Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
That 2008-2010 era really isn't much different than today when you go back and read posts about the abundance of amazing defenseman prospects they have.
Flames have just too many defenseman on the roster when they need to make room for Pardy, Pelech, Negrin and Aulie. All of whom have either proven they are NHL ready or will in the next year!
Especially ironic since Brodie was in the farm system and often an afterthought...here's some sample Flames "prospect lineup" from 2008 where Brodie's the extra-defenseman just to show how wrong we can be about our own prospects:
Hopefully it turns out differently, but if you look at posts in the 2009 offseason it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that Pelech was an NHL player after his 5 game stint, it was just whether or not he would be a top pairing defender. Pelech would go on to play 0 more games with the Flames.
And then we throw Erixon into the mix and start talking about his Lidstrom-like properties. Ha.
|
Honestly people had Pelech as a top pairing defender four years after he was drafted?
I think the issue with a message board is a single over zealous fan can sometimes get used to paint the whole board.
I would doubt that view would come anywhere close to a consensus.
This was my comment in the prospect ranking that year ...
Quote:
|
Matt Pelech (5) – Big defensemen are great assets to hold, but even greater when they approach the game with a S.O.B. attitude. Pelech played five games last fall and didn’t look all that out of place. Would have been a lock for the roster this year until Darryl Sutter got to work on blueline depth this summer. Will they make room for him if he’s progressed
|
So yeah he was coming, but "make room if he progressed" is hardly suggesting he was top pairing.
In fact the prospect rankings that summer had him 3rd up from 5th behind Irving and Backlund.
Every fan base has optimism, but I don't think we as a group were over shooting these players. We were hopeful, but not slotting upper roster spots for them.