It’s a bit silly just in the sense that “depth” is effectively synonymous with “being a good team”. Having more good players is better than having fewer good players.
Do NHL fans overrate the importance of 'depth'?
- Thread starter JaegerDice
- Start date
Avsfan1921
Registered User
- Oct 5, 2019
- 1,336
- 3,546
I will say this:
Colorado has had top 5, arguably top 3, players at all positions outside of goaltending for quite a few years now. Two of those are in the top 6 all time playoff ppg and one is currently second all-time playoff ppg.
They got it done once, with a deep team. They’ve been disappointing every year outside of that.
When a coach needs to run top end talent into the ground just to compete, it takes a toll on their play. Yes, depth is very, very important.
Colorado has had top 5, arguably top 3, players at all positions outside of goaltending for quite a few years now. Two of those are in the top 6 all time playoff ppg and one is currently second all-time playoff ppg.
They got it done once, with a deep team. They’ve been disappointing every year outside of that.
When a coach needs to run top end talent into the ground just to compete, it takes a toll on their play. Yes, depth is very, very important.
- Dec 17, 2018
- 12,437
- 21,805
I like how your entire logic and argument is “I disagree.” You not valuing depth is.. not shocking.
Playoff hockey is a different beast than regular season hockey. Other teams, because they're also playoff teams, will generally do a better job of shutting down your star players. That's when your depth players either step up to the plate to provide some crucial secondary scoring, or they suck and you likely get eliminated as a result. I can think of three players in particular that stick out to me as being depth guys who stepped up in the playoffs: Dale Weise, Justin Williams, and Patrick Maroon. There are plenty of more examples, but those are the first three that come to mind.
In other words, being a team reliant on your stars to carry the workload will get you into the playoffs more often than not (I mean, half the league makes it), if you're lacking in depth, you're not very likely to get very far in the playoffs.
In other words, being a team reliant on your stars to carry the workload will get you into the playoffs more often than not (I mean, half the league makes it), if you're lacking in depth, you're not very likely to get very far in the playoffs.
JFedol
🅱🅱🅱 M.I.P Pac 1971-1996, Makaveli Tha Don 🐐
With the average hockey player having immense skill, and the overall game of hockey going through leaps of evolution. It genuinely wouldn't surprise me to see higher greater levels of generational players in the future (20-30 years from now) just carry a team to a cup on sheer will alone.
JFedol
🅱🅱🅱 M.I.P Pac 1971-1996, Makaveli Tha Don 🐐
Shit, I've commented so many times here and keep ranting about superstars. But you can argue that a healthy Lemieux alone, in 3 consecutive seasons was a game 7 win away in the 2nd round in '93 from damn near threepeating himself lol.
That pens team was stacked but It was all Lemieux going apeshit for 3 years. No amount of depth is stopping that shit
That pens team was stacked but It was all Lemieux going apeshit for 3 years. No amount of depth is stopping that shit
Last edited:
I think it's cyclical like goaltending.
Sometimes depth wins, sometimes top heavy wins.
Sometimes meh goaltenders win, sometimes god tier goalies win.
I don't think teams can do too much choosing, generally trading stars is tough because you seldom get equal value and if you are a deeper team, that's what you can hang your hat on, not trade out of it to be more top heavy.
Sometimes depth wins, sometimes top heavy wins.
Sometimes meh goaltenders win, sometimes god tier goalies win.
I don't think teams can do too much choosing, generally trading stars is tough because you seldom get equal value and if you are a deeper team, that's what you can hang your hat on, not trade out of it to be more top heavy.
- Aug 24, 2011
- 27,768
- 15,614
If depth was overrated then the McDrai Oilers would have a few Cups by now. Draisaitl put up 30+ points while injured and McDavid 40+ points last postseason and it still wasn't enough.
Look at the Blackhawks...
2010: Star Players + Great Depth = Cup
2011: Star Players - Great Depth = 1st round loss
2012 Star Players - Great Depth = 1st round loss
2013 Star Players + Great Depth = Cup
2014 Star Players + Decent Depth = WCF loss
2015 Star Players + Great Depth = Cup
2016 Star Players - Great Depth = 1st round loss
It's clearly important. If Connor McDavid can't carry his average team to a Cup every year then no one can. You need depth throughout your lineup to capitalize on the weaker defensive assignments the star players draw.
Look at the Blackhawks...
