posted at 10/25/2013 6:59 PM EDT
In response to Bookboy007's comment:
Look it up, shupe. The "slow starts" thing goes back no more than three years. Here's the fact, ma'am, since 2000. There's only one year there where I'd say he had a slow start, and if you don't like the larger number of games I've chosen, you should look at it yourself: most of these years, except when he has well in advance of a point/game, he puts up these numbers one or two points at a time with very few goose egg games. Slow starter is a myth. Slow starters don't rack 19 in the first 21 games.
2000-01 - 12 points in the first 12 games, 5 goals.
2001-02 - 36 points in his first 21 games, only 4 games without points in that span, 19 goals.
2002-03 - 12 poins in the first 13 games, 3 goals.
2003-04 - 0 points in the first 4 games, 12 in the next 13, 4 goals.
2005-06 - 12 points in the first 15 games, 7 goals.
2006-07 - 24 points in the first 21 games, 11 goals.
2007-08 - 26 points in the first 18 games, 11 goals.
2008-09 - 18 points in the first 14 games, 8 goals.
2009-10 - 23 in the first 22 games, 16 goals.
So it's obviously not a long-term thing, but it certainly seems like it's been an issue the last 3 years. I'll buy into the recent trends over the long term trends.
Iginla will be absolutely fine as the year goes on. I'm not sure that he'll lead the team in scoring (My money is on Lucic leading in goals, with Krejci in points....bold, right?), but I'm certain that he'll put up nothing worse than Horton numbers (25/30/55, generally).
With the slow starts of Iginla and Eriksson, I'm looking at the positives: Krug, Hamilton, Smith. Young bucks taking care of business.