View Single Post
Old
01-28-2013, 01:57 PM
  #84
Bone for your jar
Registered User
 
Bone for your jar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Boston, Mass.
Posts: 2,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellmaniaKW View Post
my "who cares?" post got deleted so I guess I'll elaborate. My point is that as long as the B's are a successful team, who cares how big they are? The current team is really not any smaller than the cup-winning team..
To the bolded part: if the Bruins' success (and by this I assume you refer to the Cup two seasons ago) nullifies the need for any improvements, then the same applies to any other characteristic of the roster: who cares how much scoring skill they have? Who cares how good the goalies are? Who cares how fit they are?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellmaniaKW View Post
I reject the notion that the Bruins need to add size for the sake of getting bigger when you consider that when the Bruins swapped out Stuart and Wheeler for Kelly and Peverley they got significantly smaller and it improved the team. For so many years the Bruins were frustrating to watch because they were always trying to be big and bad and then would lose to smaller, more skilled teams like the Habs. With Chia at the helm, this franchise has come so far to get away from that mentality and it has produced the first cup in 40 years so I don't know why anyone would suggest that we need to shift philosophy back in that direction.
The fact that it made sense to trade size (mind you, in Wheeler's case, it was size that for the most part he did not use) for speed a couple of years ago to address a glaring deficit (we were slooow) doesn't mean that today we should overlook potential deficits in size in certain key positions. This isn't an either/or thing, and we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Size (and to be more precise: effective size that facilitates moving bodies out of the way, staying in place in front of the net, and possibly intimidation) will always be relevant; speed will always be relevant; and skill will always be relevant. Our first line, two seasons ago, was endowed with a tremendous amount of effective size. Whether that continues to be the case, in the wake of Horton's concussion issues, remains an open question mark. Our second line doesn't have great size but makes up for it via tenacity (Marchy & Bergy) and tremendous strength on the stick (Bergy). Our third line currently has a small left winger. Again, whether this means he will "play small" remains an open question. The fourth line is fine, size-wise. My point is that this is a case-by-case, line-by-line question.

Do the B's have less need to acquire size than most other teams? Yes. Does this mean that the team would not be improved by the acquisition of more size at certain positions? No. Does the fact that we could be improved by more size at certain positions mean that size trumps all other considerations, and we can stop looking for speed and skill? No and no!

Bone for your jar is offline   Reply With Quote