Funny how it took until a time when there was more than an average of 0 european captains in a 30 team league for a european captain to win!
There's so much horribly flawed logic here it's actually difficult to unpack it all. It's a stupid argument for the ages.
1) on a pretty basic level it should be pretty obvious that having more good players = better team, regardless of size.
2) same as the European captain thing, this whole argument is a 'this rock keeps tigers away' thing or Ron Delorme's 'there are no Slovenian NHLers' argument for not drafting Kopitar. There are very few sub-6' NHL defenders and very few teams have multiples of them, so therefore it's highly unlikely for this outcome to have happened, whatever the case. To use the non-occurrence of an unlikely outcome as an excuse to make your team worse is abject stupidity.
3) THERE IS ACTUALLY AN EXAMPLE OF A TEAM EXCELLING WITH MULTIPLE TINY DEFENDERS. Boston came 1 game away from a Cup last year and dominated in the 'regular' season this year with Krug/Grzelcyk in the Hughes/Stecher roles PLUS Connor Clifton as a tiny 6th defender on top of that. Literally the team with the most small defenders in the NHL has been one of the most successful!
4) We just watched this team in an extended playoff run where Hughes and Stecher were two of our best players and the fact that we had multiple small defenders wasn't a problem at all. The actual problem was that we had too many big, plodding defenders who were constantly pinned in their own end. But somehow the focus is upgrading the guy who killed his minutes and was +10, not the pylons who were getting killed.