Which is the most important for success?

[MePutPuckInNet]

Please rank these by number according to what you believe is the most important for a hockey player to be successful in the NHL. [#8 would be least important, whereas #1 would be most important]...feel free to explain your opinion - I'm interested to know - I've put this on a few boards and the answers so far have been pretty interesting.

**added** I think my original post was too vague, as some have indicated. I think that it would vary quite a bit, depending on the position. So, to clarify, I was asking for your thoughts regarding a forward. Also, my meaning of “success†should have been more clear. (Damn, I suck at asking these kinds of questions - sorry) By “successâ€, I meant the greatest impact on a team - in a good way. Does that help?

Size/Strength
Skating
Shot/Scoring
Puckhandling
Hockeysense
Leadership
Poise
Defense

Click to read more...

 

[Ajacied]

I'm going to vote for Hockey sense.. Mostly because that is the most unteachable attribute. The rest can be taught more or less.

 

[Charge_Seven]

In my honest oppinion, the largest factors in a players eventual success/failure are the following:

1) Hockey Sense: If you don't have it, you simply cannot play at the top level that your physically able to. Your mental game must be there.
2A) Skating: Skating ability is a must, however it is also interchangeable with what will come next in the order. If you can't skate, you'd better be huge, and un-movable.
2B) Size and Strength: Dave Andreychuck was never the best skater in the league, he got by on his size and strength. It is size and strength that tend to lead to longevity in careers (you do not need to be 6'5 for this to be true, size and strength can be relative to your size (if you're 5'11, and you've learned how to sue your size, you can be just ass affective)
3) Poise: Without poise you'll blow most shots, most defensive plays, and even your timing will be off.
4) Puckhandling: You've got to be able to carry and move the puck, no question about it. But you can get by without it, as long as you're dominant in all the above areas.
5A) Shot/Scoring: Every team wants a guy who can put the puck in the net.
5B) Defense: If you can't put the puck into the net, just keep it out of yours, easy to learn, easy to do. Just commit to it.
6) Leadership: Leadership is not necessary for PERSONAL success. You can be a terrible leader for your team, and still put up huge numbers and be a success, however Leadership is a must to winning Cups, and it should be for getting into the Hall of Fame.



On a side note, if anyone here has ever been involved with FHLs on the net, you will know that although there are scoring/defence categories, the best players are normally the ones with high intensity, durability, skating, puck control, and energy. It is these that makes a player what he is (FHL, or real hockey), without those a player is useless. Scoring is great, but it doesn't make you great.

 

[sunb]

Please rank these by number according to what you believe is the most important for a hockey player to be successful in the NHL. [#8 would be least important, whereas #1 would be most important]...feel free to explain your opinion - I'm interested to know - I've put this on a few boards and the answers so far have been pretty interesting.

Size/Strength
Skating
Shot/Scoring
Puckhandling
Hockeysense
Leadership
Poise
Defense

#1 - Hockey Sense - This can't be taught and is what separates the Sergei Federovs from the Taylor Pyatts.

#2 - Skating - It is impossible these days for a player to make the NHL if he isn't a good skater.

#3 - Puckhandling - If a player doesn't have proper stickwork and puckhandling it is also very unlikely he will be impressive enough to make the NHL.

#4 - Size and strenght

#5 - Shot and scoring (this can be seen more as hockey skills in general that includes passing, playmaking, offensive sense, etc...)

#6 - Defense

#7 - Leadership

no such thing as poise imo

 

[Coffey77]

I'm going to vote for Hockey sense.. Mostly because that is the most unteachable attribute. The rest can be taught more or less.

A couple of other attributes I would consider are heart and desire. Also things you can't really teach.

A player may have size, skill, etc. but if they don't care or don't have the strive to better themselves then it's all wasted. For example, Viktor Kozlov. He's big, a good skater and is very skilled. But he always leaves you wanting more because he plays a perimter game.

As for the question, I think hockey sense is the most important with a tie for second with size/strength and skating. IMO, a player absolutely needs to be either strong physically or can fly out there. If he doesn't have either then it's going to be very hard to succeed in the NHL. That's what worries me a bit about Wing prospect Jiri Hudler. He's not big but he isn't a great skater. That's a double whammy.

 

[MS]

First off, there's no way you can rate forwards and defenders by the same criteria, since what it takes to be successful is quite different. I'm not a huge fan of some of your criteria, so I'll use mine:

For defenders:

1. Hockey sense/positioning/defensive reads
2. Size/strength
3. Mobility - mostly backward skating and lateral mobility.
4. Transition offensive skills - outlet passing, breakout skills, etc.
5. Physical play/mean streak
6. Contained offensive skills - shot, PP skills, etc.
7. Leadership & intangibles

The first two are probably the most important. If you can't read plays at a competant level, forget it. If you don't have the size/strength to deal with opposing forwards, you're going to have to be bloody unbelievable across the board everywhere else to be successful.


