KoRP Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I'm all for getting the best talent, so long as the fillers are physical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 The team that won the 2013 cup was the second smallest team in the NHL that year. The team that won last year was also on the small side. As for this comment, " IMHO, if you are bring middle of the road talent (fillers) you might as well have size to go with it. ".... thats my entire point. If you have "fillers" you ain't winning shit. Don't matter if those fillers are big or small. You can't have fillers, you need to get talent. Every team has fillers, that's the only way they can get cap to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Every team has fillers, that's the only way they can get cap to work. Yeah but not in their scoring roles. We've already got guys like DSP in the bottom 6. We've got guys like JDLR, and McCarron knocking on the door of bottom six roles. Eller should be in our bottom six, he's not small. Dale Weise. The size of the fillers is fine. If you look at the article I posted, Chicago's core guys aren't huge... the kane, keith, panarin, etc.... its the talent that sets them apart. We need two top 6 forwards... I could care less how big they are, they need to put the puck in the net. This team lacks top 6 talent, this team doesn't lack fillers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Yeah but not in their scoring roles. We've already got guys like DSP in the bottom 6. We've got guys like JDLR, and McCarron knocking on the door of bottom six roles. Eller should be in our bottom six, he's not small. Dale Weise. The size of the fillers is fine. If you look at the article I posted, Chicago's core guys aren't huge... the kane, keith, panarin, etc.... its the talent that sets them apart. We need two top 6 forwards... I could care less how big they are, they need to put the puck in the net. This team lacks top 6 talent, this team doesn't lack fillers. Panarin is a rookie so I don't know how he fits in this conversation about the success in previous years. Keith is a defenseman who is 6'1 so I don't know exactly why he is in the conversation about smalls. We have smalls in the bottom six and in the top six. Nobody is arguing about needing more talent. We can agree to disagree. Sorry, talent isn't the only consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Keith is 192 lbs... small for a defenseman. http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/cult-of-hockey-edmonton-oilers-must-get-bigger-because-we-all-just-keep-pretending-the-chicago-blackhawks-dont-really-exist "Chicago’s top two lines come in at under 200 pounds; nobody on the list is heavier than 210 pounds. Chicago’s bottom two lines were lighter still, despite being inflated by the presence of Bryan Bickell (who has since cleared waivers). The only top-four defenceman over 200 pounds was Brent Seabrook and tiny Kimmo Timonen was a third-pair regular. Meanwhile, the team’s big summer addition was KHL’er Artemi Panarin, listed at 5’11” and 170 pounds. Just for fun, try to imagine the reaction in Edmonton if the Oilers had signed an unheralded 170-pound skill winger. " ------------------------- The hawks are a small team who dominate the supposedly "bigger stronger conference" because they have the talent that moves the puck quickly, keeps possession, makes plays, and finishes. This is much the same model as the detroit teams that were powerhouses from 1996-2009. Puck moving, quickness, puck control.... speed and skill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 As for where does that Rookie Panarin fit in? The blackhawks have added a small skilled player to the lineup, and taken the big brute everyone was drooling over two years ago in Brian Bickell and basically can't get rid of him fast enough. I'd say Hawks management is pretty good, but they are content to see big guys leave and replace them with small, skilled rookies. And look at the standings, the team doesn't miss a beat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Bigger is better crowd will be happy to know top 15 or so rated kids are non-smurfish (only Tkachuk & Nylander under 6'0"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 it's not all about weight, as far as a big player. Gallagher I would consider a tough, hard nosed player. I would consider DD, pleks, Pacs soft, perimeter players who don't win a lot of battles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 it's not all about weight, as far as a big player. Gallagher I would consider a tough, hard nosed player. I would consider DD, pleks, Pacs soft, perimeter players who don't win a lot of battles. Ok so its not about size at all then.... glad we agree on that part. That said Duncan keith doesn't win a lot of board battles, neither does Patrick Kane, neither did Nic Lidstrom, etc... etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link67 Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Ok so its not about size at all then.... glad we agree on that part. That said Duncan keith doesn't win a lot of board battles, neither does Patrick Kane, neither did Nic Lidstrom, etc... etc... Agreed Talent should be the #1 judgement when evaluating a player, I'll take the more talented small guy over the less talented big guy all day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 There hockey IQ (kane, keith lidstrom Markov (pre injuries) also helps them out more than most. I'm not blind that smaller, hard nosed, more talented and hi IQ players aren't effective. The habs only have 2 of them. The rest are perimeter floaters who lose battles. Gally and Byron drive the net and they are the 2 of the smaller players, the bigger players are in the same mold as well. Just a bad combination of forwards