Look for changed Drafting Philosophies after this year

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vatican Roulette

Baile de Los Locos
Feb 28, 2002
14,007
2
Gorillaz-EPWRID
Visit site
PhoPhan said:
I'll offer a real rebuttal to the "Skilled players are usually smaller" logic. If you look at the NHL, you'll see most of the small players are skilled. The reason for this is, if you're a small player, the only way you can make the NHL is on skill. If you're big, you can get there on skill, or on toughness.


another reason is coordination. A lot of times, smaller players have a longer period to get used to their body and develop skill. Many bigger players have to "grow" into their body. I had this in a health class once, they showed us study's about this.

This is not to say that big guys never grow into their body's however. Jeff Carter is a prime example.
 

Roger's Pancreas*

Guest
Size and toughness entails durability. If you have a guy who can score reguarly in the season and last 82 games without being pushed around he's a gem. It's great to have the forty goal Martin St. Louis, but good hands can be gotten by players with average to above average size. Thornton is a prime example of a big guy, who won't be pushed around, and can put the puck in the net.
 

Cosis

Guest
pavel datsyuk said:
another reason is coordination. A lot of times, smaller players have a longer period to get used to their body and develop skill. Many bigger players have to "grow" into their body. I had this in a health class once, they showed us study's about this.

This is not to say that big guys never grow into their body's however. Jeff Carter is a prime example.

IMO(disclaimer for the hyper sensitive who dont understand the concepts of message boards)
This isnt addressed to you pavel in particular btw.

1.Yzerman and Sakic are not big. They are what 5'11? They are average sized. Big is 6'2 220+ or 6'3-6'5 220+ ( i think the issue here is my choice of the word small, when what i meant anyone who isnt big)

2. Its a fact of life that being 6'3-6'5+ is small odds. That is a fact of life folks. 5'9 is the average male height in North America. We can agree here right? This = 2.

3. It is a fact that being skilled is also small odds. This is also a fact of life folks. Otherwise wed have 10,000 players capable of scoring 50+ goals in the NHL. Can we agree here? This = 2

4. Now take 2+2 and that =4. 4 being, a person being big is lucky to have beaten the odds of average size. A player having skill is lucky to have beatn the odds to have skill when most dont. A person who is big AND skilled is lucky enough to have beaten the odds TWICE! :teach:

Therefore they are much more rare to find then smaller skilled players. This is a FACT. You could even argue that the person is beating the odds three times cause as the person above here pointed out, there are studies that PROVE that bigger people have a harder time with cordination. Which I had pointed out as being most observable in the NBA.

With more room on the ice and stronger rules enforcement coming, this will create more opportunities for the small sized skill players. They will have room to skate around big guys who dont skate as well. This will change how teams draft. The bigger guys who cant skate or lack skill will lose spots to smaller guys who can skate and have skill.

So if someone wants to insist I am wrong here, well I dont know how I can make it anymore clearer.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.
 

LaVal

Registered User
Dec 13, 2002
6,695
2,299
Kelowna
Cosis said:
1.Yzerman and Sakic are not big.

they are also not small. not by any stretch. Sakic is nearly 200lbs.

They are what 5'11? They are average sized. Big is 6'2 220+ or 6'3-6'5 220+ ( i think the issue here is my choice of the word small, when what i meant anyone who isnt big)

i think you're overzealous in your definition of big. you don't need to be over 220lbs or 6'3-6'5 to be over the NHL average.

2. Its a fact of life that being 6'3-6'5+ is small odds. That is a fact of life folks. 5'9 is the average male height in North America. We can agree here right? This = 2.

no we can't. the average height of North American people may be 5'9 (i'll take your word on it), however the new age of people are much bigger than that. i am 6'0 and am one of the smaller people of my age (21) i know. NHL players are getting bigger and that isn't debatable. it's just as big of a stretch for draft eligable players to be 5'8 when fully grown as it is for them to be 6'2.

3. It is a fact that being skilled is also small odds. This is also a fact of life folks. Otherwise wed have 10,000 players capable of scoring 50+ goals in the NHL. Can we agree here? This = 2

yes we can. which is why i said it's a weak argument because it applies to everybody, not just bigger players.

