None of these guys were drafted for their defensive acumen. They applied themselves to excel in that area of the game and their team flourished as a result. It is not coincidental either that the cup winners of the past few years (read 6-7) can all rely on excellent two-way play from their top C's.
Spezza on the other hand has never fully bought into that principle which is the main reason why his career is what it is and the fans never threw their entire support behind him.
I should mention that I'm also of the opinion that Spezza's defensive miscues are also horrendously overblown by most people. He definitely makes them, yes, but he's also not Ovechkin or of that ilk. Most of Spezza's defensive lapses are errors of comission, not errors of omission. When he makes a blind pass behind himself, he's trying to create offense, he doesn't look like he's a character in a game of NHL '13 whose controller was disconnected.
Hell, one of the plays that most people show to prove he's bad defensively is from the 2010 playoffs, where Sidney Crosby does wind sprints behind the net, with Spezza on his ass the entire way, and all he can manage to do because of Spezza's pretty great defensive play, and good stick position (in that specific situation) is to make a soft pass from his knees out to the point, where Letang takes a crappy snapshot which Elliott should have had. Spezza did everything right there, except to nail crosby, and he's one of the more elusive players in the entire league.
I've heard him described as a dumpster fire in his own end, which I really don't think is the case. He's not Toews, but he also doesn't have the same skillset as Toews, and wouldn't be nearly as good trying to play the same game. Spezza's at his best when he's making amazing cross-ice passes onto the tape of his winger that noone except him saw coming. That's what we'll lose when he leaves, and I think we'll be a worse team for it.
hockeyalltheway said:
I resent that implication. Yes, media types do comment on rumour and speculation, especially in blogs. But I can't recall a single incident where overt speculation was presented as fact. That just doesn't happen. Any editor worth their salt would edit that out.
It's not so much that the media, individually, don't want to present facts as facts, and speculation as speculation, it's that all it takes is one person to take a comment in a different way, and read too much into a simple offhand remark, and it becomes news media item #1, since our media cannibalizes each other on a regular basis, and what the media says is, in and of itself, newsworthy.
Just look at any analyst patting themselves on the back about correctly predicting a deal, or a signing, or what-not. They, usually, haven't heard about this themselves, directly from a source, they usually hear about it from a secondary or tertiary source, and so what may initially have been "Yes, member of the Toronto press, I'm considering all active offers, including those from the Toronto Maple Leafs" becomes "Player X looking to sign with TML" over a twisted version of telephone tag.
Just look at news headlines all over the world. Even the most questionable news headlines don't LEAD with the fact that their source may be an unconfirmed study, or hearsay, or non-empirical evidence, they bury the lead by saying things like "Miracle hormone cures obesity, shows study" instead of "Unconfirmed study claims mice show reduction in caloric uptake" simply because the former is more easily understood, and generates more interest, and thus, more money.
I agree that any editor worth their salt would make sure to clarify, but I think there are far too few concerned about salt, and far too many concerned about advertising revenue.
