How Important is Toughness?

[BlueMapleDawg]

24 jack rabbits on one team, who is going to stand in front of the net or get them the puck?

This hurts my brain...

You realize this roster:

P. Kane - P. Kane - P. Kane
P. Kane - P. Kane - P. Kane
P. Kane - P. Kane - P. Kane
P. Kane - P. Kane - P. Kane

Karlsson - Karlsson
Karlsson - Karlsson
Karlsson - Karlsson

Goalie


Would beat any current NHL team, including the Cup-winning LA Kings, right?
Please tell me you understand that.

Click to read more...

 

[Bullseye]

This hurts my brain...

You realize this roster:

P. Kane - P. Kane - P. Kane
P. Kane - P. Kane - P. Kane
P. Kane - P. Kane - P. Kane
P. Kane - P. Kane - P. Kane

Karlsson - Karlsson
Karlsson - Karlsson
Karlsson - Karlsson

Goalie


Would beat any current NHL team, including the Cup-winning LA Kings, right?
Please tell me you understand that.

But we don't have 9 Kanes & 6 Karlssons - you understand this right? Plus, who plays net in this dream world of yours?

 

[BlueMapleDawg]

Way to miss the point.

You don't need a "balanced" lineup with tough guys and grinders. ANY and every team would take a Patrick Kane over any of their bottom 6 players.

Kessel, Kane, and any other small elite player, is infinitely times better on a 3rd/4th line role than any team's bottom six. Why? Because they're better at hockey. Period.

 

[BlueMapleDawg]

An obsession with role players is what lands you a Clarkson contract.

 

[Trainspotter]

This hurts my brain...

You realize this roster:

P. Kane - P. Kane - P. Kane
P. Kane - P. Kane - P. Kane
P. Kane - P. Kane - P. Kane
P. Kane - P. Kane - P. Kane

Karlsson - Karlsson
Karlsson - Karlsson
Karlsson - Karlsson

Goalie


Would beat any current NHL team, including the Cup-winning LA Kings, right?
Please tell me you understand that.

That team would get pushed to the perimeter and completely beat to a pulp in a long series against a team with a good combination of size and speed. Please tell me you understand that. But they'd probably get a lot of Corsis from bad areas so somebody somewhere would declare them winners.

 

[BlueMapleDawg]

Same reason there's no Colton Orrs or David Clarksons or David Bollands on Team Canada. They suck.

"Role" players are generally bad hockey players that are easily replaced.

 

[Trainspotter]

Same reason there's no Colton Orrs or David Clarksons or David Bollands on Team Canada. They suck.

"Role" players are generally bad hockey players that are easily replaced.

And yet even with as many options as Team Canada has, they don't put together teams of undersized guys who can stickhandle and skate but who I could knock over. They choose "role players" who also happen to have some scoring ability but have other attributes like size, defensive acumen, forechecking ability, don't play defense like turnstiles, etc.

 

[BlueMapleDawg]

That team would get pushed to the perimeter and completely beat to a pulp in a long series against a team with a good combination of size and speed. Please tell me you understand that. But they'd probably get a lot of Corsis from bad areas so somebody somewhere would declare them winners.

That team would hem the opposition in O-zone.

And when it came time to playing Defence, they'd break out so fast the other team wouldn't even know what to do. They'd have the puck and be down the ice before all 5 guys could even enter the zone from a dump-in.

 

[BlueMapleDawg]

And yet even with as many options as Team Canada has, they don't put together teams of undersized guys who can stickhandle and skate but who I could knock over.

You don't think Kane would make Team Canada if he was Canadian?

 

[Trainspotter]

Way to miss the point.

You don't need a "balanced" lineup with tough guys and grinders. ANY and every team would take a Patrick Kane over any of their bottom 6 players.

Kessel, Kane, and any other small elite player, is infinitely times better on a 3rd/4th line role than any team's bottom six. Why? Because they're better at hockey. Period.

And that's why great hockey teams through the ages have always put together small, skilled lines to defend against other teams small, skilled scorers. Oh wait...

 

[BlueMapleDawg]

And yet even with as many options as Team Canada has, they don't put together teams of undersized guys who can stickhandle and skate but who I could knock over. They choose "role players" who also happen to have some scoring ability but have other attributes like size, defensive acumen, forechecking ability, don't play defense like turnstiles, etc.

Being big isn't a bag thing. It's a good thing. But it's not a requirement.

The way you're talking, you'd trade an undersized prime Gretzky for some Probert grit.

Get a clue.

