Prospect Info: Vitaly Abramov - RW/LW

[Icelevel]

I think it’s possible. He put over 100 PTS in the Q!!

Well, and he’s looked very good in dev camp and pretty good in the nhl games

 

[InTkachukWeTrust]

Alexis Lafrieniere put up 105 pts and Abramov put up 104 x 2. He also put up similar points to Ehlers and Giroux (not to say he’ll be as good as any of these players but it’s good company) If skating is his only issue, we should be thrilled.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Alexis Lafrieniere put up 105 pts and Abramov put up 104 x 2. He also put up similar points to Ehlers and Giroux (not to say he’ll be as good as any of these players but it’s good company) If skating is his only issue, we should be thrilled.

567 players have put up 104 pts in a single season in the Q.. Not saying they all compare evenly across the years or age. I have no idea how many of them turned into legit NHL players. Quite a few less. I played against a kid who put up 157 and 160 in the Q.. back to back years .. he was about the same size as Abramov.. He seemed pretty good to me when I was playing against him.. he never got a sniff.

 

[Peptic Balcers]

Alexis Lafrieniere put up 105 pts and Abramov put up 104 x 2. He also put up similar points to Ehlers and Giroux (not to say he’ll be as good as any of these players but it’s good company) If skating is his only issue, we should be thrilled.

93 points in his draft year too (which is great). For comparison, Pelletier put up 89 in his draft year and was taken with a late first this year.

Skill is never going to be the thing that sets him back. Once he shows he can physically adapt to the pro game, he'll flourish

 

[Ice-Tray]

I don’t know anything about this kid.

I will say this though, I enjoyed the way he played when he was up with the team. He was super competitive, attacked the puck, and attacked the net.

That level of tenaciousness, and toughness will bode well for him if he can finish his plays. He may be small, but like many smaller kids, he looks to have the heart of a lion.

I personally would rather that than watching a bunch of oafs lumber around the ice refusing to battle for position or pucks.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

I don’t know anything about this kid.

I will say this though, I enjoyed the way he played when he was up with the team. He was super competitive, attacked the puck, and attacked the net.

That level of tenaciousness, and toughness will bode well for him if he can finish his plays. He may be small, but like many smaller kids, he looks to have the heart of a lion.

I personally would rather that than watching a bunch of oafs lumber around the ice refusing to battle for position or pucks.

Well if that is the choice .. me too .. and probably everybody else... Abramov or oaf lumbering around the ice. Have to go with Abramov there. Choice is not that though so.. we'll see how it goes.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Well if that is the choice .. me too .. and probably everybody else... Abramov or oaf lumbering around the ice. Have to go with Abramov there. Choice is not that though so.. we'll see how it goes.

I thought my point something along the lines of dog in the fight vs fight in the dog.

Guess I was too vague.

 

[MatchesMalone]

I thought my point something along the lines of dog in the fight vs fight in the dog.

Guess I was too vague.

Nah your point was clear. SOA is just saying, you know, the stories are beautiful when they play out, but in reality Goliath usually wins. For every Martin St. Louis or Theo Fleury, there's a dozen Martin St. Pierres or Cory Conachers.

When both size and skating are concerns, I dunno man. Would be pretty sick if he plans out.

 

[MatchesMalone]

I'm definitely with you Ice-Tray. Small, skilled hockey is fun to watch. And ever since the '05 lockout there has been a gradual trend toward smaller guys making it. But every time you have an LA Kings or St Louis Blues win the Cup, suddenly everyone takes a step back and the next thing you know Cole Caufield is drafted 15th overall.

 

[Tuna99]

I'm definitely with you Ice-Tray. Small, skilled hockey is fun to watch. And ever since the '05 lockout there has been a gradual trend toward smaller guys making it. But every time you have an LA Kings or St Louis Blues win the Cup, suddenly everyone takes a step back and the next thing you know Cole Caufield is drafted 15th overall.

Washington was a big team too. Chicago was big.

For all the ‘it’s a game for small players’ playoff hockey doesn’t change - you need size and intimidation to win and that will never change.

Washington, Boston, Chicago, LA, St Louis, All were big teams and wanted to play big. Really only Pitt wasn’t defined by size but Crosby plays big, Malkin is huge, they aren’t small by any means.

