On Paper

It seems that no matter where you look when reading about hockey, you hear the term "On Paper" thrown around all the time. This has always been a pet peeve of mine, ever since the season Milbury claimed we had a "Contender on paper" and failed to prove that true. I am sure the same can be said for many teams however.

Every mainstream blog has a bunch of readers who claim their team is stronger on paper – and in many cases it may be true, even in raw talent. The only thing everyone fails to take into account – CHEMISTRY.

If a team does not have chemistry, what good does the fact that they look good on paper prove? Nothing in my book, and im sure most of you share that feeling. In no way am I saying that our Division isn't even tougher then it was last season – because it is. I just don't agree with the notion that a team that looks good on paper, will perform up to that standard. If a team cannot gel, without something short of a miracle – it may never.

I just don’t buy into the whole fantasy of how good things appear on paper. I have faith in Ted Nolan, he has a fan in me and I am sure he can get the most out of this year’s roster. I don't expect miracles, I don't expect the best record in the NHL – I do however expect hard work and entertaining hockey.

Now, if you excuse me – I am going to read about how good the weather forecast appears for this weekend, on paper.

Michael Schuerlein


  1. On paper, our team is average……really no better or no worse than last year……..we let a few very good players go (Smyth and Blake) and replaced them with very good players (Guerin and Comrie).

    We let a very good d-man go (Hill) and replaced him with one (Sutton).

    The way I see it there's no net gain or net loss

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.