Permanent Rumour Thread

[Trizzak]

Patches-Pleks-Gally (enough is enough, get Patches on the top line with the most minutes possible, he's an elite goal scorer and a possession beast entering his prime)

Galch-Eller-Gio

Bourque-DD-Briere

Prust-Halpern(ok, ok, White)-Moen/Parros

If DD starts the season in Montreal, I agree with this to a point. I think it's worth seeing what Pacioretty does on a line with Plekanec because Pleks is the #1 center and Pacioretty is the #1 winger.

I also want to see what Desharnais does when he isn't given the best scorer on the team as his linemate. And better still, can he get Pacioretty-results out of Gallagher or Gionta?

[Neech]

I agree with splitting up Patches and DD to see what they could do with other linemates. In the end it could be that they're most compatible playing with each other. I'd also like to see what Patches and Galchenyuk could do togheter, seeing as they could be our top two forwards for years to come, though them both playing LW would probably be a problem. Pleks will be effective no matter who he's playing with, and he seemed to bring the best out of Bourque last season.

[TurdBurglar]

Sorry, but quoting the goal results from one playoff series where the Habs outshot and outplayed Ottawa in almost every game (Anderson vs. Price + injuries being the big difference in that series) and then making the leap to say that the REAL problem is that the Habs need to get MOAR BIGGER, just doesn't cut it. First off, they placed fourth in the league last year and were one of the top 6 goal scoring, shots on goal, and puck possession teams. Those are the factors that predict playoff success, year after year, not SIZE, which has very little to do with it.

Being one of the biggest teams in the league is in no way related to playoff success. See Blackhawks, Chicago - one of the smallest teams and two SCs in four years. Boston is also one the smaller teams (look at the stats for team height and weight), and no Chara and Lucic to not make up for it with their overwhelming physical presence. What both those teams have, and what the Habs have as well, is talented players who can score goals and stop goals, plus good coaching. That wins cups. Not size, or grit, or toughness. Prust is a great fourth liner who can play a small part, but Prusts do not win cups.

Lastly, and I will get the references for this together and post them, hitting has been shown to be inversely related to winning in the NHL - regular season and playoffs. That's right, the teams who hit more, lose more. There is a simple explanation for this, which is that when you are behind, you start hitting more.

All this to say, that although size is one factor that cannot be totally ignored when building a successful team, see McCarron, Michael and Tinordi, Jared, it is far less important than speed, skill, shooting, goaltending, and other key variables that Stanley Cup winners have in spades.

Thanks to the excellence of PK Subban, Markov, Pleks, Patches, Gio, Bourque, and now Eller, the Gallys and Briere, these are now assets the Habs do have in spades. Now, if only Carey Price can be the franchise goalie we all hope he is, the deep runs are on the way.

PS. Rewatch all the video of all the goals scored by any NHL team last year and observe how few are scored by big guys standing in front of the goalie screening him. Very few. Tips ins are more important, and that is a separate skill unrelated to size or toughness or grit. In fact, soft Michael Ryder is very good at it.

Thanks for reading my post.....

Didn't say we needed to get bigger. I said our big guys need to play like big guys. Last Playoffs our little guys were plying like big guys and our big guys were playing like little guys. Watch all 5 of our playoffs games, look who is in front of the net when there was someone there. Gallagher and Gionta. Yes we were outshooting them and out possessing them. Where were our shots coming from? Outside. How about all those rebounds? Oh, wait there weren't many.

You can dismiss size all you want. You know Chicago had a guy you might recognize his name, Bickell? You know 6'4 233 guy who stood in front of the net? He was a HUGE factor in Chicago's cup. The guy had 17 pts in 23 games. He stood in front of the net, tipped pucks, got rebound, but most importantly screened the goalie. Screening the goalie gets goals, even if the player screening doesn't get a point. Screening the goalie causes rebounds, wait didn't we had nearly no rebounds vs Ottawa? Anderson THAT much better than Rask/Quick/Howard? No, Chicago had a guy standing in front of the net that could screen the goalie. We had 2 guys who were willing to stand there, but goalie just looked above them. Boston had 6'5 Lucic to stand in front of the net.

Let's look at your interesting hits stat. Chicago had 449 Home hits and 41 home goals. Chicago had 212 away hit and 23 away goals. Boston had 443 home hits and 35 home goals. Boston had 402 away hit and 30 away goals. Look at the stats of home hit and goals vs away hit and goals withe the sole anomaly of Toronto and Ottawa the other 14 teams were near their ranking in goals and hits. So there seems to be some sort of correlation.