For skill forwards:

1. Hockey sense/offensive instincts/creativity
2. Strength on the puck - ability to make plays in traffic or in the face of an opposing defender
3. Shot
4. Skating - first step quickness, chance of pace, lateral mobility
5. Physical game
6. Defensive play
7. Leadership and intangibles

 

[Streaker-man]

1. Hockeysense, something that can´t be taught. Hockeysense is the first thing to be noticed at early age.

2. Size/Strength, sad but true. Big boys will get drafted. If you can´t teach a monster how to play hockey he can always give up trying and drop the gloves. Superskilled midgets are hard to find. Plus they get injured more easily.

3. Shot/Scoring, every team wants a fresh idol to be used in marketing. And it´s a game that requires goals to be scored. The more the better

4. Leadership, team captains are drafted more often than the quiet and huble guys in the corner. The game needs colorful persons.

5-6. Puckhandling, someone has to bring the puck to the offensive zone (or at least to the neutral zone and dump it in). It´s nice for the owners to see their skillful youngsters making fun of enemy D´s while resting their cigar hands in the jacuzzi.

5-6. Defence, tied with puckhandling. Scoring always beats defence. It´s much more fun to see a game that ends 5-5 than a game that´s a 0-0 tie after the overtime. But as we know, every cup hungry team needs a working D. Having 2 completely useless and selfdestructive defenders (no matter what the manager says) will cost you the Cup sooner or later.

7. Poise, It´s just not fun if your star player does well during the regular season but chokes when the playoffs start. At least you can always bench him. He´ll learn someday (or not)

8. Skating, a superior skill when used correctly. Vital for small sized (or somehow weak) players. Good skating ability is appreciated all over the world. But no matter how fast skater or otherwise good skater you are you still need the skills above or otherwise you´d better stick with figureskating

 

[Charge_Seven]

7. Poise, my English isn´t able to translate the word, but my dictionary mentions the word "balance", so I´ll buy that. It doesn´t matter how good you are if you can´t keep your butt off the ice

QUOTE]

I believe the definition we are working with here has more to do with a players ability to play calm under pressure, such as playoff games (Patrick Lalime anyone?).

 

[Streaker-man]

I believe the definition we are working with here has more to do with a players ability to play calm under pressure, such as playoff games (Patrick Lalime anyone?).

Oh ok thanks. Well that changes the whole list (well almost). Important for winning goalies etc. it is.

 

[Charge_Seven]

no such thing as poise imo

I'm not quite sure how you can argue that poise does not exist. We've seen it again and again in situations. As I just stated in another post, Patrick Lalime has had some very decent numbers, as well as big saves, but he did not have any poise this season in the playoffs, and blew too EASY shots that cost the Senators a series, and quite possibly even the Cup (I'm not going to start an argument over whether or not Ottawa could have beaten Tampa...it's just not worth it, and I'm not sure they would have). If you're arguing that poise is more something that grows on players, such as gaining the confidence in their play that allows them to play at a higher level more consistently, then I can kind of see where you're coming from. However I don't believe for a second that there is "no such thing" as poise.

 

[hunter1909*]

1- skating...all great players are great skaters
2- hockey sense...you cant teach this
3- shot/scoring...scorers never get cut
4- puckhandling...impossible to score without this
5- size/strength...useful when driving to the net, or taking a check
6- leadership...almost all great players are also great leaders
7- poise...scoring ops last 3/100 of a second...stay poised to get them
8- defence...thats why they invented d-men and goalies :p

 

[Charge_Seven]

1- skating...all great players are great skaters
2- hockey sense...you cant teach this
3- shot/scoring...scorers never get cut
4- puckhandling...impossible to score without this
5- size/strength...useful when driving to the net, or taking a check
6- leadership...almost all great players are also great leaders
7- poise...scoring ops last 3/100 of a second...stay poised to get them
8- leadership...great leaders dont talk a lot...they lead by example

Ok...

1st off, Dave Andreychuck, great player...not so great skater.
2nd, Scorers never get cut? What about Martin St. Louis?
and 3rd, Leadership is both 6th, and 8th? lol

In general, that's pretty true though.

 

[#66]

Size/Strength- (5)Good as an asset to a player but I wouldn't look for just size.
Skating- (3)I would look for workable skating. Some players have flaws that can be corrected.
Shot/Scoring- (2)Some players have accurate shots and some players have hard shots, I would want someone that knows how to beat a goalie.
Puckhandling- (4)A great asset when used correctly but puckhandling with "hockeysense" is a real key.
Hockeysense- (1a)IMO the biggest key to a player. Hockeysense and knowing limitations almost always make a valuable player.
Leadership- (7)Another asset that is great but shouldn't be thrust on every player.
Poise- (1b)I would lump this in with hockeysense.
Defense- (6)Defense can be taught and can be made up for with work ethic.

