks or Rangers...

Our top picks weren't just busts, they are out of the league. Zherdev, Brule, Picard. Then, we put guys on our 2nd line that wouldn't make another team...

I am losing the point here...

Anyway, the CBJ has been a historically bad evaluator of talent, and I believe the very low number of former CBJ still in the league confirms that.

 

[Bluenote13]

I actually watch hockey players for a living. I'm sure you don't.

I'd say there's no truth to both statements.

 

[Ail]

What facts are being warped? LOL. Really? I've asked you two times to respond to my post in this thread, #50. You still haven't given me an answer. We all agree that he's a very talented player. So why hasn't he been able to find any consistent success? Why do other highly skilled players of his ilk generally fail to live up to expectations? What is the number one factor in those kinds of situations?

Has he had the opportunity to play with a superstar player in his career? Yes. Has he played for one of the best coaches in the league? Yes. Has he ever put up a consistent season in his career? No.

People in this thread talk about the lack of a supporting cast in Columbus. Guess what? Brassard WAS the lack of a supporting cast. He was the guy who wasn't getting the job done. He was the reason Rick Nash never had any help. Him, and the other highly touted prospects that didn't pan out for the Blue Jackets. Someone mentioned that the Blue Jackets weren't very good at developing young players, and maybe that is true. But isn't it also possible that they just weren't very good at evaluating young players to begin with? Glance at their draft history. The thought that strikes me more isn't "wow, I can't believe they didn't get anything out of this guy," but rather, "I can't believe this is the guy they picked with this selection."

Did Zherdev and Filatov go on to be successful in other situations after they got out of Columbus? Alex Picard? Gilbert Brule? The only first round picks in this franchise's history that ever amounted to anything (so far, as I'm sure Murray and maybe Johansen will join this list) were Nash and Voracek, who is the only guy to not live up to expectations while in Columbus and then turn it around after leaving (which nearly all of their first round picks did). Ken Hitchcock, too, seems to have done a great job with plenty of young players during his career, as tough a personality as he is. Why not Brassard?

I watched the kid play enough times in Columbus to see that sometimes he looks like a superstar, and other times he leaves you scratching your head. His decisions in the offensive zone sometimes are brilliant and indicate great vision. Other times, they display an alarming lack of appreciation for the importance of puck possession and patience in developing high quality scoring chances. I'm glad he's shown a lot more of the former than the latter in 3 games here with the Rangers, but I'm going to wait just a tad longer before I declare that all 7 years of his NHL career have been an aberration.

Agree 100%. Said as much in the original trade thread. Going to have to see how this pans out.

 

[NYR Sting]

One other thing that bothers me. I've seen people say that the mental facet of the game isn't Brassard's problem; his issue is confidence.

So what happens when he isn't playing confidently? He doesn't play well, and his poor play manifests itself not in a sudden evaporation of skill. His play declines by way of his decision making. Let's assume he is a "smart" player. If he isn't playing "smart" all of the time, then what good is his assumed intelligence? You have to play that way as much of the time as possible.

The best players in the league are the players who are able to blend skill and talent with smart efficient hockey the most often. Almost every night. Then there are the players who do it some of the time, and even do it well. Other times, they are either unwilling or incapable of executing this formula.

IMO, Brassard isn't going to get significantly better as a player than what he already is. This makes me weary of the Gaborik deal. Sather has this reputation for great trades, I think he should have gotten a first round pick instead of Brassard. Dorsett and Moore were good pickups, and it was smart to get them, but how does Sather not get a first round pick instead of this tweener for a guy who scored 40 goals 2 of the last 3 seasons, including last season?

If I'm wrong, that would be tremendous. This team sorely needs another top six-caliber center. Depth matters at no position as much as center these days, but seems to me like more of the evidence points to Brassard being the bigger reason he's an underachieving 25-year-old high draft pick.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

The agenda would be warping the facts to fit their view. I think it's pretty obvious that is what is going on, here. The guy is not a stupid player. His hockey sense is pretty damn good and he plays like he has eyes in the back of his head.