Let's address your theory of speed, skill, shooting and goaltending. Last playoff run we speed, lots of it. We had skill. We had shooting. We didn't have goaltending. We had the puck possession and shots in spades last playoffs. Funny how the size, the thing we lacked most, in front of the net made that much of an impact on our offense. I guarantee if we had a Lucic/Bickell to stand in front of Anderson the series would of looked alot different.

This team was build with everything except size. Look at our record for the past 5 years to see how well that has worked for us. Look at the 5 previous cup winners, every single one had at least 1 big guy to stand in front of the net, Bickell(Chicago), Penner(Los Angeles), Lucic(Boston), Byfuglien(Chicago), Malkin(Pittsburgh). Every single one of them 6'3-6'5. Last Playoffs we had the wrong people in front of the net, a point I made clearly the first post but somehow you misinterpreted it.

[Guest Stogey24]

Parros is 6'5. I know he's a fourth liner, but his sole mission could be to post up in front of the net. Back in the Hal Gill days, I always wanted to see a set play where he would drop down and just strictly screen the tendy.

You're right though, it's pretty tough to screen a goalie when your 5'7. Other than that series though, Gionta and Galagher did make it work.

[BlueKross]

We need to get bigger up front. There I said it. We have moved Armstrong and Ryder and got Parros and Briere back. Have we got bigger? Not if you figure time on the ice. Parros, and I don't mind the signing, is there to give a little more ice to the smaller guys, but more than that, to keep Prust from being maimed by a heavy weight. Prust is really the guy who gives the ice to the little guys.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

We will get bigger just by putting Eller and Galchenyuk in more scoring situations and giving them more minutes.

However, the idea of having a big strong power forward? Sure I'd love one. But it can't just be anyone and sorry, Erik Cole wasn't it either. You have to either develop it internally or get lucky on a deal. Otherwise you're giving up a heck of a lot. Everyone is praising the trade Ottawa made but if Bobby Ryan walks, what's the point?

[patience is a virtue]

Let's look at your interesting hits stat. Chicago had 449 Home hits and 41 home goals. Chicago had 212 away hit and 23 away goals. Boston had 443 home hits and 35 home goals. Boston had 402 away hit and 30 away goals. Look at the stats of home hit and goals vs away hit and goals withe the sole anomaly of Toronto and Ottawa the other 14 teams were near their ranking in goals and hits. So there seems to be some sort of correlation.

Thank you also for reading my post. Any my apologies if I sounded a bit rabid in it - I was a little riled up after reading a couple of threads full of MOAR BIG.

You make some calm and reasoned replies, which I will address. First off, about hits, as that is the easiest, and I promised to provide the references to the proof that teams that hit less win more and teams that hit more, win less:

The study in question, by Brian MacDonald, who is a pro sports researcher, looked in detail at hits vs. goal scoring. The pdf of the academic article (which some may find alienating) is linked to in this more digestible artcle at CBS Sports:

Study: teams that get outhit by opponents score more goals

The title really says it all. Here is a quote which summarizes the findings:

"When a team is in a position to pile up a large number of hits in a game, or over the course of a season, that probably means they're on the defense and not controlling the puck, which isn't an ideal way to go about winning a hockey game, a point that MacDonald made in his study. There is also the possibility that a player can take himself out of position, even for a split second, going for a big hit, which can then lead to a scoring chance (or goal) for their opponent."

And the author says:

"We remark that these results do not necessarily indicate that hits are bad, or that players should stop finishing their checks. But it does provide some evidence that hits, hits against, and puck possession are related, and that poorly timed hits can impact goal scoring."

Here is a quote from another article http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/eye-on-hockey/21833145/physical-play-and-hits-why-hits-is-the-worst-statistic-in-hockey which says it better:

"It's not that hitting your opponent and physical play is bad. Hitting somebody in hockey can be an effective means of separating your opponent from the puck and forcing a turnover (how often that actually happens is up for debate). It can lead to winning a puck battle along the walls and gaining possession. I suppose it could even help set some sort of tone if it's a big enough play at the exact right moment. The point here isn't that any of that is bad. It's all a neccessity.

