Discussion in 'National Hockey League Talk' started by grcenter47, Jun 23, 2019.
Historically, smaller teams have always dominated the Cup.
There are advantages and disadvantages to having a long reach vs a short reach, or being heavier or lighter etc etc.
Sometimes they add up in your favor, sometimes they don't. Dont we all know this by now?
Marchand would be a stiff 3rd line 10 goal guy if he was 6ft. Conversely Jiri Hudler might have been the next Wayne Gretzky if his legs werent so stubby...
Of course it matters, hockey is a physical combat sport. But there are plenty of skilled smaller players who can make up what they lack in size with other attributes and still be successful. A bigger guy with otherwise same attributes would be better than the smaller one, but it's very rare that the big guys have the same set of abilities as the smaller ones.
Tell that to the St. Louis Blues and Boston Bruins. Not to mention the Broad Street Bullies and Bruins of the 70's, the Devils, Avalanche and Stars of the 90's, the LA Kings of a couple of years ago. Last year's Capitals were hardly small as well. You have a few times that Chicago and Pittsburgh win and all of a sudden small teams have always dominated?
If I could choose between a 5'9" Johnny Gaudreau or a magically conjured equal 6'2" Johnny Gudreau, I would take the aberration.
Size isn't the most important thing, Marchand plays bigger than Johnny Gudreau, they're around the same height. Playoff hockey is tighter and you won't be able to ice a team of nonphysical, soft, super skilled players. Those players can still be successful, though.
The Boston Bruins are one of the smaller teams in the league and have been for ten years.
They only have 7 players over 6'1" and only 5 are regulars.
And the other examples?
The Devils of the 90's were a huge team, yes.
The Avs were above average size but nothing to write home about. The Stars weren't a big team at all.
The Habs and Oilers dynasties had size in the bottom six but all of their star players were very small.
The only bonafide dynasty that had a really big roster were the 80's Islanders. All the others were pretty small unless you count the Devils as a dynasty.
The late 90's and early 00's Red Wings were also not a big team.
Lol, Dallas wasn't small, unless you are referring to guys like Pat Verbeek on the team, and in that case it's really being dishonest about what size brings. He wasn't the typical 5 foot 9 player.
And if you aren't consdering the 70's Flyers as a dynasty, you need to rethink things. They changed the game completely.
Did they, though?
They won two Cups and then we went back to small Montreal teams winning them all.
Of course they did. And then what happened to Montreal? They got crushed by the bigger and stronger Islanders.
Regardless, your earlier statement that smaller teams have always dominated the cup has been proven false.
And then the Islanders got crushed by the smaller and more talented Oilers.
Yes, big nasty teams have won Cups. Teams near the bottom of the league in size have won a lot more Cups.
Prove that please. You're saying that teams that were at worst average sized were small, and ignoring that quite often, a dynasty of small players was usurped by a dynasty of large ones.
Nobody is saying that big players always trump smaller ones. But to suggest that size and height doesn't make a difference is wrong.
I'm sure going to 5 straight finals and the Canada Cup had nothing to do with that though....
james mirtle: 2014-15 NHL teams by height, weight and age - A hockey journalist's blog
The 2014-15 Blackhawks were 29th in weight and 21st in height. That's not average at worst.
Of course, that makes sense given the grind of the playoffs, and that smaller people are generally better equipped to last longer.
I'm sure that had a lot to do with it
It's about the motion of the ocean.
Ok, that's one...
And they won three Cups. And the Penguins had similar numbers.
So that's five.
You're arguing against points I never made.
I specifically mentioned small players, because that's the topic of the thread, including Caufield in that category, because that was the specific example used in the OP. This isnt a Caufiled thread, it's a height thread. I'm not sure why you continue to assert that my initial response be contained to Caufield and sub 5'8" sized players, when I specifically said small players in general.
I also never said that other GMs were "dumb dumbs" for not selecting him. I only said that he, like other small players, will have more than enough opportunity to stake their claim as NHL players.
Sure. Being smaller gives you lower center of gravity and more ability to control the puck due to lower distance to ice surface. Being tall and heavy gives you range and makes it more difficult to move. Neither is inherently better. If Johnny Gaudreau was 6'4 he'd probably suck, since he wouldn't be as agile or as good at stickhandling, which would basically wreck his most important attributes.
But then you would probably see him in the more physical playoffs.
You said smaller guys can easily make the league with enough talent and drive and that there’s tons of them.
In my last post I mentioned anyone under 5-10. That’s my arbitrary cutoff for small as it seems that’s when people stop talking about it. Nobody says Jack Hughes is too short for the NHL. You scan through nhl rosters looking for guys below that and you’ll notice two things: 1) there aren’t many and 2) you recognize almost all of them as being at least good players. The ones that aren’t very good or you don’t recognize at all are either call ups or brand new. There are very few <5-10 guys that can carve out a quiet career in the bottom six. These guys can’t just be average pro hockey players. They have to be great. They have to really overcompensate in other areas to make up for their size disadvantage. If they don’t, they’re gone. That tells me that it isn’t easy for them to make the league. It’s very hard.
Looking at the last draft, if Caufield works on his skating and his offense transitions to the NHL well, he could be elite. But those are very big ifs. If he maxes out at 40 points, he’ll never play a full NHL season. If Peyton Krebs tops out as a 40 point guy, he can adjust his game a bit and still have a nice career as a defensively responsible middle sixer. That’s the difference a little extra height can make.
Way less than half the number of 6’3 - 6’4 when compared to 5’10 - 5’11 prospects on CSS and those bigger prospects are more than twice as likely to carve out a NHL career.
I’d maybe look for the exceptional smaller scorer in the first couple rounds and then focus all on size with speed and skill after.
Depends on your role with the team. Harder to be a net front presence, especially in the playoffs, when you're 5'8 than it is to be a finesse player or sniper.
Separate names with a comma.