The Armchair GM Thread - Part XXXII - Kessel Run Edition
View Single Post
02-19-2013, 12:59 AM
Join Date: Oct 2006
Originally Posted by
Who's saying physicality can't positively affect a team's fortunes? People are just saying it's not an end but rather a means to an end.
LA was successful because they were able to control the game. This was clearly reflected in their numbers both in the stretch run and the playoffs. Here's an article prior to the playoffs highlighting their dominant possession numbers to end the season:
A team being physical is of no benefit if it doesn't lead to good results. The Kings won because they used physicality to run the play just as a team like Chicago used mobility and skill to win. They're all tools that can be used for success, but that's all they are is tools used to reach the goal of winning hockey games.
Wow, that is incredible. And you're right. Being physical means nothing itself - you have to use that physical forecheck to wear out your opponents and force them to make mistakes (see Edler). It worked for the Canucks against the Hawks as well.
I'm also a big believer that the team that initiates physicality will end up healthier than the team that is more on the receiving end in any given series. The physical edge is so important. But again, you have to be able to make it work. Nashville initially worried me because they seemed so physical, but the Canucks neutralized their forecheck by playing so well in the neutral zone. Nashville could never get in.
Last edited by Momesso: 02-19-2013 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Momesso