How Important is Toughness?

[Pitt the Elder]

Toughness is not the same as fighting.

A team with all skill vs. a team with all "toughness" as Randy Carlyle defines it would win every game.

 

[BonMorrison]

Toughness as a team is important, trying to represent toughness as individual players is absurd.

Chicago and LA are perfect examples in which they don't have individual players to personify their "toughness." They're tough as a group, they have each other's back from the smallest to the biggest guy. If you're the opposition, what scares you more? One or two guys that are so big and tough but aren't on the ice all the time or a wall of guys that are all united as one cohesive unit.

 

[Kubus]

Toughness doesn't mean you remove your skill. In hockey it's about having team toughness. It means your skilled guys don't get scared off. It means having mental toughness for when something bad happened on the ice, and that you don't get intimidated easily. It means that you start to grind down the other teams skilled players. It means blocking the shots, going hard into the corners, driving the net, it means clearing your net when you need too.

Toughness is very important, without it you will not win a playoff round.

 

[BlueMapleDawg]

Boston is a top possession team in the league - that's due to skill. Tough plugs don't have the capacity to control the puck, you need talent for that.

Yet far too many people think it`s because they`re big and tough.

They`re not even that big.

 

[Rogie]

The OP is interesting but hypothetical.

There isn't 12 Kanes and 6 Karlsons in the league.

How would a team made up of Kanelike and Karlsonlike players do against other team?

You have the ORIGINAL KANE and the ORIGINAL KARLSON and after that each copy is a not quite as good - on down to the 4th line and 3rd defence pairing. How would that team fare against a contender. Also, then, you would have a CAP team as well!

Mason Raymond, for example, I think, might be a 3rd line Kaner - no?

 

[BlueMapleDawg]

The point was to say that toughness doesn't matter if you're too busy overwhelming the opposition with skill.

I used Kane and Karlsson as an example because they're undersized superstars. And people probably call them "soft".

An all-Kane first line might not beat out the other top lines in the league, but you match that all-Kane line against the other team's depth lines and they'll annihilate the opposition.

 

[Inconceivable]

Your point is stupid if all you want to compare your Kane/karlsson team to is a real nhl team. Your team would be way over the cap. You would have to compare your team to a team of similar salary for your point to make any sense. And if I have a choice between the best soft players and the best tough/two way players, I'll take the best tough/two way players.

Perry-perry-perry
Chara-chara

Would beat down your fairy team every single time.

 

[BlueMapleDawg]

Okay well if I'm going for best on best, I'll go Crosby-Crosby-Crosby, Doughty-Doughty and I'll win.

If you're making that argument, you're missing the point.

Best on best Olympic teams don't have room for grit and toughness. If the highly skilled guys have that? Bonus. But it doesn't get you a roster spot.

 

[BlueMapleDawg]

Your point is stupid if all you want to compare your Kane/karlsson team to is a real nhl team. Your team would be way over the cap. You would have to compare your team to a team of similar salary for your point to make any sense. And if I have a choice between the best soft players and the best tough/two way players, I'll take the best tough/two way players.

Perry-perry-perry
Chara-chara

Would beat down your fairy team every single time.

And you just picked two of the highest skilled players in the league.

Chara is the best dman in the last decade, and Perry has a Hart trophy ffs. You're clearly not understanding the point.

 

[Inconceivable]

There you go, you just picked two guys that will fight for the puck and are not afraid to get physical. Much better than your original team. Doughty and Crosby are both a lot tougher than Kane/karlsson,which is why they would make a better team. Right?

 

[Holymakinaw]

In hockey, skill on it's own, or toughness on it's own, is meaningless. You need BOTH to succeed.

 

[bobber]

And you just picked two of the highest skilled players in the league.

Chara is the best dman in the last decade, and Perry has a Hart trophy ffs. You're clearly not understanding the point.

Dawg because your team is a hypothetical team and a good dream team they could do some damage with great goaltending. In reality toughness wins because most teams have only limited highly skilled players which can be contained physically when they are continually targeted by roll players. As Brad May says" You have to marinate the skilled players by softening them up with solid hits in a series".

 

[Atomos2]

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.

There's only one puck.