Yes I know what the agenda would be. I didn't ask what the agenda would be. I just don't think they have it here but I guess I don't really care I just thought your accusation of an agenda was out of place even though I agree there is no reason to be so pessimistic.. I DO think they are being too close minded after forming their opinions of Brassard in Columbus. Even so we have seen so little of Brassard that what i have read from them amounts too "I don't think he will work out. I've seen him play and think he will eventually come back to earth". Nothing wrong with that at all.

 

[JD123]

Brassard is a guy we need this year! Now! With Richards inconsistency,our lack of depth at center and horrible powerplay Brassard can be of some assistance in all those areas. So far, to me, it seems like he has showed up every game and has skated hard. Love his creativity on the ice. Isn't that what we have been complaining about all year??? The lack of creativity with this offense?!?!
I still don't see how the Gaborik trade wasn't a good one for us??? I mean its highly probably that Columbus will miss the playoffs and they will be on the hook for Gaborik and his salary. Even if Brassard turns out to be a horrible player (which will NOT happen) we still have two young guys in Moore and Dorsett that seem to be future valuable assets to this team!
I feel the Clowe trade has more downside especially if he doesn't resign with us due to the fact he may want and obscene amount of money/years.

 

[broadwayblue]

One other thing that bothers me. I've seen people say that the mental facet of the game isn't Brassard's problem; his issue is confidence.

So what happens when he isn't playing confidently? He doesn't play well, and his poor play manifests itself not in a sudden evaporation of skill. His play declines by way of his decision making. Let's assume he is a "smart" player. If he isn't playing "smart" all of the time, then what good is his assumed intelligence? You have to play that way as much of the time as possible.

The best players in the league are the players who are able to blend skill and talent with smart efficient hockey the most often. Almost every night. Then there are the players who do it some of the time, and even do it well. Other times, they are either unwilling or incapable of executing this formula.

IMO, Brassard isn't going to get significantly better as a player than what he already is. This makes me weary of the Gaborik deal. Sather has this reputation for great trades, I think he should have gotten a first round pick instead of Brassard. Dorsett and Moore were good pickups, and it was smart to get them, but how does Sather not get a first round pick instead of this tweener for a guy who scored 40 goals 2 of the last 3 seasons, including last season?

If I'm wrong, that would be tremendous. This team sorely needs another top six-caliber center. Depth matters at no position as much as center these days, but seems to me like more of the evidence points to Brassard being the bigger reason he's an underachieving 25-year-old high draft pick.

I think he went with Brassard over the 1st round pick (assuming it was even an option) because we needed depth at C now. That first round pick won't help us this year or next.

 

[3rd Guy High]

One other thing that bothers me. I've seen people say that the mental facet of the game isn't Brassard's problem; his issue is confidence.

So what happens when he isn't playing confidently? He doesn't play well, and his poor play manifests itself not in a sudden evaporation of skill. His play declines by way of his decision making. Let's assume he is a "smart" player. If he isn't playing "smart" all of the time, then what good is his assumed intelligence? You have to play that way as much of the time as possible.

The best players in the league are the players who are able to blend skill and talent with smart efficient hockey the most often. Almost every night. Then there are the players who do it some of the time, and even do it well. Other times, they are either unwilling or incapable of executing this formula.

IMO, Brassard isn't going to get significantly better as a player than what he already is. This makes me weary of the Gaborik deal. Sather has this reputation for great trades, I think he should have gotten a first round pick instead of Brassard. Dorsett and Moore were good pickups, and it was smart to get them, but how does Sather not get a first round pick instead of this tweener for a guy who scored 40 goals 2 of the last 3 seasons, including last season?

If I'm wrong, that would be tremendous. This team sorely needs another top six-caliber center. Depth matters at no position as much as center these days, but seems to me like more of the evidence points to Brassard being the bigger reason he's an underachieving 25-year-old high draft pick.

I was never saying it was "good" that he doesn't have the confidence to play like that all the time.

But there's a big difference between being wildly inconsistent while having the hockey sense and being a stupid hockey player. Thats the difference between someone like Brassard and your average 3rd liner. Thats why Columbus fans have seen him go through long stretches when he can look like a PPG player and on the flip side, stretches where he could look like a 3rd liner.

