Do the teams that added “toughness” improve?

[HanSolo]

Just like the wider NHL fanbase, I think Drury vastly overestimates Reaves' role as an enforcer and general physical presence. At this point in his career, Reaves' hit selection is almost always a zero impact play. When Vegas would get particularly roughed up or cheap shotted by other teams we'd all watch and wait for Reavo to do something about it and 9 times out of 10 he wouldn't.

Guess NYR gets the benefit that Reaves and Wilson have pre-existing beef but any opponent besides Washington, he's not gonna contribute much of anything.

There was a time in his stint with Vegas where he was a serviceable fourth line grinder who did a good job playing the cycle game and won board battles to keep the puck in the offensive zone. That time has passed. He had maybe one game all season where he looked like a serviceable fourth liner. The rest was a lot of floating and not doing much of anything.

 

[Bounces R Way]

In a physical game like hockey intimidation will always play a role. It doesn't show up in the colored charts and shot metrics so it's not really in vogue in the hockey schema currently but it's absolutely an important part of the game. Having a 4th line that can bang and crash softens up defenses for the top 6.

I don't think any of the teams mentioned have suddenly adopted toughness as their main goal. They all still have talent that can score. They just wanted to be tougher to play against.

 

[Volica]

In a physical game like hockey intimidation will always play a role. It doesn't show up in the colored charts and shot metrics so it's not really in vogue in the hockey schema currently but it's absolutely an important part of the game. Having a 4th line that can bang and crash softens up defenses for the top 6.

I don't think any of the teams mentioned have suddenly adopted toughness as their main goal. They all still have talent that can score. They just wanted to be tougher to play against.

MFer's act like Tampa doesn't employ Pat Maroon.
These big physical guys who add intimidation/toughness will always have a home in the league. A guy like Milan Lucic doesn't have to fight once, and you know the other team thinks about him.

 

[serp]

Outside of occasionally cheap shotting a guy Reaves really doesn't do a whole lot. He's no offensive threat and also bad defensively and he also turns 35 in January.

Tough guys that bring other things to the table outside of that toughtness have some value. I don't think Reaves does. Didn't think he did when he was with the Blues or the Knights and that won't change with the Rangers.

 

[HuGo Sham]

It's a factor. When Bergevin added Edmunson and Chiarot to Weber, it created a very intimating top 4.
Adding Josh Anderson opened up space for the likes of Suzuki and Drouin, then Caufield.
Corey Perry was a significant add to the bottom six and took some of the agitation responsibilities
away from Gallagher. He'll be missed.

As per Reaves, he was a non-factor in the habs series and I think was benched after game 2.
I understand why NY did it though; they need to insulate the skill guys and prevent Wilson
from continuing to live rent-free in the organization's head

 

[deckercky]

I don't think Canucks really added toughness in particular.

 

[YippieKaey]

I mean looking at past Stanley Cup winners it seems clear to me that grit and tenacity is needed to win the cup. Maybe the Pens were the exception but i feel like most teams who won had some grit, some checkers and people who went through the boards.

 

[The Moose is Loose]

Since people are talking about modern hockey team building trends, Right now, big mobile dmen are in. They’re the rarest thing in hockey and GMs know that.

Hedman has been a vital (if not THE most vital part of back to back winning cup teams)
Parakyo/Pietrangelo played massive roles on the Blues cup winning team.

Look at the contracts Jones, Werenski, Hamilton have signed and Nurse is about to sign.

 

[CupsOverCash]

Not always gotta have the right mix.

 

[Machinehead]

Hold on. Aren't you technically obese?

What?! No, why would I be obese?

 

[bov]

Zadorov, Ceci, Poolman?

With all due respect, anyone bringing up Ceci and Poolman in a discussion about "toughness" makes me think you shouldn't be allowed to use the word.

The only team listed in OP that fits the description is New York, and yes I think their additions of Goodrow, Reaves and Tinordi compliment their youth and skill very nicely. I love what they're doing , and you can be sure that their players will appreciate having some formidable teammates around when the going gets tough.

Toronto is another team that made a noticeable effort to add some tough guys around the edges (re signing Simmonds, adding Ritchie, Gabriel) and I think it will serve them well. Only someone who lives in delusion would ingore the human intimidation aspect of the game, and when you surround soft, young skill with toughness, it generally adds a notch of confidence.

 

[EhlersChin]

Leafs definitely added to the 5min fighting major category. K Gabriel might be sniffing around the leaders. N Ritchie can rumble, he's gotta keep that giant head steady though, once it starts to wobble he loses his balance.

 

[RoyalRed]

In some cases, yes. It depends on the players you target. Didn't Tampa literally get over the hump by targeting the likes of Coleman and Goodrow? Maybe not targeted for toughness per se but grit for sure.

 

[Nucker101]

The Canucks did not get tougher lol. Edler is gone and was the team's most physical dman and Roussel was an agitator, both are gone. Poolman is big but ask Jets fans how tough he is. OEL is a skill player, he'll throw some hits but he's never been considered tough. Garland plays hard, he's tough in that aspect like a Roussel, but he's not intimidating at all at his size.

Schenn is the only one qualifies as a true "toughness" addition and he's a marginal NHL'er.

 

[ESH]

Zadorov, Ceci, Poolman?

Cody Ceci? Really

You think Edmonton losing Adam Larsson and replacing him with Cody Ceci is adding toughness?

 

[Osakahaus]

Toughness all depends on chemistry. I do not buy what the Rangers and Flames did, because they were fine as is with their skill and speed. Problem is that one ignored their goaltending and the other is a god damn soft team from their entire DNA (Rangers)

 

[Colt.45Orr]

It barely makes a difference if any, but sure.

Why comment on shit you know nothing about?

Boston's #2 and 3 Dmen were knocked out of games (and the series for Carlo) by big, legal Clutterbuck hits.

Seriously, sit down and shut up.

 

[Panda Bear]

Why comment on shit you know nothing about?

Boston's #2 and 3 Dmen were knocked out of games (and the series for Carlo) by big, legal Clutterbuck hits.

Seriously, sit down and shut up.

I'll comment because I understand hockey, and the following is a breakdown as to why I understand it better than you do.

(1) The chances of knocking a player out of a game let alone a series with a big hit is miniscule.

(2) Defencemen are either going to absorb the hit or evade the forechecker. It is not common for defencemen to bail out of plays because they're scared to be hit.

(3) Running around hitting people on the forecheck ups the tempo, but it's largely meaningless if the players aren't good enough to do anything with a turnover or interception (e.g. Martin, Clutterbuck).

(4) A high energy forechecker trying to pick off passes or steal the puck (e.g. Hyman) is more effective than one who just tries to land the biggest hit, and one reason is that they don't take themselves out of position going for that hit.

(5) If a player runs around being physical and that's all they can bring, they're a bad player even if they get lucky enough to knock two players out of a series.

Adding toughness for the sake of toughness is stupid, and Martin being really physical on the forecheck isn't going to change that.