Of course size matters, but not the the extent aragorn believes. It seems that to him the sole factor in making the NHL is being over 6'0, which is ludicrous. I've seen him write off countless players who are small before they've even properly adjusted to pro hockey. Guys like Petersson make his bust list now, Hoffman was there last year but since he grew from 5'11 to 6'0, he's now a worthwhile prospect.
How is it that guys like Kane, RNH, Crosby or Duchene have stepped right into the league and dominated being the small players they are? As has been mentioned, skating and hockey IQ are the most important factors in a player making it to the next level. If just being big was so important in the league, Hugh Jessiman would be one of the league's bright stars. Instead guys like Parise and Kessel are.
Size CAN be an issue but I think that's more a positional worry these days. Sub 5'10 forwards are fairly common. For goalies and defensemen size is more of an asset and more likely to hold a player back. Defenders get a huge advantage if they are stronger and have a longer wing span than the players they have to contain while goalies will cover more of the net.
The speed of the game is more than it's ever been, puck movement and possession qualities are beginning to dominate. The game is as free flowing as ever. There's a place for Nathan Gerbe and Rocco Grimaldi may have been a top 10-15 player on several progressive organizations' lists last year.
The ability to make the right decisions in the least amount of time is becoming the most important thing. It's the innateSkating can always be improved to some degree, so can strength....you can't teach a player to be Skinner/Duchene/Karlsson....and you can't teach him to be Lucic or Greening. But you can get him to the necessary levels like we are doing with Stone, or force them to play harder physically like Alfie has done, like we tell guys like Sorensen and Pageau to do.
You can't sit a kid in a class room and teach him how to make decisions on the ice. Hockey sense and puck skills rules out and you can't beat it...the rest is why Director's of Player Development and extensive development scheming has become so prevalent.
At a younger age it's all skating...because the best skaters skate circles around the other kids. The higher you get, the skating is evened out and the smarter kids win out. The big kids with skill and hockey sense at the extreme are guys like Malkin, and they are on a different level because they have everything.
For an example of how hockey sense dominates size in terms of importance....see Ryan Nugent Hopkins, a PPG 18 year old that can't be dominated physically because he gets rid of the puck before you can catch him. And it's always on a teammates stick, even when no one is seemingly open. That's why the first time I saw RNH I thought he was being so underrated.
Filatov's an outstanding skater....but so far I think what he's failed to show yet, if he ever will, is on ice smarts to match it.
Last edited by Minister of Offence: 11-30-2011 at 03:20 PM.
Conveniently? ... You constantly talk of size and toughness. Goalies provide neither. Bottom pairing D-men and 4th liners provide marignal levels of both because they don't play enough or against the right match-ups to make enough of an impact.
Do you remember when Ottawa was getting pushed around a decade ago? ... The Senators has plenty of size and toughness on the 4th line and bottom pairing. They still got pushed around because if your size and toughness play on the 4th line and bottom pairing, you don't have any!
This is a pretty important point to make, size and toughness needs to be evenly distributed throughout the lineup. IMO it is pretty evident that this team doesn't play very tough without Neil in the lineup. Yes Neil is the physical leader on the team but he only has a few more years of playing and then someone else will have to take on that role. I expect that when Neil and Carkner are back -as I posted in another thread- that we will see far more aggressive play from Cowen, Greening, Smith and Foligno.
I still think the sens could use some more toughness in the top six and that is why I suggested trying to acquire Chris Stewart from St Louis. With Stone, Zibanejad and Noeson coming up through the system we could have a few gritty and physical top six forwards over the next few seasons. We could still possibly use a few more power forward prospects though.
On defence, we are very soft now but in a few years we shouldn't be. Cowen, Gryba, Borocop, Blood and Sdao should provide plenty of toughness on the backend.
IMO you absolutely need tons of size and toughness to be successful in this league and compete for a cup. However, in terms of size, you don't need giants, you need very physically strong players that can win battles long the boards and in front of the net. In terms of toughness, you need players that are willing to make hits and to stick up for themselves and their team mates. Brenden Morrow and Mike Richards are good examples of really tough players who aren't overly big but are strong. But then again it helps to have size, as we have already seen this season it is hard to stop Greening or Michalek when they drive hard to the net.
Rather, I wasn't using the picture as an indication of his height. I've stood beside him I know he's not 6'. With that said I was using the picture more to show just how small he is (not his height.)
I'm sorry but Karlsson is not 6'0 - 180. I would be surprised if he's bigger than 5'10 - 160.
Huh? am I missing something?
BTW, he was listed as 5' 11 163 at the combine, they take their measurements pretty seriously there (precise to a quarter inch), so I imagine they were accurate at the time. It's pretty unlikely he has shrunk since 2008.
BTW, he was listed as 5' 11 163 at the combine, they take their measurements pretty seriously there (precise to a quarter inch), so I imagine they were accurate at the time. It's pretty unlikely he has shrunk since 2008.
Your post is 20 minutes later and you still neglected to read the post I followed it up with?
BTW, he was listed as 5' 11 163 at the combine, they take their measurements pretty seriously there (precise to a quarter inch), so I imagine they were accurate at the time. It's pretty unlikely he has shrunk since 2008.
I see him around Kanata all the time. He's at the very least 5'11 but looks more like 6'0. 6'0, 180lbs seems pretty accurate for him.
Your post is 20 minutes later and you still neglected to read the post I followed it up with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJam613
Rather, I wasn't using the picture as an indication of his height. I've stood beside him I know he's not 6'. With that said I was using the picture more to show just how small he is (not his height.)
