HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Edmonton Oilers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   Player Weights: Oilers vs. the Division (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1466847)

Delicious Pancakes 07-10-2013 07:57 PM

Player Weights: Oilers vs. the Division
 
Looking at the guys on the Oilers roster they're pretty light compared to the rest of the division they're moving into. If you exclude Ben Eager (236 lbs.) who may or may not be on the roster the heaviest skater is Jesse Joensuu at 209 lbs. The average NHL weight last year was 203.5 lbs. On the current roster there are only five skaters over that weight, six if you include Klefbom.

Below I will list the other teams in the division and the number of skaters they have who are heavier than Jesse Joensuu at 209 lbs, and how many players are heavier than the NHL average weight of 203.5 lbs. Also l provided links to team rosters.

San Jose: 10 players > 209 lbs; 14 players > 203.5 lbs.
http://sharks.nhl.com/club/roster.htm?navid=NAV

Los Angeles: 10 > 209 lbs; 13 > 203.5 lbs.
http://kings.nhl.com/club/roster.htm

Anaheim: 9 > 209 lbs; 12 > 203.5 lbs.
http://ducks.nhl.com/club/roster.htm

Phoenix: 9 > 209 lbs; 10 > 203.5 lbs.
http://coyotes.nhl.com/club/roster.htm

Vancouver: 8 > 209 lbs; 9 > 203.5 lbs.
http://canucks.nhl.com/club/roster.htm

Calgary: 6 > 209 lbs; 6 > 203.5 lbs.
http://flames.nhl.com/club/roster.htm

Edmonton 0 > 209lbs; 5 or 6 > 203.5
http://oilers.nhl.com/club/roster.htm

I think it's fair to say the Oilers need help in the size department.

GreatKeith 07-10-2013 08:00 PM

Is it safe to say California is fat?

Happy Hallidays 07-10-2013 08:07 PM

That Calgary team is gonna be so much better then us becaues of there weight!

Replacement 07-10-2013 08:12 PM

tbh I don't understand the OP at all. The Oilers, and every team have several players over 200lbs or whatever it is the thread is about. Really from the OP I couldn't make out what the analysis is.

The Bored Man 07-10-2013 08:15 PM

The size of the dog in the fight doesn't matter, the size of the fight in the dog does.

Unfortunately, the Oilers have neither. Yeah yeah, Hall and Yakupov play balls to the wall but it really isn't enough. LA and San Jose are going to pick their teeth with those forwards.

armandh01 07-10-2013 08:18 PM

Playing with passion > playing 10lbs heavier.

Delicious Pancakes 07-10-2013 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Replacement (Post 69050089)
tbh I don't understand the OP at all. The Oilers, and every team have several players over 200lbs or whatever it is the thread is about. Really from the OP I couldn't make out what the analysis is.

The Oilers Heaviest player now is Joensuu at 209 lbs. I listed how many players each team has that are heavier than him, and how many players each team has that are heavier than the NHL average weight of 203.5 lbs.

Jepprey 07-10-2013 08:18 PM

It really isn't about height and weight for me. It's the type of player that makes a difference. Even averages don't mean much to me as well.

There are quite a few <6 foot guys that are gritty crash and bang type players in the league. And butter soft 6'4 guys everywhere.

nofool6110 07-10-2013 08:19 PM

Just for fun...

Montreal Canadiens
7>209 lb, 3>203.5

10>6
We've got less heavyweights than the Smurfs, yadda yadda.

Replacement 07-10-2013 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delicious Pancakes (Post 69050345)
The Oilers Heaviest player now is Joensuu at 209 lbs. I listed how many players each team has that are heavier than him, and how many players each team has that are heavier than the NHL average weight of 203.5 lbs.

This immediately sets up an arbitrary weight sample that at the outset skew your stats before you start. Which is a sort of fact finding confirmation bias. Much different numbers are revealed if we look at say 200lbs. Results also change if we correct for age and with veteran NHL players as a rule weighing more than when they broke into the league.

B A T M A N* 07-10-2013 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jepprey (Post 69050363)
It really isn't about height and weight for me. It's the type of player that makes a difference. Even averages don't mean much to me as well.

There are quite a few <6 foot guys that are gritty crash and bang type players in the league. And butter soft 6'4 guys everywhere.

Exactly. A team full of Marchand's and Richard's (Mike) (both under 6 feet and 200lbs) are tougher to play against than a team full of Antropov's and Penner's..