 

[Trainspotter]

You don't think Kane would make Team Canada if he was Canadian?

I have no doubt he'd make it, but it would be to play in a scoring role, not to do yeoman's work.

 

[BlueMapleDawg]

And that's why great hockey teams through the ages have always put together small, skilled lines to defend against other teams small, skilled scorers. Oh wait...

Kane - Kane - Kane

might be outplayed by Kopitar's line on some nights, but you wanna do a 7-game playoff series?

The other Kane - Kane - Kane lines absolute wreck the others.

It's a team game. I'm saying Team Kane would win some 80s 12-6 shootouts.

You don't need bangers and grinders. It's a fallacy.

Do they have a place in the game? Sure. But only because there isn't enough elite talent to go around.

 

[Trainspotter]

Being big isn't a bag thing. It's a good thing. But it's not a requirement.

The way you're talking, you'd trade an undersized prime Gretzky for some Probert grit.

I bet Wayne still sends Semenko a Christmas gift every year.

 

[Trainspotter]

Kane - Kane - Kane

might be outplayed by Kopitar's line on some nights, but you wanna do a 7-game playoff series?

The other Kane - Kane - Kane lines absolute wreck the others.

It's a team game. I'm saying Team Kane would win some 80s 12-6 shootouts.

You don't need bangers and grinders. It's a fallacy.

Do they have a place in the game? Sure. But only because there isn't enough elite talent to go around.

There are plenty of guys who can skate, stickhandle and shoot the puck at a high level playing in the KHL, SHL and AHL. Even guys who can do stuff with the puck in isolation that'd make your head spin. But the Schremps, Omarks and Abbots of the world have a variety of problems that mean that they aren't as useful to an NHL team as a big galoot who knows how to get between you and where you're going.

 

[BlueMapleDawg]

And that's why great hockey teams through the ages have always put together small, skilled lines to defend against other teams small, skilled scorers. Oh wait...

Bobby Orr was considered bad defensively.

Ya know what? It didn't really matter. He spent 10% of his icetime in his own zone. The other 90% was him flying through the neutral zone with the puck, or peppering the other team's goalie.

So 10% of "bad" play, is peanuts next to 90% of domination.

Same applies to Kane and Karlsson.

 

[Trainspotter]

Bobby Orr was considered bad defensively.

Not on this planet by anyone who knew a damn thing about hockey.

 

[Bullseye]

I bet Wayne still sends Semenko a Christmas gift every year.

Love this - just sayin'

 

[Bullseye]

An obsession with role players is what lands you a Clarkson contract.

only sensible thing you've said in two pages

 

[Bullseye]

Not on this planet by anyone who knew a damn thing about hockey.

ok I'll stop now - but I also love this

 

[ACC1224]

Bobby Orr was considered bad defensively.

Ya know what? It didn't really matter. He spent 10% of his icetime in his own zone. The other 90% was him flying through the neutral zone with the puck, or peppering the other team's goalie.

So 10% of "bad" play, is peanuts next to 90% of domination.

Same applies to Kane and Karlsson.

It's all starting to make sense.

 

[cack]

Bobby Orr was considered bad defensively.

Ya know what? It didn't really matter. He spent 10% of his icetime in his own zone. The other 90% was him flying through the neutral zone with the puck, or peppering the other team's goalie.

So 10% of "bad" play, is peanuts next to 90% of domination.

Same applies to Kane and Karlsson.

Are you being serious?

 

[BlueMapleDawg]

By some, yes. Probably the same types of people who think "role" players are important in today's NHL.

I disagree with anyone saying he was bad defensively.

 

[7even]

That team would get pushed to the perimeter and completely beat to a pulp in a long series against a team with a good combination of size and speed. Please tell me you understand that. But they'd probably get a lot of Corsis from bad areas so somebody somewhere would declare them winners.

I don't think a team of pure superstars would be getting pushed to the outside

Does Patrick Kane have a problem playing against size and "toughness?" No. He slips around you when you step up for a check and scores on you. That's why he's an NHL superstar and not Robbie Schremp.

 

[Trainspotter]

I don't think a team of pure superstars would be getting pushed to the outside

Does Patrick Kane have a problem playing against size and "toughness?" No. He slips around you when you step up for a check and scores on you.

All by his lonesome, huh? I wonder how he gets the puck and finds all that space? He really is amazing. He'd be even better without that hack Toews or that retreat Sharp holding him up, eh?

I'll take a team of Bergeron and Suter over Kane and Karlsson every day and twice on Sundays.