2010: Star Players + Great Depth = Cup
2011: Star Players - Great Depth = 1st round loss
2012 Star Players - Great Depth = 1st round loss
2013 Star Players + Great Depth = Cup
2014 Star Players + Decent Depth = WCF loss
2015 Star Players + Great Depth = Cup
2016 Star Players - Great Depth = 1st round loss
It's clearly important. If Connor McDavid can't carry his average team to a Cup every year then no one can. You need depth throughout your lineup to capitalize on the weaker defensive assignments the star players draw.
coolboarder
Registered User
It is impossible to have a depth with 32 teams league. If you have all prospect making the team and is good enough, you have a depth consist of a draft picks. You will need to have hits on 4 or 5 draft picks every year for next 5 years to have a depth. Then all of the sudden, you have no depth again because they hit a UFA and other teams will overpay to have their service. You may have one good depth on any given year and the depth is decimated due to how the CBA works and other will hit a UFA by 26 years old looking for a good payday. I would tweak some of the CBA so that teams can be rewarded for having a good depth. If you could uncapped salary cap for your own drafted player is the only play here to reward teams with a good scout. That is my take.
If you are talking about depth as in having a pre-cap superteam, certainly. But then again, depth is relative; meaning that once you have your bottom six clearly outperform their opponents' depth players, and maybe even saw off the opponent's top players, you're truly a powerhouse. Usually that happens when you have bargain contracts on your team. Sometimes that's prudent signings, but most often it is drafting well and having young players come in and contributing before getting their payday - as you say. This is what the Blackhawks and Lightning did so well. Boston had Marchand on the third line when they won, Giroux was the same when the Flyers went to the finals. But it is hard to keep replenishing when you have to shed players in order to get under the cap - but this is what the cap is all about. The Hawks did it really well for years and stayed competitive, same with the Bolts.
In some sense, depth is about having the fewest weaknesses - which is cleary a relative measure, no matter how "diluted" the league is as such.
KingsFan7824
Registered User
Stars win the Cup, but depth gets you through the playoffs. There will be a game, or a series, where you don't have enough from your stars, which is where your depth must do something out of the ordinary. It's a guarantee.
To win the Cup, you literally need everything to happen. Your stars have to produce. Your depth has to produce. Your goalie will steal you one or two games, at least, over the course of a series or a single tournament. There's always going to be at least one guy, that has a career best performance. Might be offensively, might be defensively. Might be for just one series, might be for 24 games.
To win the Cup, you literally need everything to happen. Your stars have to produce. Your depth has to produce. Your goalie will steal you one or two games, at least, over the course of a series or a single tournament. There's always going to be at least one guy, that has a career best performance. Might be offensively, might be defensively. Might be for just one series, might be for 24 games.
It's apparent here that we don't all share a common definition of depth.
Some folks here are talking about how deep in your lineup your top six caliber players go. Some people are talking about having really good 4th lines with no below average players relative to their lineup position.
What's really striking about the Oilers is how many games this playoffs their depth forwards have been winning games for them.
But it's not a deep team in the senses that (almost) anyone here is talking about. Leon Draisaitl had to have Podkolzin and Kapanen (or Arvidsson) on his wings for most of the year. They scored barely ten goals put together.
But here we are in the playoffs and Janmark is driving play, Connor Brown and Evander Kane are scoring in bottom six roles, Podkolzin and Kapanen have been in beast mode. Is this depth? Because it is winning them playoff games.
Some folks here are talking about how deep in your lineup your top six caliber players go. Some people are talking about having really good 4th lines with no below average players relative to their lineup position.
What's really striking about the Oilers is how many games this playoffs their depth forwards have been winning games for them.
But it's not a deep team in the senses that (almost) anyone here is talking about. Leon Draisaitl had to have Podkolzin and Kapanen (or Arvidsson) on his wings for most of the year. They scored barely ten goals put together.
But here we are in the playoffs and Janmark is driving play, Connor Brown and Evander Kane are scoring in bottom six roles, Podkolzin and Kapanen have been in beast mode. Is this depth? Because it is winning them playoff games.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 23,336
- 16,482
JFedol
🅱🅱🅱 M.I.P Pac 1971-1996, Makaveli Tha Don 🐐
Take away Toews if you're counting him as a "star". Yes he's apart of that infamous core, had elite advanced stats, and his playoff stats were nuts during that time frame. But individually, he's nowhere near close to sniffing superstar status.
Barely PPG during that window, just an elite 2 way 1C that was great at taking over matchups and being a defensive workhorse.
- Aug 24, 2011
- 27,768
- 15,614
They’re honestly a pretty deep team. Their depth scoring honestly destroyed you guys in round 1, and did the same to VGK.
brentashton
HFBoards Nightmare
- Jan 21, 2018
- 13,376
- 26,259
brentashton
HFBoards Nightmare
- Jan 21, 2018
- 13,376
- 26,259
Pass the Saitl Sauce
Registered User
- Apr 30, 2015
- 1,982
- 4,861
This thread had a two year bump.
Oilers are proving depth matters and currently have 16 players with goals these playoffs.
I think the Islanders would be an example of what good depth without high end players get you. for years Islanders could brag having the best 4th line in hockey but that got them only so far(since they probably had one of the worst first lines. lol)
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
GDT: The BwO Presents: The Game After Game 6 Like We Promised - 7:30 EDT - SN (90 Viewers)- Latest: WillNy29
-
-
-
-