4. Now take 2+2 and that =4. 4 being, a person being big is lucky to have beaten the odds of average size. A player having skill is lucky to have beatn the odds to have skill when most dont. A person who is big AND skilled is lucky enough to have beaten the odds TWICE! :teach:

you don't have to make it out like i'm an idiot. i know what you are saying, but i believe it to be wrong.

Therefore they are much more rare to find then smaller skilled players. This is a FACT.

if this is true then why are there so few smaller skilled players than there are larger skilled players? when you see a smaller player makes it as far as getting drafted of course he'll be skilled. he doesn't have the other assets to fall back on so he must stand out in that area. but that doens't mean there's not a healthy supply of larger skilled guys.

You could even argue that the person is beating the odds three times cause as the person above here pointed out, there are studies that PROVE that bigger people have a harder time with cordination. Which I had pointed out as being most observable in the NBA.

again, comparing the NHL to the NBA makes no sense whatsoever.

With more room on the ice and stronger rules enforcement coming, this will create more opportunities for the small sized skill players. They will have room to skate around big guys who dont skate as well. This will change how teams draft. The bigger guys who cant skate or lack skill will lose spots to smaller guys who can skate and have skill.

again, these so called wave of small skilled guys will have trouble competing against large skilled guys no matter how much you think the game will open up. you can't make today's NHL if you can't skate, and it's extremely difficult to do so if you don't also posess enough size to get around today's big, yet mobile defenders.

So if someone wants to insist I am wrong here, well I dont know how I can make it anymore clearer.

your point is loud and clear. i, and others, simply disagree with it.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

because this is a message forum. people have different opinions and the right to express them. if you don't want argument to such a drastic idea, then you should think twice before posting it.
 

mercury

Registered User
Mar 10, 2003
12,318
612
South Philly/SoCal
Visit site
According to a study I just heard, the average adult American male is 5'9 1/2" and 190 lbs. Of course, the average NHL'er is bigger, but the 6'4", 230 lb. guy is still the exception, not the rule. Unless you are talking about the late-90s Flyers. . .
 

Cosis

Guest
LaVal said:
they are also not small. not by any stretch. Sakic is nearly 200lbs.



i think you're overzealous in your definition of big. you don't need to be over 220lbs or 6'3-6'5 to be over the NHL average.



no we can't. the average height of North American people may be 5'9 (i'll take your word on it), however the new age of people are much bigger than that. i am 6'0 and am one of the smaller people of my age (21) i know. NHL players are getting bigger and that isn't debatable. it's just as big of a stretch for draft eligable players to be 5'8 when fully grown as it is for them to be 6'2.



yes we can. which is why i said it's a weak argument because it applies to everybody, not just bigger players.



you don't have to make it out like i'm an idiot. i know what you are saying, but i believe it to be wrong.



if this is true then why are there so few smaller skilled players than there are larger skilled players? when you see a smaller player makes it as far as getting drafted of course he'll be skilled. he doesn't have the other assets to fall back on so he must stand out in that area. but that doens't mean there's not a healthy supply of larger skilled guys.



again, comparing the NHL to the NBA makes no sense whatsoever.



again, these so called wave of small skilled guys will have trouble competing against large skilled guys no matter how much you think the game will open up. you can't make today's NHL if you can't skate, and it's extremely difficult to do so if you don't also posess enough size to get around today's big, yet mobile defenders.



your point is loud and clear. i, and others, simply disagree with it.



because this is a message forum. people have different opinions and the right to express them. if you don't want argument to such a drastic idea, then you should think twice before posting it.



1. I never said Sakic was small. Hes average sized for a NA male. Though he might rank below NHL average. I was pointing out why guys like him and Yzerman are much more common then guys like Mario and Lindros.

2. My definitions of big are not overzealous. I do not consider 6'0 200 to be big. Thats normal sized nhl standards but not big.

3. Big skill guys are much harder to find then anything. This is a fact. Cripes almighty. Call up any NHL GM and ask him how hard it is to find a big guy with skill and see what he tells you. If it was so friggin easy thered be 700 guys 6'4 230 skating around.

4. Using the NBAs big guys as an example of how the bigger a person is the less cordinated they are, is perfectly acceptable and a perfect example. This is why guys 6'4 do not usually skate as well as guys who are 5'11.