What is bad is if you're constantly in a positition where you have to keep piling up a lot of those hits. (And the same thing is true with blocked shots.) Teams that score high on the hit chart (and blocked shot chart) are usually the teams that get referred to as tough, and gritty, and even (incorrectly, as it turns out) strong defensive teams. The reality is they're probably bad teams that are a losing a lot because they're never playing with the puck."

[BlueKross]

We will get bigger just by putting Eller and Galchenyuk in more scoring situations and giving them more minutes.

However, the idea of having a big strong power forward? Sure I'd love one. But it can't just be anyone and sorry, Erik Cole wasn't it either. You have to either develop it internally or get lucky on a deal. Otherwise you're giving up a heck of a lot. Everyone is praising the trade Ottawa made but if Bobby Ryan walks, what's the point?

Technically you would be right. However that is just small potatoes. Just giving a few extra shifts to a couple of modestly bigger players really doesn't get job done. I agree with the talent part, but to get bigger you are going to have to reduce the number of small guys on the roster.

[patience is a virtue]

The reason for the contrast between home and away hits that you found for Chicago and Boston has less to do with goals scored and what happened during the games in question and more to do with who was counting the hits - the home or the visiting team's hit counter. This chart, from this article, http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=5617 summarizes home and road hits for and against (HF, HA and RF, RA) by NHL teams from the 2011-2012:

EVERY home team out hit EVERY road team. Ummm, nope As the author understates:

"It strikes me as a bit suspicious that no NHL team was credited with hitting more on the road than they were home. It seems awfully likely to me that there’s an issue with scorer bias here – home teams are probably more likely to be credited with a hit than road teams."

Furthermore, some rinks are more bias than others - check out the full article. It's very interesting.

[patience is a virtue]

We need to get bigger up front. There I said it. We have moved Armstrong and Ryder and got Parros and Briere back. Have we got bigger? Not if you figure time on the ice. Parros, and I don't mind the signing, is there to give a little more ice to the smaller guys, but more than that, to keep Prust from being maimed by a heavy weight. Prust is really the guy who gives the ice to the little guys.

And you might be wrong.

Parros and Prust are fourth liners. Prust is a top end fourth liner who provides leadership and can play on the third or even second line if more skilled players are injured, like last season. Parros? I hope he plays less than 5 mins per game, and less than 40 games.

[patience is a virtue]

Let's address your theory of speed, skill, shooting and goaltending. Last playoff run we speed, lots of it. We had skill. We had shooting. We didn't have goaltending. We had the puck possession and shots in spades last playoffs. Funny how the size, the thing we lacked most, in front of the net made that much of an impact on our offense. I guarantee if we had a Lucic/Bickell to stand in front of Anderson the series would of looked alot different.

This team was build with everything except size. Look at our record for the past 5 years to see how well that has worked for us. Look at the 5 previous cup winners, every single one had at least 1 big guy to stand in front of the net, Bickell(Chicago), Penner(Los Angeles), Lucic(Boston), Byfuglien(Chicago), Malkin(Pittsburgh). Every single one of them 6'3-6'5. Last Playoffs we had the wrong people in front of the net, a point I made clearly the first post but somehow you misinterpreted it.

The rest of your post is really about having tall guys who can stand in front of the net and screen the goalie. I'll give you the fact that Bickell had a productive playoff. I would like to know how many Chicago goals he was standing in front of the goalie screening him. My guess is not many. Penner has pretty much sucked since 2010. Malkin and Byfuglien do not spend a lot of time screening goalies. Maybe Lucic does.

So, I will watch all the Boston and Chicago goals from last season and playoffs on video and report back on how many times (as a %) these two guys where screening the goalie. My guess is maybe a small handful. Like five or so each all year.

If I am going to do that research anyway, are there any other things about MOAR BIGGER and goal scoring you'd like me to take note of? Seriously - might as well.

My hypothesis is that your argument about this key role of screening the goalie that 6-3+ players play is next to inconsequential and not something to take into strong account when building a winning team.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

We will get bigger just by putting Eller and Galchenyuk in more scoring situations and giving them more minutes.

I think this is the wisest comment around when it comes to the "size" issue up front.

I've said before, if Eller doesn't go down and (relatedly) Therrien doesn't choose to give Desharnais a far bigger role than his play warranted, we wouldn't be hearing so much about the Habs' supposed lack of size. Add to that injuries to Bourque and Patches, not to mention Emelin - and suddenly a legitimate but not overwhelming issue becomes the main talking point about the team for an entire summer and possibly beyond. The whole thing is overblown in my book.