they have. I'm going to guess, because someone will correct me but since Byron has become a regular before his injury, he was one of the highest scoring forwards they had during that time. He was a waiver wire pickup, that says a lot about the team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 There is a lack of talent on this team, and two new pieces to the top 6 are needed, but at the same time its unfair to say that guys like Plekanec and Pacioretty are part of the problem. Plekanec is one of the best shutdown centres in hockey and is the 2nd highest scoring forward on the team, and Max Pacioretty is one of the best goal scoring wingers in the league and the highest scorer on the team. Those are pieces in your top six (as #1 LW and #2 C) I think we can still move forward with. Have they been great during the slump? no, but no one really has. That said they play at both ends of the rink, and both are good at the defensive end and offensive end. I could care less that they don't run their opponents through the boards. Not every player has to play like Gallagher... and not every member of Chicago's top 6 did (kane)... same with LA's top 6 (see gaborik)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Keith is 192 lbs... small for a defenseman. http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/cult-of-hockey-edmonton-oilers-must-get-bigger-because-we-all-just-keep-pretending-the-chicago-blackhawks-dont-really-exist "Chicago’s top two lines come in at under 200 pounds; nobody on the list is heavier than 210 pounds. Chicago’s bottom two lines were lighter still, despite being inflated by the presence of Bryan Bickell (who has since cleared waivers). The only top-four defenceman over 200 pounds was Brent Seabrook and tiny Kimmo Timonen was a third-pair regular. Meanwhile, the team’s big summer addition was KHL’er Artemi Panarin, listed at 5’11” and 170 pounds. Just for fun, try to imagine the reaction in Edmonton if the Oilers had signed an unheralded 170-pound skill winger. " ------------------------- The hawks are a small team who dominate the supposedly "bigger stronger conference" because they have the talent that moves the puck quickly, keeps possession, makes plays, and finishes. This is much the same model as the detroit teams that were powerhouses from 1996-2009. Puck moving, quickness, puck control.... speed and skill. You are using weight as your criteria, that's fine. Myself, I would tend to use a combination of weight and height to determine relative size and strength, but that's just me. Those weights and heights are taken at the start of year and not evaluated during the playoffs at all, so may not be a true indication of the rosters at all. Secondly, using a Montreal ex. Tinordi and Desharnais would be treated as equals going into that average. Unless you are putting ice time into the equation, you can't help but get a distorted representation. I will concede that Chicago maybe has had a smaller team. To say that Chicago had the second smallest team during some playoffs, I don't buy in. There are no numbers tracking that and I have seen no one even considering TOI. I do like the idea of just comparing the top two lines. I would also concede, having just perused their lineup, that if they should win this year, you may have proved your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 " Artemi Panarin, listed at 5’11” and 170 pounds" That's still 4" and 20 lbs more than Dehairnais.... and he is 3 times as fast and 5 times as determined. It's just ridiculous to think that over an entire roster, that size and strength doesn't matter, over the long haul it matters a great deal. You talk about Keith being small? That's BS, and him and Seabrook are also very viciously physical, Seabrook with hits, and muscle, and Keith with stick work. Who exactly has DD overpowered? Not even his momma... Our small guys outside of Gallagher are soft as shit, it's not so much about their size, it's about their weakness. Glad someone is satisfied with the same old stick checking, stick fishing for the puck, refusal to finish a check style of this last 10 years of Hab team, because I am not pleased at all. Plekanec epitomizes what is wrong with this team come playoff time. Soft and invisible... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 I'm with you korp. Here is one for you. When Ghetto gets back after allstar break we will have four guys on the roster which average out to 5'8" and 175 lbs. Chicago's smallest guy is 5'11". Panarin is a rookie at 170 and will probably fill into his 5'11" frame in a year or two. Chicago don't hold a candle to our smalls. On the top of that is the issue of talent, which is also unfavourable to us. i did miss Shaw at 5'10" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 You are using weight as your criteria, that's fine. Myself, I would tend to use a combination of weight and height to determine relative size and strength, but that's just me. Those weights and heights are taken at the start of year and not evaluated during the playoffs at all, so may not be a true indication of the rosters at all. Secondly, using a Montreal ex. Tinordi and Desharnais would be treated as equals going into that average. Unless you are putting ice time into the equation, you can't help but get a distorted representation. I will concede that Chicago maybe has had a smaller team. To say that Chicago had the second smallest team during some playoffs, I don't buy in. There are no numbers tracking that and I have seen no one even considering TOI. I do like the idea of just comparing the top two lines. I would also concede, having just perused their lineup, that if they should win this year, you may have proved your point. Read the article. They took icetime and height into account. They break it