As I posted in the other thread, this is my interpretation of that quote:
There's no denying that Karlsson was by far the best player on the team in his time here. I truly believe he's a good guy, and by no means a bad influence in the locker room. However, when a single player, especially a defenseman, is that much better than everybody else (aka. God made him on the 7th day), I believe it starts to create some weird dynamics on the rest of the room.
For example, everything the team and the coaching stuff does revolves around accentuating Karlsson's skillset, which is scary because Karlsson has a very very unique skillset. The 1-3-1 Boucher implemented with is was built around Karlsson. It was built around having the LD as an anvil on the left side, and have the RD be the puck retrieval and transition player. Fantastic for Karlsson. For Ceci? Maybe not so much. Ceci would have benefited from a different system that does not put so much focus on him being the sole source of the breakout. Not only that, but Ceci was also asked to play some of the toughest minutes in the league in order to maximize Karlsson's offensive minutes. Over the years, we've argued with people to death on the main boards about Karlsson not playing on the PK, etc. This is the flip side of that issue. Ceci was like one of those servants that carries the King around in his chair.
I'm just using Ceci as one example. The PP is another example. Our PP struggled alot, why? We focused too much on Karlsson. The rest of the team started to use Karlsson as a crutch, and stood around, waiting for him to work his magic at the top of the umbrella. We rarely ever worked the puck down low or at the half boards. If the other team could isolate Karlsson, our PP was neutralized. Or what about the forwards who constantly had to cover Karlsson when he went on a rush?
Look at the ridiculous Karlsson on/off stats. They were absolutely outrageous for this reason.
The thing is though, even if Karlsson kinda sucked the oxygen out of the room and suppressed other players (again, not in a malicious or intentional way), he was still so good that it still made us a better team overall. Think of it like a video game where you min/max a unique and unorthodox build that only works in a very specific situation (such as having a special talent like Karlsson). Ultimately, I'm not saying that we're going to be better off without Karlsson. I'm just saying that the hole he leaves behind is not going to be as big as people make it out to be. The systems will be built around the team as a whole instead of an individual player, and his prime minutes will be spread around to other players more evenly. This is where that "We're going from a dictatorship to a democracy" anonymous quote from the Sens dressing room came from.
I'm not trying to do any character assassination. It's something I've actually pondered about for years, and posted about a few times.
It'll be interesting to see how the team performs now that the load of responsibility is spread around a bit more.