 

[OD99]

Don't think intimidation really plays a part but size of course has inherent advantages in just about any sport.

Being bigger, as long as it isn't a detriment to athleticism, will always be better.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

Washington was a big team too. Chicago was big.

For all the ‘it’s a game for small players’ playoff hockey doesn’t change - you need size and intimidation to win and that will never change.

Washington, Boston, Chicago, LA, St Louis, All were big teams and wanted to play big. Really only Pitt wasn’t defined by size but Crosby plays big, Malkin is huge, they aren’t small by any means.

In the 2015-16 season, right at the end of the Hawks little dynasty they were the 27th heaviest team and the 10th tallest. They were more small and skilled than a big team. That year the three biggest teams were Winnipeg (missed playoffs), Los Angeles (out in 5 games in the first round) and Arizona (missed the playoffs).

james mirtle: 2015-16 NHL teams by height, weight and age - A hockey journalist's blog

Going into last year the Bruins were a top 5 smallest team int he NHL (by size and weight) despite having the biggest player in NHL history on their team. They made it to the finals. St. Louis was a top 5 biggest team in the NHL and won the Cup.

Sizing up the NHL: 2017-18 NHL teams by age, height and...

There is no correlation between team success and the size of its players relative to the NHL player population. Period. Good teams are good teams even if they have a handful of sub-six-foot players. Just like a good team is still good even if they have 4 or 5 players who are 6'4 and up.

A few things are pretty much a certainty though. If you try to build a team of players who are all 6'3 and up, you're almost certainly going to be terrible. Just like a team comprised completely of players 5'11 and under is likely going to suck. It's up to teams to have coaches that can define roles for players of all different ilks and use them to their advantage. Those are the teams that win.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I’m not saying that we need a team of small players

I’m mostly looking at this kid, seeing his offensive potential, understanding his deficiencies (skating apparently), and then feeling like he’s much more likely to become a player because he seems to have a boat load of drive and determination.

If he isn’t going to be quick enough to go around guys, he needs to have the courage and competitiveness to skate to the dirty areas, and engage in contact to win puck battles (if he won’t be getting there first).

It’s good to see that kind of play from a smaller skilled guy.

In the end I would like to see all of the different types of players on our team play fundamentally like this, in terms of his motor, his fearlessness, and his drive to operate in the more dangerous and cluttered areas of the ice. The BT way.

I’m not saying he’s going to make it, but I like what I have seen so far, and the kid has scoring pedigree, no doubt. In sum; in the absence of blazing speed, heaps of courage and determination are a solid substitute in a smaller skilled player.

 

[Tuna99]

In the 2015-16 season, right at the end of the Hawks little dynasty they were the 27th heaviest team and the 10th tallest. They were more small and skilled than a big team. That year the three biggest teams were Winnipeg (missed playoffs), Los Angeles (out in 5 games in the first round) and Arizona (missed the playoffs).

james mirtle: 2015-16 NHL teams by height, weight and age - A hockey journalist's blog

Going into last year the Bruins were a top 5 smallest team int he NHL (by size and weight) despite having the biggest player in NHL history on their team. They made it to the finals. St. Louis was a top 5 biggest team in the NHL and won the Cup.

Sizing up the NHL: 2017-18 NHL teams by age, height and...

There is no correlation between team success and the size of its players relative to the NHL player population. Period. Good teams are good teams even if they have a handful of sub-six-foot players. Just like a good team is still good even if they have 4 or 5 players who are 6'4 and up.

A few things are pretty much a certainty though. If you try to build a team of players who are all 6'3 and up, you're almost certainly going to be terrible. Just like a team comprised completely of players 5'11 and under is likely going to suck. It's up to teams to have coaches that can define roles for players of all different ilks and use them to their advantage. Those are the teams that win.

In their prime positions (top pairing D, Top C and top W - Chicago has Srabrook, Toewes, Hossa, Sharpe, Keith who is smaller but plays like he’s a nut bar and Kane who ansmaller winger but is Kane) - so in their prime positions who plays over 50% of the game and all the key moments they are big.

