Do NHL fans overrate the importance of 'depth'?

[JaegerDice]

It's a common refrain when the stars we love and admire fall out of the playoffs early.

'Oh, well, he/they simply didn't have the support around him to succeed. If only the bottom 6 or 4-through-6 defensemen had been better, they surely would have had the time/space necessary to overcome.'

At what point is it BS rationalization to let star players off the hook for simply failing to perform or being outperformed by the best players on the other team?

Click to read more...

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

You need depth to win . It's really not a complicated concept, in fact its pretty simple. Star players don't play the whole game its not bball

 

[Kranix]

Exactly. Shame on Marcel Dionne for never dragging the 1970s kings to multiple cups.

 

[rumrokh]

Lack of depth is a criticism of a team's composition that can be - and usually is - completely independent of star player performance.

Colorado, as the most recent example, didn't win until they became more than a one-line team. And they got bounced because they're a one-line team again. Absolutely nobody is blaming their star players about that.

So, unless you're vaguely referencing a specific team and specific star players, the answer is no.

 

[JaegerDice]

You need depth to win . It's really not a complicated concept, in fact its pretty simple. Star players don't play the whole game its not bball

Exactly. Shame on Marcel Dionne for never dragging the 1970s kings to multiple cups.

Lack of depth is a criticism of a team's composition that can be - and usually is - completely independent of star player performance.

Colorado, as the most recent example, didn't win until they became more than a one-line team. And they got bounced because they're a one-line team again. Absolutely nobody is blaming their star players about that.

So, unless you're vaguely referencing a specific team and specific star players, the answer is no.

For my own edification, can you guys point to a team that won the cup despite their own top players being consistently outperformed by the opposition's top players?

 

[rumrokh]

For my own edification, can you guys point to a team that won the cup despite their own top players being consistently outperformed by the opposition's top players?

How does that intersect with what I said? Can you point to a team that won the Cup despite lacking depth?

 

[ConnorMcMullet]

If anything, fans underrate the importance of depth.

There’s a reason Colorado went from a dominant Cup champion to a 1st-round exit a year later with the same core.

 

[JaegerDice]

How does that intersect with what I said? Can you point to a team that won the Cup despite lacking depth?

Relative to the league, or relative to the competition in the playoffs?

 

[Goptor]

For my own edification, can you guys point to a team that won the cup despite their own top players being consistently outperformed by the opposition's top players?

2002-03 New Jersey Devils Roster, Stats, Injuries, Scores, Results, Shootouts | Hockey-Reference.com

Check out the latest New Jersey Devils Roster, Stats, Injuries, Scores, Results, Shootouts and more on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

 

[94 Oil Drops]

No but a lot of hockey fans aren't smart enough to know what depth is.

 

[Kranix]

For my own edification, can you guys point to a team that won the cup despite their own top players being consistently outperformed by the opposition's top players?

You're just trying to finesse your angle, which is based on Toronto this year and it's not working. Did you see Draisaitl and McDavid scoring at a Gretzky pace last year and getting swept by the deeper Avalanche?

 

[rumrokh]

Relative to the league, or relative to the competition in the playoffs?

I don't care. You made the thread, you used the word. Define it yourself and let everyone judge that.

 

[Dr Robot]

The definition for depth changes in the playoffs. Most teams significantly reduce their fourth lines minutes, basically leaving them with 3 lines and 2ish defense pairs. Just having one scoring line will only take you so far. You need atleast a good second line and hopefully a well rounded third to face some matchups.

 

[JaegerDice]

You're just trying to finesse your angle, which is based on Toronto this year and it's not working. Did you see Draisaitl and McDavid scoring at a Gretzky pace last year and getting swept by the deeper Avalanche?

How does this contradict my position. The Edmonton Oilers won the series where McDavid and Draisaitl were the top scorers. They lost the series where Makar outscored both, and Rantanen and Landescog tied Drai, who himself had zero goals. This was a simple matter of stars out-performing stars.

 

[Kranix]

How does this contradict my position. The Edmonton Oilers won the series where McDavid and Draisaitl were the top scorers. They lost the series where Makar outscored both, and Rantanen and Landescog tied Drai. This was a simple matter of stars out-performing stars.

Lmao. Okay. You should stick to watching NBA

 

[JaegerDice]

Lmao. Okay. You should stick to watching NBA

You disagree that the Colorado Avalanche stars outperformed the Oilers stars?

 

[TheBeard]

Depth matters greatly but you still need your stars to at least show up if you want to win.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Every team has 'depth' or are there any teams playing with only 6-12 guys?

The quality of the 'depth' is the deciding element, but it's a far more complicated issue than people think. Performance levels aren't static and depend on a variety of factors, some of which the team can influence, some of which they can't.

But I'd say the only teams where 'depth' is obviously a problem are the total bottom feeders who are tanking and intentionally filling out their rosters with guys out of their depth at NHL level. Those teams don't make the playoffs.

If you make the playoffs you generally have guys even in the bottom six that have shown they belong in the NHL and can compete. Whether those guys perform or not in the playoffs in particular isn't entirely straight forward. That's why a team like the Bruins can lose in the 1st round without it even being a huge shock to any seasoned observers. The margins between the top 20 teams in the league aren't that huge.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Teams have about half the game without star players (unless you're truly stacked). Look at a team like Edmonton. Even if McDavid and Draisaitl combine for 3 goals a game, it's not enough to win every game. Especially if the other 30 minutes are a black hole defensively.

You don't need depth to play crazy good. You need goals here and there with strong defense.

 

[ottawa]

Your OP makes no sense and is contradicting itself

 

[Jerzey Devil]

Sometimes the depth players are the difference. For example you should look at some of the depth players the Devils had while in the rebuilding process. Very different than the depth players we have now. Sure you can attribute youth to the reason why they were bad but for a while, when losing was more important than winning, our depth players were there for a reason.

 

[Despote]

It was impressive how Seattle's top players outplayed Colorado's top players, had nothing to do with losing Landeskog/Nichuskin/Kadri/Burakovsky.

 

[ricky0034]

seems like a weird question to ask in a year where Seattle won a Playoff series against Colorado like a week ago

 

[Bgav]

Unreal day of threads today and yesterday lol

 

[KingPuckChoo]

watch Edmonton slowly destroy the theory of depth