5. NHL players have gotten bigger because *drum roll*...The clutch and grab game. It has changed the face of the NHL cause teams went with size to neutralize skill cause they could mug them on ice. Why do you think guys like Luke Richardson are in the NHL. Its not because he has skill and skates well, cause he doesnt....That being said, todays athletes are slowly getting larger. This is evolution ,better medicines, vitamins ,along with a theory of mine involving steroids and growth hormones in things like milk and hamburgers etc etc.

6. You dont see smaller NHL guys because of number 5. This is the whole point to this thread. Its hardly drastic. Lol.

If you want to think that teams are gonna pass up smaller skilled guys then larger physical guys, thats your choice. I disagree. Skill will reign supreme again in the new NHL.
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
LaVal said:
no we can't. the average height of North American people may be 5'9 (i'll take your word on it), however the new age of people are much bigger than that. i am 6'0 and am one of the smaller people of my age (21) i know.

The average has not changed in over 40 years

It is 5'9 like it or not
 

gb701

Registered User
Feb 21, 2003
490
0
Visit site
Vlad The Impaler said:
The average has not changed in over 40 years

It is 5'9 like it or not

You are right...but averages, like all other statistics, can be used to support almost any argument, and since athletes do not represent the "average" anyway, 5'9" has almost nothing to do with anything. Sports - all sports - select from different pools both in terms of physical attributes such as height, weight etc. but also different socio-economic and ethnic pools. Hockey remains primarily a northern hemisphere, Euro-NA based sport with only a very few exceptions. Unless someone knows what the average is for this group, the subject is meaningless.

On another note, I chuckled last night watching the Red Deer Rebels playing Vancouver when, just like predicted on this thread, the commentator commented on Phaneuf having "good hands for a big guy".
 

LaVal

Registered User
Dec 13, 2002
6,695
2,299
Kelowna
Vlad The Impaler said:
The average has not changed in over 40 years

It is 5'9 like it or not

the national average is the average of everybody, whether they are 45cm tall babies or shrinking 90 year old seniors, whether they are midgets or freakishly big. the average size of hockey players is deffinately more than 5'9 and is constantly increasing. the average for drafting goaltender height has increased nearly an inch in the past 5 years. in the NHL 50 years ago the average weight was 166lbs. now it a feather shy of 200lbs to 203lbs depending on who you consider to be in the NHL and who not. the average height of an NHL player 40 years ago was 5'11, now it is 6'1.

and it is not like it is only in the NHL. in the AHL, the stats are nearly identical, yet that is the league that the small skilled North American players are supposed to be stuck in due to the lack of size. the average height of the Central Hockey League is over 6 feet. the average size of Canada's World Junior team was 6'1, 202lbs (some sources say 205lbs, but i'm not going to bother adding them up to get the average).. and they haven't finished growing.

and over the past 40 years, the average height of all North Americans has increased 1 and a half inches btw (from 5'8 to 5'9 1/2), and nearly 25 lbs heavier. that's just 1 and a half generations. once the baby boomers are gone you'll see that height increase another good inch or two. the elderly represent 1 in 8 people right now, which is a big high and has increased up to 25% in some areas over the past decade. using the National Average is extremely flawed in discussing height of NHL caliber athletes.

you better come up with a good counter argument, because all of that took a lot of research (man, do i need a life).

Cosis said:
2. My definitions of big are not overzealous. I do not consider 6'0 200 to be big. Thats normal sized nhl standards but not big.

neither do i, as that's the NHL average. i do however, consider players that are 6'1-6'2, 210-215lbs big. they make up some of the hardest hitting players in the league. Jarome Iginla is the best player in the league that's a power forward, and he's 6'1, 208lbs.

3. Big skill guys are much harder to find then anything. This is a fact. Cripes almighty. Call up any NHL GM and ask him how hard it is to find a big guy with skill and see what he tells you. If it was so friggin easy thered be 700 guys 6'4 230 skating around.

who said they have to be 6'4, 230lbs to be big? there's a lot more players over the average that are highly skilled than player under the average that are. there's a lot more Jagr's, Forsberg's and Iginla's than there are St Louis', Sullivan's, and Gomez's.

4. Using the NBAs big guys as an example of how the bigger a person is the less cordinated they are, is perfectly acceptable and a perfect example. This is why guys 6'4 do not usually skate as well as guys who are 5'11.

now you are claiming it's a perfect example? i'm sorry, but to be tall and lanky enough to drunk the ball isn't going to translate into NHL skills.