He's doesn't have a bad hockey IQ. There's a difference between not being mentally tough and having a bad hockey IQ. That's all I'm saying. You can "learn" to be mentally tough. Some times it just finally clicks. However, very rarely do people become smarter, more creative hockey players.

I do agree that he has underachieved thus far in his career though, and am hopeful that a change in scenery can help him finally play at least a little bit closer to his potential. It has worked before. See JVR and Lupul as just a few recent examples.

 

[gocbj]

To be an elite athlete, it takes the perfect mix of confidence, natural skill, hard work, brains, instinct, etc....

Confidence: He is way above average (quiet but cocky)
Skill: above average (great hands)
Hard work: average (...just happy to be here)
brains: average (see hard work - - hockey IQ was never forced to move beyond average)
instinct: above average

He would be a perfect guy next to the Sedin twins (ok,ok...who wouldn't?).

I think his best years are ahead of him for sure. Next year on the 2nd line = 25/45

 

[NYR Viper]

One other thing that bothers me. I've seen people say that the mental facet of the game isn't Brassard's problem; his issue is confidence.

So what happens when he isn't playing confidently? He doesn't play well, and his poor play manifests itself not in a sudden evaporation of skill. His play declines by way of his decision making. Let's assume he is a "smart" player. If he isn't playing "smart" all of the time, then what good is his assumed intelligence? You have to play that way as much of the time as possible.

The best players in the league are the players who are able to blend skill and talent with smart efficient hockey the most often. Almost every night. Then there are the players who do it some of the time, and even do it well. Other times, they are either unwilling or incapable of executing this formula.

IMO, Brassard isn't going to get significantly better as a player than what he already is. This makes me weary of the Gaborik deal. Sather has this reputation for great trades, I think he should have gotten a first round pick instead of Brassard. Dorsett and Moore were good pickups, and it was smart to get them, but how does Sather not get a first round pick instead of this tweener for a guy who scored 40 goals 2 of the last 3 seasons, including last season?

If I'm wrong, that would be tremendous. This team sorely needs another top six-caliber center. Depth matters at no position as much as center these days, but seems to me like more of the evidence points to Brassard being the bigger reason he's an underachieving 25-year-old high draft pick.

I would find it highly unlikely that if Brassard came in and scored 45-50 points again, that he could not be moved for a 1st rounder + relativity easily. At this point, he is a gamble, as you have said, however, barring anything unforeseen ala a major injury, they can turn the asset around for a nice return if the team doesn't see that next step taken.

 

[RangersChamps2417]

I like what I've seen in Brassard. He reminds me of a more skilled Dubinsky. He goes into the dirty areas, has a nice shot, makes plays and is an excellent passer. I think that he came into the perfect situation and will thrive here in NYC

 

[bogans]

What facts are being warped? LOL. Really? I've asked you two times to respond to my post in this thread, #50. You still haven't given me an answer. We all agree that he's a very talented player. So why hasn't he been able to find any consistent success? Why do other highly skilled players of his ilk generally fail to live up to expectations? What is the number one factor in those kinds of situations?

Has he had the opportunity to play with a superstar player in his career? Yes. Has he played for one of the best coaches in the league? Yes. Has he ever put up a consistent season in his career? No.

People in this thread talk about the lack of a supporting cast in Columbus. Guess what? Brassard WAS the lack of a supporting cast. He was the guy who wasn't getting the job done. He was the reason Rick Nash never had any help. Him, and the other highly touted prospects that didn't pan out for the Blue Jackets. Someone mentioned that the Blue Jackets weren't very good at developing young players, and maybe that is true. But isn't it also possible that they just weren't very good at evaluating young players to begin with? Glance at their draft history. The thought that strikes me more isn't "wow, I can't believe they didn't get anything out of this guy," but rather, "I can't believe this is the guy they picked with this selection."