[patience is a virtue]

And lastly, for today's anti-MOAR BIG crusade. Here are links to two articles which make it as clear as day that not only is size NOT the key to success in the NHL, but that on average, smaller teams might do better (because they are faster and more skilled), especially in the playoffs:

1) From "Does size matter in the NHL?", http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7986703/fast-small-vs-slow-big-ice, written at the beginning of the Kings-Devils SC final series in 2012:

"During those 12 playoff seasons [1999-2011], there have been 17 series where the average weight of the players on the ice for one team was 10 pounds or more than the average weight of the players on the ice for the other team. If anything, this is where we would really see the physical punishment of a larger team take its toll, right? If it does, the smaller teams don't seem to be bothered much by it. The bigger teams have gone just 4-13 in those 17 series. Maybe the guy who always chose four of the small, fast players in Ice Hockey was right after all.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the Kings are cursed for being too big and about to lose to the Devils. What recent history suggests, instead, is that the Kings didn't make it to the Stanley Cup finals because they were any particular size at all; they've made it because they were a great hockey team. In the NHL playoffs, bigger has had absolutely nothing to do with better."

MY NOTE: the Kings were the top puck possession team in the NHL in 2011-2012

2) James Mirtle's blog post with 2013 average team heights and weights, http://mirtle.blogspot.ca/2013/01/2013-nhl-teams-by-weight-height-and-age.html

You'll note that Chicago, Boston, and Detroit are amongst the smallest teams in the NHL. And Chicago was the, yep, the top puck possession team in the NHL last season.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Technically you would be right. However that is just small potatoes. Just giving a few extra shifts to a couple of modestly bigger players really doesn't get job done. I agree with the talent part, but to get bigger you are going to have to reduce the number of small guys on the roster.

Our top nine has Desharnais, Gallagher, Gionta and Briere. Averaged sized would include Plekanec. The rest are 6'2" and up like Bourque, Galchenyuk at 6'1" 1/2, Eller and Pacioretty. Our fourth line has plenty of size.

Gionta will likely be gone spring of 2014. Briere will likely be gone spring of 2015. Desharnais will likely be gone spring of 2017 or earlier. If Bergevin replaced one of them with 5'11" Collberg would you be upset?

[BlueKross]

Our top nine has Desharnais, Gallagher, Gionta and Briere. Averaged sized would include Plekanec. The rest are 6'2" and up like Bourque, Galchenyuk at 6'1" 1/2, Eller and Pacioretty. Our fourth line has plenty of size.

Gionta will likely be gone spring of 2014. Briere will likely be gone spring of 2015. Desharnais will likely be gone spring of 2017 or earlier. If Bergevin replaced one of them with 5'11" Collberg would you be upset?

We can argue all night. but if you replace somebody with somebody a couple inches taller and a few pounds heavier, what have you done? Not much of anything. We were the smallest club at one point last year. It looks like in a few years that may be addressed. This year I see us in the same boat..

[habs rule]

We can argue all night. but if you replace somebody with somebody a couple inches taller and a few pounds heavier, what have you done? Not much of anything. We were the smallest club at one point last year. It looks like in a few years that may be addressed. This year I see us in the same boat..

it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog that counts. And I really know what this means since I own a Jack russell terrier. Not big but not afraid of anything. Just a question how big was Tie Domi? Pretty scrappy guy. How big was Tiger Williams? pretty scrappy guy, also crazier than an out house rat.

Size is not he end all be all. Oh and how big was Stan Jonathon? pretty scrappy guy.

[Guest Stogey24]

I still can't see this being our final roster

[lazy26]

I still can't see this being our final roster

I agree, but that's what I thought last year. Despite my pessimism, the Habs exceeded my expectations, and perhaps that is what is in store again this year.

[Guest Stogey24]

I agree, but that's what I thought last year. Despite my pessimism, the Habs exceeded my expectations, and perhaps that is what is in store again this year.

Yup, we could easily have another good season. The only thing I'm worried about is how prone this line up is to.injuries. Not really much can be done about that though I guess.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I still can't see this being our final roster

Agree as well. I think we can certainly compete with this roster for one of the top three spots in Division C but it doesn't feel complete. It merely feels crowded.