5. NHL players have gotten bigger because *drum roll*...The clutch and grab game.

NHL players have gotten bigger because they've evolved with the game. that's not going to change. when the NHL has grown fast, physical, and mobile defenders, the forwards now need the size, speed, and skill to play against them.

If you want to think that teams are gonna pass up smaller skilled guys then larger physical guys, thats your choice. I disagree. Skill will reign supreme again in the new NHL.

the NHL will continue to draft skilled players with size. and those will be the ones that make the NHL because those are the ones that will be able to compete with the other skilled players with size.
 
Last edited:

Puckhead

Registered User
Jun 13, 2004
703
0
Behind you!!!
LaVal said:
the days of teams drafting lumbering brutes with tons of question marks are gone and have been for years. teams still look for prospects with good size, but also with good skating.

being small, is quite simply a big question mark. while players are getting bigger, they are also getting faster. no longer are large players necessarily slow. in today's NHL, you have to be big AND fast to survive more often than not. being small and fast is still a handicap when you go up against guys who are big and fast, no matter how much the game is opened up.
I thought Boris Valabik was selected 10th overall in '03?
 

LaVal

Registered User
Dec 13, 2002
6,695
2,299
Kelowna
Puckhead said:
I thought Boris Valabik was selected 10th overall in '03?

'04, and he's an excellent prospect. the Thrashers hope he can become the next Chara. as the 6th rated skater by the CSS, he went where he should have. he is far from a lumbering brute with no skills.
 

Puckhead

Registered User
Jun 13, 2004
703
0
Behind you!!!
theBob said:
Detroit, Toronto, and Colorado will be hurting under a cap systm over the next few years, I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
These teams may have spent a lot of money every year, but for the most part, it was spent very smartly. True enough, a cap system will be a disadvantage to teams who could afford a no cap system, but I still think these teams will continue to win and now be even more lucrative in their markets. If they were making big bucks before, now they will make truck loads. Don't believe the rhetoric of giving back to the fans in the way of cutting the ticket costs...it won't happen in these big markets. The sad sack teams, and the small markets will have to cut prices, have giveaways, and suck it up for a long time.

The question I have is if they cap the league at 40 Million, those teams you have mentioned will all still have the where with all to exceed that number, pay whatever tax there is, and still be extremely profitable. Whereas, most of the other clubs won't be able to get near that number, if they hope to turn a profit.

So to be honest I think these teams will still have an edge over the lesser lights at attracting that premier player, because even with a lost season, they have the more loyal of fans, and will be back in business and profitable long before most of the others are even luring fans back, if they even can lure them back.
 

King'sPawn

Enjoy the chaos
Jul 1, 2003
21,812
20,607
The reason you see a greater proportion of skilled "small" guys compared to skilled "big" guys is because all the unskilled small guys WON'T make it in the NHL. Unskilled big guys at least have something to offer.

Big guys take longer to develop a sense of coordination, but they can be just as skilled as any small guy.

Drafting philosophies won't change like that. It takes a gradual deviance, over the course of several years, before any change is noticed.
 

Puckhead

Registered User
Jun 13, 2004
703
0
Behind you!!!
LaVal said:
'04, and he's an excellent prospect. the Thrashers hope he can become the next Chara. as the 6th rated skater by the CSS, he went where he should have. he is far from a lumbering brute with no skills.
Yes, '04, my mistake. However I stand by my comments. He may be a decent skater, but you can't tell me that Atlanta didn't pick him for his size. He has done very little for Kitchener, other than rack up some serious penalty minute totals. I have to think that while there is a chance that he could become a real player in the NHL, Atlanta felt that offense from this guy would be a bonus, not a requirement.

Therefore I think he is a lumbering brute who can skate, and has at this point in his career exhibited very little in the way of skill.
 

Puckhead

Registered User
Jun 13, 2004
703
0
Behind you!!!
King'sPawn said:
The reason you see a greater proportion of skilled "small" guys compared to skilled "big" guys is because all the unskilled small guys WON'T make it in the NHL. Unskilled big guys at least have something to offer.

Big guys take longer to develop a sense of coordination, but they can be just as skilled as any small guy.

