benr
Registered User
- Mar 7, 2011
- 239
- 91
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.
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?