[TheDriveFor25]

I still can't see this being our final roster

I would be shocked if the roster was finished... something has to be coming.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

And lastly, for today's anti-MOAR BIG crusade. Here are links to two articles which make it as clear as day that not only is size NOT the key to success in the NHL, but that on average, smaller teams might do better (because they are faster and more skilled), especially in the playoffs:

1) From "Does size matter in the NHL?", http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7986703/fast-small-vs-slow-big-ice, written at the beginning of the Kings-Devils SC final series in 2012:

"During those 12 playoff seasons [1999-2011], there have been 17 series where the average weight of the players on the ice for one team was 10 pounds or more than the average weight of the players on the ice for the other team. If anything, this is where we would really see the physical punishment of a larger team take its toll, right? If it does, the smaller teams don't seem to be bothered much by it. The bigger teams have gone just 4-13 in those 17 series. Maybe the guy who always chose four of the small, fast players in Ice Hockey was right after all.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the Kings are cursed for being too big and about to lose to the Devils. What recent history suggests, instead, is that the Kings didn't make it to the Stanley Cup finals because they were any particular size at all; they've made it because they were a great hockey team. In the NHL playoffs, bigger has had absolutely nothing to do with better."

MY NOTE: the Kings were the top puck possession team in the NHL in 2011-2012

2) James Mirtle's blog post with 2013 average team heights and weights, http://mirtle.blogspot.ca/2013/01/2013-nhl-teams-by-weight-height-and-age.html

You'll note that Chicago, Boston, and Detroit are amongst the smallest teams in the NHL. And Chicago was the, yep, the top puck possession team in the NHL last season.

Interesting point of view. This is one I see often. Here is my take- those are a bunch of BS statistics. For whatever reason, hockey fans/bloggers do not have the slightest understanding of statistical methodology. If we are going to get "statsy" let's take off the biggest three players/smallest three players, because this is how statistical analysis is done. Those sites you are reading are click bait for what I call "the smurf apologists." Here is why. Any quotable statistical analysis wouldn't just add up inches/lbs and divide by players, if it were to have any kind of analytic bearing, the amount of minutes each player played/their heights and weight would be at the forefront. The fact that the "Big Bad Bruins" have size has nothing to do with the height of their fourth liners, it has everything to do with Chara playing 30 minutes, and Uglic/Horton playing top offensive minutes. The issue we've had since the Gainey Rebuild is the amount of reliance on minutes we've had from undersized players. Desharnais, Gomez, Gionta, Cammalleri, etc. When we're talking about a few inches, big deal, but how many damned players can we have in the top nine who are under 5'10. Enough is enough, and given the picks/acquisitions/media chatter from Bergevin, I would bet he wants to get a bigger team as much as most fans do, he just won't mortgage the future to do it tomorrow. Many trades are evaluated by "well, they won the Cup, it was good trade." (Iginla for Nieuwendyk for example). How about this? Did the shrimps do well in the playoffs this year, or we're they thoroughly embarrassed by a number 7 seed?

[patience is a virtue]

Interesting point of view. This is one I see often. Here is my take- those are a bunch of BS statistics. For whatever reason, hockey fans/bloggers do not have the slightest understanding of statistical methodology. If we are going to get "statsy" let's take off the biggest three players/smallest three players, because this is how statistical analysis is done. Those sites you are reading are click bait for what I call "the smurf apologists." Here is why. Any quotable statistical analysis wouldn't just add up inches/lbs and divide by players, if it were to have any kind of analytic bearing, the amount of minutes each player played/their heights and weight would be at the forefront. The fact that the "Big Bad Bruins" have size has nothing to do with the height of their fourth liners, it has everything to do with Chara playing 30 minutes, and Uglic/Horton playing top offensive minutes. The issue we've had since the Gainey Rebuild is the amount of reliance on minutes we've had from undersized players. Desharnais, Gomez, Gionta, Cammalleri, etc. When we're talking about a few inches, big deal, but how many damned players can we have in the top nine who are under 5'10. Enough is enough, and given the picks/acquisitions/media chatter from Bergevin, I would bet he wants to get a bigger team as much as most fans do, he just won't mortgage the future to do it tomorrow. Many trades are evaluated by "well, they won the Cup, it was good trade." (Iginla for Nieuwendyk for example). How about this? Did the shrimps do well in the playoffs this year, or we're they thoroughly embarrassed by a number 7 seed?