Drafting philosophies won't change like that. It takes a gradual deviance, over the course of several years, before any change is noticed.
You make good points, but I think the nature of this thread was maybe not to say small skilled guys will replace the bigger guys, but rather, the emphasis will be put back on skill as a prerequisite, as opposed to size only and maybe we can teach him to skate. If you ask any GM in the league, if they would rather have a skilled small guy or a skilled big man, they would definitely choose the latter. However, where they may have wanted to choose a big man once, may now be changing a bit towards skill and skating come first, and if it all comes in a big package, even better.
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,348
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
I think not only is height overrated but I think it's also overstated. I've met a few hockey players that list themselves over 5'10 that are shorter than me (Scott Walker, Vitali Yachmenev, Marek Zidlicky, Kimmo Timonen, Martin Erat and Gregg Johnson. BTW, I'm 5'9" and Jordin Tootoo is not, neither is Steve Sullivan or Cliff Ronning.
 

LaVal

Registered User
Dec 13, 2002
6,695
2,299
Kelowna
Puckhead said:
Yes, '04, my mistake. However I stand by my comments. He may be a decent skater, but you can't tell me that Atlanta didn't pick him for his size. He has done very little for Kitchener, other than rack up some serious penalty minute totals. I have to think that while there is a chance that he could become a real player in the NHL, Atlanta felt that offense from this guy would be a bonus, not a requirement.

Therefore I think he is a lumbering brute who can skate, and has at this point in his career exhibited very little in the way of skill.

his size is what makes his game. he's a decently-mobile crease clearing defensemen with a good reach. such is a premium in the NHL. as i stated, the hope for him is he becomes a player similar to Chara, who although may not be as naturally talented as some, is still a premier player in the league. his skill is not piling up points, such is rarely the quality you look for in a defensemen. his skill is keeping the pucks out of the net, and he does it effectively. do we consider Adam Foote or Derian Hatcher skilled players? yes. different type of skill, but still a coveted skill nonetheless.

even if i agree with your point, you list 1 example that's a defensemen, not a forward, which this discussion was geared towards. the thing is we are no longer seeing Alex Stojanov's, Andrei Nazarov's, Jason Bowen's, Libor Polasek's, etc taken in the first round. those are the lumbering brutes i'm talking about.
 

Cosis

Guest
Puckhead said:
You make good points, but I think the nature of this thread was maybe not to say small skilled guys will replace the bigger guys, but rather, the emphasis will be put back on skill as a prerequisite, as opposed to size only and maybe we can teach him to skate. If you ask any GM in the league, if they would rather have a skilled small guy or a skilled big man, they would definitely choose the latter. However, where they may have wanted to choose a big man once, may now be changing a bit towards skill and skating come first, and if it all comes in a big package, even better.

BRAVO :handclap:
Glad someone got it. I was begining to wonder about this board.
:)

To add some more real fast:
Since GMs will be looking to add skill more, and there are more non big(avg-small) skill guys, then there are big skill guys. Therefore we will see an influx of smaller skill guys who might have been passed over in the last decade for a grinder. This will in turn lead to even more overall offense and more of an open skating game imo.A win-win if you will.
 

2112

Registered User
Mar 4, 2003
2,868
0
Ottawa
Cosis said:
The better question is how many guys have had their skating overlooked? Alot.

Smaller skilled guys will have alot more value while larger slower guys will have less value, in the new NHL.

See: Corey Locke
 

King'sPawn

Enjoy the chaos
Jul 1, 2003
21,812
20,607
Puckhead said:
You make good points, but I think the nature of this thread was maybe not to say small skilled guys will replace the bigger guys, but rather, the emphasis will be put back on skill as a prerequisite, as opposed to size only and maybe we can teach him to skate. If you ask any GM in the league, if they would rather have a skilled small guy or a skilled big man, they would definitely choose the latter. However, where they may have wanted to choose a big man once, may now be changing a bit towards skill and skating come first, and if it all comes in a big package, even better.

That's definitely a good point, but again, you're making an "other things equal" assumption that just won't happen over the course of one year. You may see one or two GMs go for a "safer" pick and go for a smaller guy who has the skill and skating established... but until those safer picks prove to be the "steals of the draft," then you won't see other GMs simply taking safe picks.

Remember, not all teams have the same number of small guys and large guys. Some teams have an abundance of projects who are large players, so next draft they may take a "safer" pick and grab a smaller guy who's more NHL ready. Other teams have an abundance of "safe," NHL-ready prospects, but no size. Thus, they start to focus on the best available player *with size*.

