Jihadi Flames Fan
1989
- Sep 13, 2009
- 2,350
- 161
Is anyone concerned about the size of our wingers? Johnny Gaudreau... 5' 6", Paul Byron.. 5' 7", Jiri Hudler.. 5' 10", Sven Baertschi.. 5' 11".. Mason Raymond.. 6' 0". All south of six feet. 
Winger size
- Thread starter Jihadi Flames Fan
- Start date
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
It's not like they will all be in the NHL at the same time. What about the rest of the wingers?Is anyone concerned about the size of our wingers? Johnny Gaudreau... 5' 6", Paul Byron.. 5' 7", Jiri Hudler.. 5' 10", Sven Baertschi.. 5' 11".. Mason Raymond.. 6' 0". All south of six feet.
Glencross, Colborne, Jones, McGrattan, Bollig, Bouma. Or does mentioning them not fit your plan?
Jihadi Flames Fan
1989
- Sep 13, 2009
- 2,350
- 161
The guys I listed, save for Paul Byron, are projected top-6 forwards. The guys you listed, save for maybe Glencross, are all bottom-6 forwards. Colour me worried.
MonahanTheMan
Pray for Flames
Is anyone concerned about the size of our wingers? Johnny Gaudreau... 5' 6", Paul Byron.. 5' 7", Jiri Hudler.. 5' 10", Sven Baertschi.. 5' 11".. Mason Raymond.. 6' 0". All south of six feet.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
You again are without a clue. Maybe 3 of those guys will be in the lineup come opening night. and there is no concern about the size of Hudler or Raymond as they have proven themselves. You are also selling Colborne very short.
Is anyone concerned about the size of our wingers? Johnny Gaudreau... 5' 6", Paul Byron.. 5' 7", Jiri Hudler.. 5' 10", Sven Baertschi.. 5' 11".. Mason Raymond.. 6' 0". All south of six feet.
Calm down, Burke.
Jihadi Flames Fan
1989
- Sep 13, 2009
- 2,350
- 161
So 3/4 of our top-six wingers this season will be < 6 ft. Hudler and Raymond won't scare anybody. Also, Colborne is not a top-six forward.
Last edited:
So 3/4 of our top-six wingers this season will be < 6 ft. Hudler and Raymond won't scare anybody. Colborne is not a top-six forward.
I think you're really overvaluing size.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
God you are such a drama queen.So 3/4 of our top-six wingers this season will be < 6 ft. Hudler and Raymond won't scare anybody. Also, Colborne is not a top-six forward.
1) not all 3 will be in the top 6. they may even be on 3 different lines.
2) Colborne has proven more at the NHL level than Sven or Gaudreau and will be in the top 6 just as easily as them this year (probably same time as I see one of them being the other winger on his line)
3) if Colborne is not in the top 6, then Jones will be.
4) stop being a drama queen. the team is going to suck for a bunch of reasons, having 1 too many soft, small wingers is the least of our problems.
Backlund 6'0, 198
Glencross 6'1, 197
Hudler 5'10, 186
Jones 6'2, 210
Monahan 6'2, 185
Raymond 6'0, 185
Stajan 6'1, 192
All 7 of these guys will likely make up most of our top 6 the majority of the year. Yes, guys like Byron and Gaudreau are small, but thats where guys like Bollig, Wolf, and McGrattan step in. Even then, Byron plays like he's 6'2.
Glencross 6'1, 197
Hudler 5'10, 186
Jones 6'2, 210
Monahan 6'2, 185
Raymond 6'0, 185
Stajan 6'1, 192
All 7 of these guys will likely make up most of our top 6 the majority of the year. Yes, guys like Byron and Gaudreau are small, but thats where guys like Bollig, Wolf, and McGrattan step in. Even then, Byron plays like he's 6'2.
Jihadi Flames Fan
1989
- Sep 13, 2009
- 2,350
- 161
Do I need to remind you who won the Stanley Cup last season? All recent Stanley Cup winning teams - Boston Bruins, Chicago Blackhawks, LA Kings - have been "big" teams. Even Burke's Anaheim team was a big team. Big, heavy hockey = success. That will never change.
Why do you think size is so coveted around the league?
Johnny Hoxville
The Return of a Legend
Do I need to remind you who won the Stanley Cup last year? All recent Stanley Cup winning teams - Boston Bruins, Chicago Blackhawks, LA Kings - have been "big" teams. Big, heavy hockey = success. That will never change.
Why do you think size is so coveted around the league?
The Flames have also done their best to address the issue. Unfortunately, it's going to be a while because were rebuilding.
Do I need to remind you who won the Stanley Cup last season? All recent Stanley Cup winning teams - Boston Bruins, Chicago Blackhawks, LA Kings - have been "big" teams. Even Burke's Anaheim team was a big team. Big, heavy hockey = success. That will never change.
Why do you think size is so coveted around the league?
Maybe, but teams like Colorado/Minnesota/Montreal are pretty good teams, albeit small.
WhereIsIt
alongtheboards
Do I need to remind you who won the Stanley Cup last year? All recent Stanley Cup winning teams - Boston Bruins, Chicago Blackhawks, LA Kings - have been "big" teams. Even Burke's Anaheim team was a big team. Big, heavy hockey = success. That will never change.
Why do you think size is so coveted around the league?
Are those teams great teams because they have great players, or are they great teams because their wingers are tall?
Size is just one of many factors that combine to create an effective player. As long as we are building a team of effective players, we are moving in the right direction. Once we are a playoff team and if there are concerns about playoff durability/toughness/sizeness/whatever that need to be addressed, then we can address them at that time.
Do I need to remind you who won the Stanley Cup last season? All recent Stanley Cup winning teams - Boston Bruins, Chicago Blackhawks, LA Kings - have been "big" teams. Even Burke's Anaheim team was a big team. Big, heavy hockey = success. That will never change.
Why do you think size is so coveted around the league?
LA won because they were a very deep team that had some insane chemistry.
Chicago won the cup because they have an insane amount of skill, and Crawford was amazing.
Boston won the cup because Thomas played like a ****ing god. Yes, the size helped big time, but it alone didn't win them the cup.
All three of these teams drafted and developed skilled players. For the most part, the addition of grit/size was added afterwards.
Jihadi Flames Fan
1989
- Sep 13, 2009
- 2,350
- 161
The Flames were a very fast team, developed amazing chemistry, and had Kipper behind them. Your case sucks.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
Riding on the backs of Iginla and Kiprusoff? You really need better evidence before you rest your case.
Jihadi Flames Fan
1989
- Sep 13, 2009
- 2,350
- 161
We also had Simon, Oliwa, Nieminen, Clark, Regehr, Warrener, Ference, Gauthier, etc. that made playing the Flames a nightmare. Once Sutter got rid of most/all of those players, despite still having Iginla/Kiprusoff, the team went south.
Ference is a horrible example.
and you're completely ignoring the fact that the Flames have guys like Bollig, Bouma, McGrattan, Smid, and Engelland. Just because what you're calling our 'Top 6 wingers' aren't 6'2+, doesn't mean it's a concern.