Did Zherdev and Filatov go on to be successful in other situations after they got out of Columbus? Alex Picard? Gilbert Brule? The only first round picks in this franchise's history that ever amounted to anything (so far, as I'm sure Murray and maybe Johansen will join this list) were Nash and Voracek, who is the only guy to not live up to expectations while in Columbus and then turn it around after leaving (which nearly all of their first round picks did). Ken Hitchcock, too, seems to have done a great job with plenty of young players during his career, as tough a personality as he is. Why not Brassard?

I watched the kid play enough times in Columbus to see that sometimes he looks like a superstar, and other times he leaves you scratching your head. His decisions in the offensive zone sometimes are brilliant and indicate great vision. Other times, they display an alarming lack of appreciation for the importance of puck possession and patience in developing high quality scoring chances. I'm glad he's shown a lot more of the former than the latter in 3 games here with the Rangers, but I'm going to wait just a tad longer before I declare that all 7 years of his NHL career have been an aberration.

To be completely fair about Brassard though and not group him in with other Columbus draft errors, this kid was very highly touted by Central Scouting. He was ranked right before the draft Erik Johnson, John Toews, and Jordan Staal. He was ranked above guys like Okposo, Kessel, Mueller, Little, Stewart, and Giroux. This was not a reach pick, whereas I would argue many of CBJ's other first round picks were.

They obviously have had VERY little success with the Russians between Filatov, Zherdev, and more. I think the teams international scouting is probably lacking at this point and that is honestly how many of the bigger organizations like the Rangers and Detroit manage to get late round steals internationally like Lundqvist, Fasth, Hagelin, Anisimov, and more. Its why every time the Rangers take a Swedish junior A kid in the sixth round I get excited.

But this was North America, Canadian Juniors. Everybody wanted a kid as talented as Brassard in that draft and he would not have dropped more than a pick or two below where they took him. The problem was that his frame was not NHL ready and they rushed him. I don't know if his frame is still a bit of an issue or not, but the Rangers organization will make sure to get that addressed if so. That is CBJ's biggest problem is rushing kids in and destroying their confidence and bodies by having them play too early. I have no doubt that NYR can turn a kid with this kind of talent into at least a successful second liner. I am excited about his future. I will always miss Gabby, he was one of my favorites, but he clearly had to go, he was no longer responding to coaching and was not happy here.

 

[nyr2k2]

I can live with an "enigma" like Brassard if he's being paid appropriately and if he's not being relied upon as a go-to guy. Just like Nik Zherdev--when he showed up he was great, and that's fine if he's a complimentary guy. You run into problems when your success is predicated on those types of guys bringing it every night.

Obviously I'd prefer a guy that is making things happen every single shift, but I do think we have room on our squad for a guy that's inconsistent.

 

[Bluenote13]

I can live with an "enigma" like Brassard if he's being paid appropriately and if he's not being relied upon as a go-to guy. Just like Nik Zherdev--when he showed up he was great, and that's fine if he's a complimentary guy. You run into problems when your success is predicated on those types of guys bringing it every night.

Obviously I'd prefer a guy that is making things happen every single shift, but I do think we have room on our squad for a guy that's inconsistent.

Which is great if your team has depth. This team could not afford one more injury to a top line player. That's not depth.

 

[NYR Viper]

Which is great if your team has depth. This team could not afford one more injury to a top line player. That's not depth.

Hagelin can play top-6 pretty easily. Same with Brassard if need be. No team has 9 top-6 forwards. That's the reality of the salary cap.

 

[Bluenote13]

Hagelin can play top-6 pretty easily. Same with Brassard if need be. No team has 9 top-6 forwards. That's the reality of the salary cap.

Ottawa lost their top two players early in the season, arguably two of the best at their positions in the whole league. They didn't have to replace them with all stars either, and they're in a good spot to make the playoffs.

I don't think this Ranger team could survive if one of those top pieces goes missing. Shifting everyone else up means the bottom pairings take a hit.

 

[NYR Viper]

Ottawa lost their top two players early in the season, arguably two of the best at their positions in the whole league. They didn't have to replace them with all stars either, and they're in a good spot to make the playoffs.

I don't think this Ranger team could survive if one of those top pieces goes missing. Shifting everyone else up means the bottom pairings take a hit.

Staal is out. He is a top piece.