I'm not sure I'd be on board with the team suddenly lying to themselves, but to each their own. I'm just going to leave it at that because I already know where this is going.
At this point that couldn't be further from the truth. You don't stick Staal on the 3rd pairing because of who he has to play with.
The any-point Yandle is considered the 3rd pairing guy on this team, that much is clear. The Rangers don't have a RHD option who can cover for his defensive lapses while seeing 2nd pairing minutes.
I don't agree. A 50 point blue line guy will never be considered a 3rd pairing guy. That's ridiculous to insinuate that.
OK Yandle has defensive lapses. Staal has offensive lapses. So what? Staal's offensive incompetence gets brushed under the rug? Defensemen are no longer just expected to play defense, just as guys on offense aren't just expected to play on offense. The most successful teams now have two way guys littering their line ups from top to bottom.
Yandle stimulates offense. It is undeniable. And that offense, the 45-55 points or so that he is projected to bring from the blue line, is more valuable than Staal's uncalculable defensive worth.
Staal isn't bad. Far from it. But he isn't more valuable than a guy who will tangibly produce for this team.
Especially because the Rangers have Henrik Lundqvuist.
Staal wasn't dominant last year. Neither was Girardi. Hank/Talbot was a big reason that the goal differential was as skewed as it was.
Sure there is inherent value in a guy who can shut down an attack. But at what point do you start recognizing that he probably caused just as much defensive trouble for Hank, with lack of speed, lack of ability to clear/catalzye a counter attack, or lack of puck control as a gun happy Keith Yandle who isn't a physical defender, makes risky risky plays, and isn't necessarily in the best position for defensive stops?