 

[Bardown warrior]

When speaking about "role" players and the whole team canada argument i adivse everyone to watch the following video of Brian Burke and how he helped select team USA in 2010 that gave Canada a run for their money. It's and interesting strategy and different perspective of not always taking the Best player available but sometimes filling in your lineup with role players.

Starts at 4:15

 

[Rogie]

And you just picked two of the highest skilled players in the league.

Chara is the best dman in the last decade, and Perry has a Hart trophy ffs. You're clearly not understanding the point.

Maybe you aren't understanding the point - if you can't see how TOUGH these two players are.

 

[Inconceivable]

And you just picked two of the highest skilled players in the league.

Chara is the best dman in the last decade, and Perry has a Hart trophy ffs. You're clearly not understanding the point.

No, you missed my point. Sure chara and perry have skill, but what separates them from Kane/karlsson is their size and toughness.

The title of your thread is 'how important is toughness?'

In my opinion, it is extremely important. The combination of toughness/skill beats pure skill every time.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

A tough mind set is more important, but having guys that can drop them and have a tough mindset would cover both bases. Both are important.

 

[BlueMapleDawg]

No, you missed my point. Sure chara and perry have skill, but what separates them from Kane/karlsson is their size and toughness.

The title of your thread is 'how important is toughness?'

In my opinion, it is extremely important. The combination of toughness/skill beats pure skill every time.

Being big and tough isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing, but there needs to be skill.

Skill is the #1 priority. The rest is a bonus.

You won't find any elite tough guys.
You WILL find elite skill guys without toughness.

 

[Tak7]

The LA Kings and the Hawks and the Bruins and the Blues - they are TOUGH teams to play against.

The Leafs are not a TOUGH team to play against. They are a soft and terrible. You could throw 6 Colton Orrs on the roster and that wouldn't change.

 

[Al14]

Toughness, with a little skill, good hands, and the ability to skate, goes a long way in today's NHL.

And, toughness doesn't only mean the ability to fight! Toughness is more being able to take and make a hit, as well as throw a few punches when pressed to do so.

 

[Tak7]

When speaking about "role" players and the whole team canada argument i adivse everyone to watch the following video of Brian Burke and how he helped select team USA in 2010 that gave Canada a run for their money. It's and interesting strategy and different perspective of not always taking the Best player available but sometimes filling in your lineup with role players.

Starts at 4:15

That clip really makes me miss Burke.

 

[mashedpotato]

Lidström played an unbelievably tough against his opponents but wasn't regarded as a physical force; he forced plays on the defensive side and worked the puck on the offensive side.

I think you all need to assess what toughness means and how it applies in different situations;

 

[hockeyfanz*]

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.

Bahahahahaha....like Mario and Wayne were considered poor offensively?

Man..you know hockey is played on ice with a round black frozen piece of rubber with a goalie, two defencemen and 3 forwards right? Just checking because I'm thinking that you are speaking of a Bobby Orr from a different sport?

Bobby Orr in many hockeyfanz eyes (including mine), was the greatest hockey player ever at any position. Not only was he the greatest defender but he was also the greatest offensive defender who pretty much revolutionized the position and the sport.

Read a book.

 

[hockeyfanz*]

In hockey, skill on it's own, or toughness on it's own, is meaningless. You need BOTH to succeed.

Depends what you consider toughness... A lot of knuckleheads think that toughness means dressing complete wastes of space like Colton Orr or Fraser McLaren.

The Red Army teams that used to kick the crap out of NHL teams had no real "tough" guys..just gritty skilled players who all could stickhandle, score and skate. No fighters...no big time hitters..nobody intimidating anybody physically. Nothing like that.

Just skill..playing like a team should. They were nicknamed the Big Red Machine because thats how they played.

In fact, the two best teams in hockey right now are arguably the LA Kings and the Chicago Black Hawks. Neither team is particularly "tough"...gritty yes. But teams comprised of guys who can actually play hockey.

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

when it comes to the leafs board, this question will be answered based on what the leafs recently did.

If the leafs just traded/signed mostly tough guys, most posts here will SCREAM that toughness is the sure way to a cup. They will then cling to recent examples of tough teams doing well as their evidence.

But if the leafs just traded/signed mostly skill guys, most posts here will SCREAM that skill is the sure way to a cup. They will then cling to recent examples of skill teams doing well as their evidence.

It's just the way it is...