Empoleon8771
Registered User
Nah, I don't agree with Pensburgh's take that this wasn't his fault. Johnson should have been better than what he was here. Did the contract JR gave him put a target on his back for criticism? Of course, but if Johnson would have played even remotely okay, most of that criticism would have died down. That's exactly what happened with Tanev.
He deserved to be criticized because his play warranted it. Johnson wasn't this scrub that JR thought was amazing (or at least he wasn't in Columbus), Johnson was supposed to be much more effective than he was. He should have been expected to be better than "one of the worst defensemen in hockey", him performing at that level is completely on him. By the end, he was criticized because he was horrible, not because of what he was paid.
He deserved to be criticized because his play warranted it. Johnson wasn't this scrub that JR thought was amazing (or at least he wasn't in Columbus), Johnson was supposed to be much more effective than he was. He should have been expected to be better than "one of the worst defensemen in hockey", him performing at that level is completely on him. By the end, he was criticized because he was horrible, not because of what he was paid.