I see. BS stats and Chara, Lucic and Horton are heros? Hmmmm. BS. Bergeron, Krejci and Marchand are more important to the Bruins offense than Lucic and the guy they let walk. Chara I will agree with - he is an extraordinary hockey player in every regard. But that, nor some smoke and mirrors about how stats on the size of teams is somehow cooked books + ZERO counter argument or evidence presented, besides smurfs suck and that must be why the Habs lost, even tho an even smaller Habs squad went to the semi final a couple of years ago, because this year's playoff loss to Ottawa explains everything. No, sorry. The Habs lost this one series due to a combination of being out-goaltended and out puck-lucked. Some blame it on injuries, and that may bear some weight, but the fact is that despite the injuries the Habs outshot and outchanced and carried the play against the Sens when the score was close in almost every game.

But one playoff series does not explain anything anyway. Year after year, season after season, series after series, puck possession trumps size and hitting. Skill and speed are simply more important than size and grit (no problem with those factors, just not the top priorities). See Blackhawks, Chicago.

Read this again and go read the guy's methodology (he did control for time on the ice):

"During those 12 playoff seasons [1999-2011], there have been 17 series where the average weight of the players on the ice for one team was 10 pounds or more than the average weight of the players on the ice for the other team. If anything, this is where we would really see the physical punishment of a larger team take its toll, right? If it does, the smaller teams don't seem to be bothered much by it. The bigger teams have gone just 4-13 in those 17 series."

All the evidence you look at will confirm this. Except the visual spectacle of a big hit. Which has so very little to do with scoring goals and winning hockey games. But hey, I welcome a strong reaction. That's what happens when you question long held erroneous assumptions with evidence.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

How about this? Did the shrimps do well in the playoffs this year, or we're they thoroughly embarrassed by a number 7 seed?

They didn't do anywhere near as bad as you might imagine in your head. They did one game extremely poorly but otherwise Montreal was simply too banged up and didn't play the right game against Ottawa. For as much talk as we make about how ineffective David Desharnais was (and he was), nobody talks about how bad of a first playoff Max Pacioretty had as well. He was just as ineffective. But he has size and DD was pretty much manhandled in every board situation so size envy is what we have. Does anyone even remember the big revelation in the Ottawa series? It was Jean-Gabriel Pageau, a 5'9" Ottawa born lightweight who scored a hat trick and got two assists in game five before being pretty much invisible in the Pittsburgh series. The other best Sens forwards were Daniel Aflredsson (5'11), Kyle Turris (6'1"), Erik Condra (6") and Jakob Silfverberg (6'1"). Were we really beaten by size or skill?

I'm sure someone might reply that it was their big defence (Cowen, Phillips, Methot) that made the difference, but they all had their bad and good games. Their best defenceman against us was Erik Karlsson, who might have some height but he's all offensive skill. Again, it's always about skill not size.

[Guest Stogey24]

They didn't do anywhere near as bad as you might imagine in your head. They did one game extremely poorly but otherwise Montreal was simply too banged up and didn't play the right game against Ottawa. For as much talk as we make about how ineffective David Desharnais was (and he was), nobody talks about how bad of a first playoff Max Pacioretty had as well. He was just as ineffective. But he has size and DD was pretty much manhandled in every board situation so size envy is what we have. Does anyone even remember the big revelation in the Ottawa series? It was Jean-Gabriel Pageau, a 5'9" Ottawa born lightweight who scored a hat trick and got two assists in game five before being pretty much invisible in the Pittsburgh series. The other best Sens forwards were Daniel Aflredsson (5'11), Kyle Turris (6'1"), Erik Condra (6") and Jakob Silfverberg (6'1"). Were we really beaten by size or skill?

I'm sure someone might reply that it was their big defence (Cowen, Phillips, Methot) that made the difference, but they all had their bad and good games. Their best defenceman against us was Erik Karlsson, who might have some height but he's all offensive skill. Again, it's always about skill not size.

Karlson had a sub par series against us. It was the big defensive core that did an excellent shut down job. Montreal lost the majority of the board battles in the offensive zone due to being out muscled and out matched. I'm definitely not going to blame it all on size, because we were a banged up team in that series. I do think some some solid depth players would have helped us. I've said it before, MB had no confidence in this team going deep in the playoffs. If he did have faith, he would have made a few acquisitions at the deadline. We're basically the exact same team this year so....