Your still talking about his height. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from your follow up that indicates otherwise.
The picture shows he is skinny, I get it. The combine shows his height far more accurately than your assessment of his height while standing beside him.
Size means less than strength and attitude. Doug Gilmour was like 160 pounds by the second round of the playoffs. He was a force of nature regardless. St. Louis knocked Chara on his ass.. In the playoffs. Size is better... But it does not mean all that much.
As many have stated, looking simply at size is an extreme oversimplification. It plays a role, and combined with speed, skill, work ethic, tenacity and most importantly hockey sense, determines how a player will play.
In terms of how good a player is, I would say that size would rank somewhere near the bottom on a tangible list of most important player attributes.
The speed of the game is more than it's ever been, puck movement and possession qualities are beginning to dominate. The game is as free flowing as ever. There's a place for Nathan Gerbe and Rocco Grimaldi may have been a top 10-15 player on several progressive organizations' lists last year.
The ability to make the right decisions in the least amount of time is becoming the most important thing. It's the innateSkating can always be improved to some degree, so can strength....you can't teach a player to be Skinner/Duchene/Karlsson....and you can't teach him to be Lucic or Greening. But you can get him to the necessary levels like we are doing with Stone, or force them to play harder physically like Alfie has done, like we tell guys like Sorensen and Pageau to do.
You can't sit a kid in a class room and teach him how to make decisions on the ice. Hockey sense and puck skills rules out and you can't beat it...the rest is why Director's of Player Development and extensive development scheming has become so prevalent.
At a younger age it's all skating...because the best skaters skate circles around the other kids. The higher you get, the skating is evened out and the smarter kids win out. The big kids with skill and hockey sense at the extreme are guys like Malkin, and they are on a different level because they have everything.
For an example of how hockey sense dominates size in terms of importance....see Ryan Nugent Hopkins, a PPG 18 year old that can't be dominated physically because he gets rid of the puck before you can catch him. And it's always on a teammates stick, even when no one is seemingly open. That's why the first time I saw RNH I thought he was being so underrated.
Filatov's an outstanding skater....but so far I think what he's failed to show yet, if he ever will, is on ice smarts to match it.
It will be interesting to see how RNH does in the playoffs when the going gets rough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruiser
This is a pretty important point to make, size and toughness needs to be evenly distributed throughout the lineup. IMO it is pretty evident that this team doesn't play very tough without Neil in the lineup. Yes Neil is the physical leader on the team but he only has a few more years of playing and then someone else will have to take on that role. I expect that when Neil and Carkner are back -as I posted in another thread- that we will see far more aggressive play from Cowen, Greening, Smith and Foligno.
I still think the sens could use some more toughness in the top six and that is why I suggested trying to acquire Chris Stewart from St Louis. With Stone, Zibanejad and Noeson coming up through the system we could have a few gritty and physical top six forwards over the next few seasons. We could still possibly use a few more power forward prospects though.
On defence, we are very soft now but in a few years we shouldn't be. Cowen, Gryba, Borocop, Blood and Sdao should provide plenty of toughness on the backend.
IMO you absolutely need tons of size and toughness to be successful in this league and compete for a cup. However, in terms of size, you don't need giants, you need very physically strong players that can win battles long the boards and in front of the net. In terms of toughness, you need players that are willing to make hits and to stick up for themselves and their team mates. Brenden Morrow and Mike Richards are good examples of really tough players who aren't overly big but are strong. But then again it helps to have size, as we have already seen this season it is hard to stop Greening or Michalek when they drive hard to the net.
Couldn't agree more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FolignoQuantumLeap
Of course size matters, but not the the extent aragorn believes. It seems that to him the sole factor in making the NHL is being over 6'0, which is ludicrous. I've seen him write off countless players who are small before they've even properly adjusted to pro hockey. Guys like Petersson make his bust list now, Hoffman was there last year but since he grew from 5'11 to 6'0, he's now a worthwhile prospect.
How is it that guys like Kane, RNH, Crosby or Duchene have stepped right into the league and dominated being the small players they are? As has been mentioned, skating and hockey IQ are the most important factors in a player making it to the next level. If just being big was so important in the league, Hugh Jessiman would be one of the league's bright stars. Instead guys like Parise and Kessel are.
Size CAN be an issue but I think that's more a positional worry these days. Sub 5'10 forwards are fairly common. For goalies and defensemen size is more of an asset and more likely to hold a player back. Defenders get a huge advantage if they are stronger and have a longer wing span than the players they have to contain while goalies will cover more of the net.
All good posts. Let's be clear when I say size I include weight & strength which comes with being a professional hockey player who constantly work out. I initially looked at this because I wanted to know how many players in the NHL were under 6', that's it, no other motives. I found it interesting that there were only approx. 169 players under 6' out of approx. 750 players.
I didn't think it would turn into what's more important but it has. I don't think it's the most important factor obviously skill which includes IQ & skating are the most important but I do think that size has become an important factor. I also think that it is an important factor in going a long way in the playoffs & winning cups & that's why I bring it up in posts. Every yr we see a lot of very rough & hard hitting playoff games & I wonder how smaller or softer players will fare in games like that. For a smaller player Marchand played very well in the playoffs & seems to enjoy the rough games. Then I wonder about Sens players & how a Da Costa or Petersson or Pageau would do in playoff games like that? Afterall, it is about winning the cup.
