Is there too much emphasis on a player's size?

There seems to be more and more emphasis being placed on how tall a player is or how much he will weigh when he finally "fills out".

Is size over-emphasized too much? Why or why not?

Is it over-emphasized to the point that it does or can supercede talent/skill?

Your thoughts

 

Its over ephasized. They should be talking about GRIT not size.

A 5'09 player with grit and heart is much more likely to make the NHL then a soft 6'03 player.

 

It can, it's a very tricky question.

Bouchard has more skill than a lot of 6'0+ players but the guy just hasn't adjusted well to the NHL because he's so tiny.

Just depends on the player.

 

Strength is more important than size, especially in terms of the ability to make space in traffic and to fight through checks. A gangly 6'5 190 player often goes down easily whereas a 5'10 190 player, with that low center of gravity can often hit hard and fight through checks. Percentage of muscle vs. body fat on a player shoul also be more highly-valued.

 

Bouchard was 140 lbs 3 years ago so its a tall order asking him to play with 30 year old grown men.

Just my opinion but Minnesota should stop signing their 1st rounders right away.

 

I think that if a player isn't tall, he have to fill is frame to the maximum. In that way, he will not always be push off the puck. Bouchard isn't fill out so this is why he have some difficulty at NHL level. Tomas Plekanec is 5-9 and around 200Lbs so he's big for is height...

 

I don't think it's a matter of size being over-emphasized, but skill, grit, and desire being under-emphasized. Give me a Martin St.Louis over Viktor Kozlov any day of the week.

 

Very important and the teams seem to recognize it and draft accordingly. Weight and strength are essential for "clutch" as are height and reach for "grab"; though I'd hate to be stuck with some of these guys if the rules were enforced and they had to let the skilled players play.

 

I don't think it's overhyped to much, because small players with big hearts, and sick skill levels still have a place in the NHL.

On one hand you can say....IN the 2004 draft the first 15 picks or so were players that were 6-1 and higher....Players are just getting biger and biger.

Now I have to admit....Size is a great thing to have.. I love a prospect with size, but I rather have skill....Thats why it's great to find players with great size and skill (Milan Michalek )

Ovechkin 6-2, Malkin 6-3, Barker 6-3, Ladd 6-2, Wheeler 6-5, Montoya 6-2, Olesz 6-2, Picard 6-2, Smid 6-3, Valabik 6-6, Tukonen 6-2, Thelen 6-4, Stafford 6-2, Dubnyk 6-6.

In those cases, I think for the most part it wasn't because of size that they were picked, but it definitly sweetens the deal.
I think only Wheeler, Valabik, and Dubnyk were picked so high because of there size...or arguably the main reason they were.

THink Blake Wheeler is a top 5 pick if he's only 5-11? HECK NO.

SO Size is an important role, but there is still room for the little man.

But lets be honest, you much rather have the 6-2 prospect over the 5-9 one.

 

No doubt, but you say that now. But you wouldnt have said that 3 years ago.

 

I think that if scouts didn't give so much emphasis on size and and take all the monsters just because they are big, the quality of play would be better in the NHL. Granted you wouldn't have 6'6'' bodies colliding all over the ice, which i'm not bashing because thats fun to watch too.

But there are just too many smaller players that just because of their size they are not given a chance at the bigs. And most of those players are much better skaters and stickhandlers and make the game look much more graceful.

 

Brian Burke said it best on TSN: If players have the same skill level but one's 6'3'' and the other is 5'9'', the 6'3'' giant has a far greater chance of succeeding in the NHL.

 

I think definatly

Put 5'10 Andrew Ference against 6'2 Rob Niedermayer along the boards, and Ference would come out of the battle with the puck.

Measure with your figers the 1 inch that differ's a "small" 5'11 player from a "big" 6'0 player.

I watch for how well they use their body, how they fair physically and what they can do, rather than a bunch of mesely stats.

 

If I have two players that are exactly alike, except for size, I'm going to take the bigger one.

 

I will take the 5'9" prospect with the potential to score 80 points over the 6'2" one with the potential to score 20.

Most people seem to disagree.

 

Ask Jiri Hudler.

 

but wouldn't that be getting caught up in their potential at the nhl level, projecting them too early ?

 

If i could have St. Louis or 6'3 St Louis i would take the bigger one. Look at Lindros when he was healthy. He was the biggest most talented and he completly dominated. Equal ability size matters. The bigger frame can handle more weight. More weight more muscle. Usually bigger players have longer reaches which can come in handy too.

 

The fastest players are usually smaller guys, though.

 

The coaching mentality of today's game is what is going to destroy it.

Ever wonder why we can't sell this game in that States? Well, when the coaches demand that in order to make the NHL even the most offensive players have to play defense, you are essentially stifling thier offensive creativity. I mean, Hartley benching Kovalchuk to me is a joke. This guy is going to not only fill seasts for the Thrashers, but lift them out of them with his explosive offensive prowess. Trying to turn him into an all around player to me does way more harm then good.

This defense first attitude is what enables the Clark Wilm type players to get the call ups instead of the smaller firebug players that are a lot more exciting to watch. To me, this, as well as the lack of consistent officiating, is what is killing the NHL.

 

Height is overated, leg strength and grit is what you look for. Forsberg, Crosby, Sakic, Stevens are all strong as oxes but undersizes in their psoition.

 

I remember hearing a scout say that it's easy to measure a kid's height but it's alot tougher to measure their heart. How bad do they want to succeed at the next level?

I believe there are too many stereotypes in life. Stuff like big, therefore slow...small, therefore weak, etc.

The first priority should be how well they play the game and can adapt their play as the level of competition is raised. Size, speed, skill, agility, strength, hockey sense are all important. I think it's a fallacy to put too much emphasis on any one attribute.

 

He didnt ask that.

He said if everything was equal.

Which means 6'02 with potential to score 80 and 5'09 with potential to score 80.

 

False. They LOOK faster but if you time them the bigger guys are faster than you think.

 

Yes, there is way to much talk about size this and that. But I think the worst of the size-over-skill days are over.