Same with Boston - Chara, Bergeron, Marchand who is small but plays twice his size, Krejci who’s small and just good.

You have to be big in your key positions. Show me a team that has multiple small players in their key positions and they don’t win.

Despite what you say size is important. If You have to have smaller guys who play bigger then their size like Keith and Marchand, they can’t be guys like Hoffman.

 

[stempniaksen]

In their prime positions (top pairing D, Top C and top W - Chicago has Srabrook, Toewes, Hossa, Sharpe, Keith who is smaller but plays like he’s a nut bar and Kane who ansmaller winger but is Kane) - so in their prime positions who plays over 50% of the game and all the key moments they are big.

Same with Boston - Chara, Bergeron, Marchand who is small but plays twice his size, Krejci who’s small and just good.

You have to be big in your key positions. Show me a team that has multiple small players in their key positions and they don’t win.

Despite what you say size is important. If You have to have smaller guys who play bigger then their size like Keith and Marchand, they can’t be guys like Hoffman.

You just did it yourself with the Bruins. They were one of the 5 smallest teams last year, despite having the largest player in NHL history playing for them. The B's top five scorers from the playoffs were Bergeron, Pastrnak, Marchand, Krejci and Krug, none of those guys would be considered "big" by any stretch of the imagination. Their next most important player was probably Charlie McAvoy and he's not exactly a giant at 6'0 208lbs.

Kind of funny you use the Blackhawks example as well, given that the only guy you listed that can qualify as "big" is Seabrook and he's probably the worst one of the bunch.

Your post kind of proves (accidentally?) that it's more about the size of the fight in the dog than the size of the dog in the fight.

 

[MatchesMalone]

In the 2015-16 season, right at the end of the Hawks little dynasty they were the 27th heaviest team and the 10th tallest. They were more small and skilled than a big team. That year the three biggest teams were Winnipeg (missed playoffs), Los Angeles (out in 5 games in the first round) and Arizona (missed the playoffs).

james mirtle: 2015-16 NHL teams by height, weight and age - A hockey journalist's blog

Going into last year the Bruins were a top 5 smallest team int he NHL (by size and weight) despite having the biggest player in NHL history on their team. They made it to the finals. St. Louis was a top 5 biggest team in the NHL and won the Cup.

Sizing up the NHL: 2017-18 NHL teams by age, height and...

There is no correlation between team success and the size of its players relative to the NHL player population. Period. Good teams are good teams even if they have a handful of sub-six-foot players. Just like a good team is still good even if they have 4 or 5 players who are 6'4 and up.

A few things are pretty much a certainty though. If you try to build a team of players who are all 6'3 and up, you're almost certainly going to be terrible. Just like a team comprised completely of players 5'11 and under is likely going to suck. It's up to teams to have coaches that can define roles for players of all different ilks and use them to their advantage. Those are the teams that win.

Ok, I agree with you almost entirely, and Tuna definitely has it wrong - Chicago's 2010 team was pretty bug, but by 2015 they were small. And everything else you noted is true...

Except when you say there is no correlation between player size and team success, that is misleading. The game is constantly changing, and teams are always finding new strategies to adapt.

Let's think back to the dead-puck era, there were almost no very small players in the league, especially on defense. After the 2005 lockout, with the cutdown on obstruction, the elimination of the redline, etc. suddenly there was a fundamental shift - the game became more wide-open, back-and-forth, and the value of small, skilled players skyrocketed.

But as always, over time, teams adapt. I don't think LA was particularly trying to build a big team at first - they recognized where the league was and took Hickey fourth overall in 2007. But then the analytic revolution started.

In the mid-90s, the trap became widespread as a strategy for inferior teams to compete with more skilled teams. Now around 2010, the mantra "a good offense is the best defense" took on a whole new meaning, as teams realized that if you can't slow down skilled opponents on the rush and in transition, you can prevent their offense by maintaining offensive zone possession, and the most effective way to do that was by having big forwards who could dominate play down low and along the boards - see: Chicago 2010; but they had a terrifying mix of size and skill up front and could have won in any era. But the point is, corsi was becoming the name of the game.

The counter to that then was having a gigantic defense to combat the opponent's big forwards down low, in addition to having a pretty big forward group of your own. See: LA 2012 and 2014.

