Well, I had tried to copy and paste a fairly long response from the Brouwer thread but it somehow got deleted. I got a bit OT in that thread with comments about Sanford, so I figured this thread would be more appropriate. There were some good responses in that thread, so not sure how much more there is to say, but basically I was wondering why there is so much wrath focused on Sanford when his production isn't that far off from other players that fans don't criticize very often.
Celtic and others made some very good points in that thread, but he did mention Blais in his last post. Fans seemed to be pleased with Blais this year despite the fact that him and Sanford both have 8 points in roughly the same # of games (Blais one more, to be exact). Is it because Blais had such a hot start while Sanford started the season ice cold? Yes, Blais is more physical and was creating havoc even when not scoring, but he only had 3 points in his last 15 games before his injury (after getting 5 points in his first 5 games). So maybe he wasn't clicking on that 2nd line as much as it seemed. Yet most comments regarding Blais were positive despite his drop off and Sanford is public enemy #1 among Blues fans.
Not that I'm looking to criticize guys, but I feel that Sanford gets more than his fair share of blame when we have other guys struggling just as much: Blais before his injury, Bozak (on pace for just 27 points, has been snakebit lately but we need more production considering his ice time and usage), Barbashev (just 7 points and has made some uncharacteristic sloppy plays) and Faulk (no context needed).
I think the biggest reason for the lax criticism of Blais was that he was productive with ROR and Perron. Then for whatever reason, he was no longer on that line. He had a stint with Schenn and went on the struggling Bozak line where everyone’s points dry up. But, he was still generating chances and was engaged in the play. It’s his usage that seems to be the main issue. Well, that and the play of our third line.
I think it is also unfair to say they have the same number of points. We have to look at the time of the criticism of Sanford and when it ceased. At the time, Sanford had not gone on this tear. Subtract out that streak and the comparison is 3pts vs 8 pts.
Conversely, Sanford looked like he was playing like he didn’t care. His line was producing despite his contributions or lack thereof.
Now Sanford has found a home and found his drive. I am happy for him and us. Hopefully he can continue this trend.
The third line has been a point of criticism. I suspect there wasn’t one person singled out because it was the whole line. It has been poor offensively. Seemingly that has changed. Let’s hope it has.
Barbashev has been on the forth line providing energy and defense. That’s the general accepted value of a forth line. Adding marginal offense is also part of the deal. The 4th line has done that better than the average 4th. Can Barbashev be better offensively? Certainly, but his overall contributions seem ok.
Faulk has been a criticism magnet. Most of that is probably deserved. Some of it might not be. He hasn’t been very good, but it’s a new team. The new team bit can only last for so long though.