You only need to look at Blake Wheeler, Boris Valabik, and Brian Boyle the past two years. They will NOT be ready for at least another four years, but they have size that, if they do pan out, will make them beasts.

You are very right, though... teams will not pick the same type of player they picked the draft before. It's a progressive issue, and mentalities in a couple GMs change. I just wouldn't expect anything sudden; so, maybe I misunderstood the premise of this thread.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
LaVal said:
and over the past 40 years, the average height of all North Americans has increased 1 and a half inches btw (from 5'8 to 5'9 1/2), and nearly 25 lbs heavier. that's just 1 and a half generations. once the baby boomers are gone you'll see that height increase another good inch or two. the elderly represent 1 in 8 people right now, which is a big high and has increased up to 25% in some areas over the past decade. using the National Average is extremely flawed in discussing height of NHL caliber athletes.


Most of this has to do with nutrition (the japanese are 4" taller that 100 years ago IIRC). Pre-WWII it people might be shorter with the greater levels of poverty and less food to go around. Those would have been the people that have dropped off the charts making the averages taller. I can't say I'm entirely convinced by that argument (re baby boomers). Has the nutrition really increased/improved that much in 40 years? I suppose we are eating more fat and sugar so its possible.
 

LaVal

Registered User
Dec 13, 2002
6,695
2,299
Kelowna
me2 said:
Most of this has to do with nutrition (the japanese are 4" taller that 100 years ago IIRC). Pre-WWII it people might be shorter with the greater levels of poverty and less food to go around. Those would have been the people that have dropped off the charts making the averages taller. I can't say I'm entirely convinced by that argument (re baby boomers). Has the nutrition really increased/improved that much in 40 years? I suppose we are eating more fat and sugar so its possible.

i can further explain the baby boomers reference, as i when i read i can see how the full intention would not be seen.

humans are naturally evolving to become larger, for whatever reasons (it has been happening since their creation or evolution, whichever you believe in. the average human was 4-5 feet tall hundreds of years ago). the increase has been gradual except for the recent overflow of developements in medical technology and society structure that have produced people that are bigger, stronger, and live longer with notable differences from each generation.

the increase when the baby boomers are gone is 2 part. for starters, their age group makes an abnormally large part of the average. since they are not part of the newer generations of larger people, they will bring down the average size. this will raise the average height but not by a lot in itself. the main reason the height average will be increased by up to 2 inches (my estimation), is that it will take around another 20-40 years for them to pass on.

the baby boomers was more of a time reference than a major factor on the average itself. but i guess this is all getting way off topic.
 

Kestrel

Registered User
Jan 30, 2005
5,814
129
Cosis said:
2. Its a fact of life that being 6'3-6'5+ is small odds. That is a fact of life folks. 5'9 is the average male height in North America. We can agree here right? This = 2.

3. It is a fact that being skilled is also small odds. This is also a fact of life folks. Otherwise wed have 10,000 players capable of scoring 50+ goals in the NHL. Can we agree here? This = 2

4. Now take 2+2 and that =4. 4 being, a person being big is lucky to have beaten the odds of average size. A player having skill is lucky to have beatn the odds to have skill when most dont. A person who is big AND skilled is lucky enough to have beaten the odds TWICE!

There's a flaw with your statistical analysis. Having "beaten the odds" once doesn't make you less likely to "beat the odds" the second time. You appear to be thinking along the lines that if you flip a coin two times, there's only a 25% chance of getting heads twice. That's true - HOWEVER, flipping heads the first time is 50-50. Flipping heads the second time is 50-50. These two statistical probabilities are completely independent of each other!

That said, A large guy has just as much chance of developing skills as a small guy. "Beating the odds" once doesn't change that. As for larger people having a deprived coordination based on their size - for most physically active, physically mature men who eat an athlete's diet - 6'5" isn't so incredibly big and detrimental to such a man's coordination. If the man were coming much closer to 7', I'd maybe give your argument a little more creedence.
 

DARKSIDE

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
1,053
0
I'm not sure if I agree with your assumption. The Devils who I watch closely, have drafted smaller players over the last several years... Brylin, Sullivan, Gomez, Gionta, Parise and Vrana. I still believe you need a good mix of skill, size and toughness. And I do hope you're correct about the NHL opening up the game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->