2013 Chicago was a bit of a transition between big and skilled, but by 2015 they were ushering in a new era. It was well-recognized throughout the league that you had to win the corsi game to be competitive, but Chicago had figured out that size isn't the only way to do so. If the opponent's defense is too big and slow, you can play keep-away, passing and stick handling around the offensive zone. Of course the Sedins were already doing this in Vancouver 2011, but they didn't have the depth of skill to win with it.

And then Pittsburgh took the next step and was the first team to master activating the defense in the offensive zone to further consolidate control of OZ possession, and their speed and skill made a mockery of a big, slower San Jose team.

Point is, having a big team or small team is never a fool-proof strategy either way. But you can't say it has no bearing on team success. Depending on where the league is going and what other teams are doing, a team can find ways to take advantage of their size or lack thereof.

 

[Que]

Fwiw Burkie had a fantastic analogy for a teams strategy to build a winner in the playoffs.

Something to the effect of “You’re going to have to play a big team and win a series. You’re going to have to play a fast team to win a series. You’re going to have to play a skilled team to win a series. And then you have to beat a team that’s all three.”

There’s no formula for this. Pro sports is a cruel, unrelenting series of disappointments.

 

[Tuna99]

You just did it yourself with the Bruins. They were one of the 5 smallest teams last year, despite having the largest player in NHL history playing for them. The B's top five scorers from the playoffs were Bergeron, Pastrnak, Marchand, Krejci and Krug, none of those guys would be considered "big" by any stretch of the imagination. Their next most important player was probably Charlie McAvoy and he's not exactly a giant at 6'0 208lbs.

Kind of funny you use the Blackhawks example as well, given that the only guy you listed that can qualify as "big" is Seabrook and he's probably the worst one of the bunch.

Your post kind of proves (accidentally?) that it's more about the size of the fight in the dog than the size of the dog in the fight.

This is actually a stupid conversation because every scout, every coach, every GM knows size matters. It’s not a fad, it’s a main ingredient to winning like goaltending is. You could make a post with stats showing goaltending isn’t important to winning a Cup, but it would just be wrong.

Size matters, and it’ll matter this year. Boston lost because St Louis ran them out of the building and wore them down, Krug wouldn’t go into the corners by the end of the series and your example proves size matters because you used an example of a losing team. To pretend it doesn’t is stupid.

St. Louis was the biggest and meanest team all playoffs and look at their top 5 scores - all big guys expect Schwartz who isn’t afraid of anything. Oreilly, Tarasenko, Piternageli, Perron, Schwartz.

 

[JungleBeat]

Size matters, and it’ll matter this year. Boston lost because St Louis ran them out of the building and wore them down, Krug wouldn’t go into the corners by the end of the series and your pair proves size matters because you used an example of a losing team. To pretend it doesn’t is stupid.

St. Louis was the biggest and meanest team all playoffs and look at their top 5 scores - all big guys expect Schwartz who isn’t afraid of anything. Oreilly, Tarasenko, Piternageli, Perron, Schwartz.

I wouldn’t classify Perron and Tarasenko as big.

 

[Tuna99]

I wouldn’t classify Perron and Tarasenko as big.

Tarasenko is 225 pounds

 

[Tuna99]

I wouldn’t classify Perron and Tarasenko as big.

But would you say St Louis was the biggest and meanest team this playoffs?

 

[supsens]

I wouldn’t classify Perron and Tarasenko as big.

Tarasenko is built like a brick shit house

 

[Larionov]

Pro sports is a cruel, unrelenting series of disappointments.

This.

I always equate it to Charlie Brown trying to kick the football from Lucy. Every fall he lines up to kick it again, believing that this year will be different, and every year she yanks it away again. That, in a nutshell, is what it means to be a sports fan. We all need psychiatric help, basically.

 

[topshelf15]

Boston,s size is on the blueline,they likely have one of the biggest top 4,s...Chara and Carlo,are just massive defenders...Size is just one of the ingredients ,that every team needs to win

 

[Sensmileletsgo]

I wouldn’t classify Perron and Tarasenko as big.

Not big? Tarasenko has the biggest forearms in the league.