Flawed thread.

armandh01 07-10-2013 08:29 PM

How big is Chicago? And compared to Boston?

Hemsky4PM 07-10-2013 08:29 PM

I fully expect MacT to add some beef (not the butter soft kind). Is Dave Steckel soft? I would take him as a 4th line C and give Lander a full OKC year. I suspect some things hinge on the return for Hemsky.

BarDownBobo 07-10-2013 08:39 PM

Did you already forget that the smaller, skilled Blackhawks beat the big, bruising Kings and Bruins en route to a Stanley Cup? Size is overblown, and while it is nice to have, it can be beaten with skill.

Delicious Pancakes 07-10-2013 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Replacement (Post 69050455)
This immediately sets up an arbitrary weight sample that at the outset skew your stats before you start. Which is a sort of fact finding confirmation bias. Much different numbers are revealed if we look at say 200lbs. Results also change if we correct for age and with veteran NHL players as a rule weighing more than when they broke into the league.

Which is why I provided links to the roster pages of each team so that people would have quick access to compare rosters. I could see how you could have that opinion if you're just taking a cursory look though.

Delicious Pancakes 07-10-2013 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armandh01 (Post 69050845)
How big is Chicago? And compared to Boston?

And are Chicago and Boston going to have to play 5 games each against teams in their division that are significantly larger than themselves? I would think that it might take a toll. On the other hand maybe it will make the Oilers a tougher team having to fight through bigger players. I guess we'll see.

Delicious Pancakes 07-10-2013 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B A T M A N (Post 69050749)
Exactly. A team full of Marchand's and Richard's (Mike) (both under 6 feet and 200lbs) are tougher to play against than a team full of Antropov's and Penner's..

Flawed thread.

How many Marchand or Richards types do the Oilers have? Hall to a degree, maybe Smyth although he's less effective now that he's older, Brown and Ference. The Oilers don't exactly have a team full of those guys.

Vagabond 07-10-2013 11:00 PM

What is the OP on about.. Labarbera is 230LBS! Dubs is 210LBS! :sarcasm:

Trafalgar Law 07-10-2013 11:01 PM

We absolutely have to get some size. If not in the top 6, jettison some redundancies like Hemsky and some dead weight like Smyth and grab a Kyle Clifford/Jordan Nolan type player.

armandh01 07-10-2013 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delicious Pancakes (Post 69057111)
And are Chicago and Boston going to have to play 5 games each against teams in their division that are significantly larger than themselves. I would think that it might take a toll. On the other hand maybe it will make the Oilers a tougher team having to fight through bigger players. I guess we'll see.

It was actually a genuine question because I was curious; however, I can see how it came off as me implying snidely that Chicago beat Boston with a weight disadvantage, when I didn't mean to.


That said. Weight and size mean very little. A cohesive team with a good system is what matters.


Size is helpful, not going to detract completely from that attribute but the Oilers had a list of problems and size is probably closer to the bottom. Yes it needs to be addressed but there we're other VERY glaring problems.

Bigger problems than size: Passion, Depth, Coaching, Systems and then maybe Size.


RNH, Hall and Ebs aren't big players but I can't recall a single line they went up against that they didn't make look small.

AlowlyOilersfan 07-10-2013 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatKeith (Post 69049511)
Is it safe to say California is fat?

It's the burgers. :sarcasm:

RisingSun 07-10-2013 11:16 PM

Flawed logic in the OP but it is still true that we're the weakest/sofest team in this league.

AVE MAN 07-10-2013 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armandh01 (Post 69050845)
How big is Chicago? And compared to Boston?

this

PETRYDISH 07-10-2013 11:25 PM

Ah this team needs speed and compete. Size is nice BUT not the entire answer to our problems. Ference, Gordon and Perron really fit a need. I'm happy thus far. Bottom six I think is where we could use more size I suppose if we are looking to add. I still really won't believe it if Smyth is on the opening roster next year, the guy is everything we are NOT looking for right now. Really would like to see him replaced by a faster more abrasive player. If I have to see another feeble wraps around or a Smitty clapper down the wing I think I might lose it. AGH I'm ripping a childhood hero right now and probably going off topic a bit.... Just gotta rant...

okgooil 07-10-2013 11:52 PM

Not even sure where these numbers come from Joensuu, Brown, Eager, and Belov are all over 209.

So there is 4 right there.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:01 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.