down by top 6/bottom 6 and by top4/bottom 2. They look at roles and who gets icetime.They dont allow the press box scrubs to alter the equations and they seperate the guys who get big minutes from those who dont... so no they are not treating dd and tinordi as equals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 I think we can split the difference between Commandant and the 'bigger is better' crowd with the following proposition: If you have players of above-average talent, it doesn't really matter if they're small. But if you're going to have players of average talent, it's preferable that they be big rather than small. The latter seems to be the Habs' situation: too many 'average' players, who are on the small side to boot. Troublingly, the propsects (Ghetto and Carr in particular) who seem closest to making the team fit this bill. A team of small 'average' players is probably going to be less effective over a season than a larger team with the same skill level. It's kind of strange how we seem stuck in this pattern where our bottom-6 guys generally have nice size, but weak offensive skills, while our 'skilled' guys seem to be chronically tilted towards smallness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Carr isnt small On top of that if we get guys of average skill to fill our top 6 holes.. it wont matter if they are big or small it still wont be enough. Thats my real point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Carr isnt small On top of that if we get guys of average skill to fill our top 6 holes.. it wont matter if they are big or small it still wont be enough. Thats my real point. It's funny that I think of Carr as 'small.' At 6'0 he is, I suppose, average (there's that word again). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 CC why prefer big average players? Bigger is better? You prefer the Pelly's vs Byrons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 CC why prefer big average players? Bigger is better? You prefer the Pelly's vs Byrons? Maybe all I'm saying is that if you have a Lars Eller who is 6'2 and a Lars Eller who is 5'8, you go with the 6'2 guy. Obviously. Bigger players are more likely to be able to hold their own in physical contests, in battling around the net, and in overcoming playoff clutching and grabbing. Less likely to get ground down. Therein lies their advantage. Now a guy like Byron is another thing, because his elite speed will overcome a lot of those limitations (although his lack of other skills will partially negate that advantage). Conversely, a guy like Desharnais illustrates the problem...his skills are neutralized in the playoffs as he gets overpowered when the refs pocket the whistles. If he were bigger, that might not happen so readily. But I am NOT a 'bigger is always better' guy. Elite talent is elite talent and will beat all comers no matter how big they are. That's what the Chicago example proves. And that's why our real problem is not size per se, but lack of elite talent up front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 You can argue all day about the topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Read the article. They took icetime and height into account. They break it down by top 6/bottom 6 and by top4/bottom 2. They look at roles and who gets icetime. They dont allow the press box scrubs to alter the equations and they seperate the guys who get big minutes from those who dont... so no they are not treating dd and tinordi as equals. The only statics I had seen related to the topic were the Mirtle statics, so I applaud the effort. Kassian is on the Edmonton roster so at least the stats are quite recent. I applaud the effort to sort the lines out to make some sense of correlation. The heights and weights are listed, but I see no correlation of the two or do I see any reference to ice time in the article. I am assuming you are saying that firsts lines would have equal playing time. It is interesting that the writer would use Edmonton as a reference for anything. Chicago hasn't proven anything this year, so we will see if going lighter works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 They used Chicago's roster last season, and Chicago's roster this season in the article. It didn't solely focus on this year's roster... it also looked at a roster that won the cup. Look if you want to pick at the minutaie of everything, thats fine.... no matter what stat the guy does it will never convince you. You'll always argue that he should have done it differently. The fact is this, Chicago wasn't a big team, not in 2015 and not in 2013. Despite playing in the conference that most say is the "bigger tougher" conference they've dominated. They've beaten the big tough teams like St. Louis, Los Angeles, Anaheim and others in the playoffs time and time again. They have 3 of the last 6 cups. They've proven it... Talent wins. Look around the Western Conference, Chicago is not the prototype for big tough physical team... they are the prototype for a possession game and having skill though. So were the Detroit Red Wings before them and they won a lot from 97-2009. At the end of the day... skill wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Skill wins if you have skill. The Canadiens do not. So it doesn't make sense to pick up players like Paul Byron and (who is on a shooting percentage bender if I've ever seem one) who are both small, and unskilled. The Habs have a serious problem with these kinds of players, we had more Smurfs in our lineup two years ago than the entire Western Conference. It's like an addiction. Little squirt hockey players don't win a thing. Boston was pretty big. So was LA. Pittsburgh wasn't small, and neither was Carolina, and especially Anaheim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.