 

[hunter1909*]

Ok...

1st off, Dave Andreychuck, great player...not so great skater.
2nd, Scorers never get cut? What about Martin St. Louis?
and 3rd, Leadership is both 6th, and 8th? lol

In general, that's pretty true though.

andreychuck is a good player but great?...not to me...
martin st louis...ok he gets cut...then bounced back...

sorry about the 2 leadership positions i must have been skating too fast to notice

 

[kimzey59]

andreychuck is a good player but great?...not to me...

Perhaps a better example would be Luc Robitaille. Luc is a great(HOF caliber) player but there have always been question marks surrounding his skating.

Andreychuk is probably going into the HOF(he does have the most PP goals of all time) as well but he has never really been considered an Elite player like Luc.

 

[regdunlap7]

Size/Strength
Skating
Shot/Scoring
Puckhandling
Hockeysense
Leadership
Poise
Defense

1) Hockey Sense
2) Skating
3) Shot/scoring
4) Poise
5)Leadership
6)Puckhandling
7)Size/strength
8) Defense (I think if the player has several of the above, defense can be taught)

For defensemen I'd move size and defense up higher.

 

[regdunlap7]

I'm not quite sure how you can argue that poise does not exist. We've seen it again and again in situations. As I just stated in another post, Patrick Lalime has had some very decent numbers, as well as big saves, but he did not have any poise this season in the playoffs, and blew too EASY shots that cost the Senators a series, and quite possibly even the Cup (I'm not going to start an argument over whether or not Ottawa could have beaten Tampa...it's just not worth it, and I'm not sure they would have). If you're arguing that poise is more something that grows on players, such as gaining the confidence in their play that allows them to play at a higher level more consistently, then I can kind of see where you're coming from. However I don't believe for a second that there is "no such thing" as poise.

I'm also thinking back to the playoffs and the way Tampa would pressure the other team's defensemen constantly. More than one big, good skating, highly skilled Dman (and I'm thinking of Mike Komisarek here as one example) made a horrible pass because they wilted under the pressure (though in fairness, you can't expect a youngster playing in his 1st playoffs to play with as much poise as a vet... Komi will be fine in time).

 

[hardcore_fan]

I'm not quite sure how you can argue that poise does not exist. We've seen it again and again in situations. As I just stated in another post, Patrick Lalime has had some very decent numbers, as well as big saves, but he did not have any poise this season in the playoffs, and blew too EASY shots that cost the Senators a series, and quite possibly even the Cup (I'm not going to start an argument over whether or not Ottawa could have beaten Tampa...it's just not worth it, and I'm not sure they would have). If you're arguing that poise is more something that grows on players, such as gaining the confidence in their play that allows them to play at a higher level more consistently, then I can kind of see where you're coming from. However I don't believe for a second that there is "no such thing" as poise.

Wouldn't poise just be one component that makes up hockey sense, like the ability to make the smart play even under pressure?

 

[DownFromNJ]

You missed the most important one.

Work Ethic.

 

[bigd]

There are good players that are not very good skaters but to be a great player you have to be a great skater first.

 

[kimzey59]

There are good players that are not very good skaters but to be a great player you have to be a great skater first.

Then explain Luc Robitaille. Robitaille is the top scoring LW of all time(if that doesn't qualify him for "great" status what does?) and he is not a good skater.

Skating can certainly give a player a better chance to exceed but it is not a "qualifier" for being a great player. As with most atributes, poor skating can be overcome by being exceptional in other areas(in Robitaille's case: hockey sense and scoring ability).

 

[bigd]

The original question is "which is most important for success" SKATING! everything else comes after that. There are always a few players that break the mold but for the majority of players out there, If you can't skate you can't keep up!

 

[MePutPuckInNet]

Ok...well...just so you know....I stole those categories from ISS (free) .

Here's my opinion for the forward position:

1. skating
2. puckhandling
3. shot/scoring
4. hockeysense
5. poise
6. defense
7. size/strength
8. leadership

I also believe that skating is the most crucial of them all. The game is played ON ICE for God's sake.....

 

[kimzey59]

The original question is "which is most important for success" SKATING! everything else comes after that. There are always a few players that break the mold but for the majority of players out there, If you can't skate you can't keep up!

Poor skating ability, like any other physical trait, can be overcome. It is not a qualifier for being a great player. There are only 3 "qualifiers" that "great" players need: Hockeysense(which is by far the most important atribute a player can have(if a player doesn't have good hockeysense there is almost no way that player will make the NHL to begin with)), skill(or rather: the ability to capitalize on the opportunities they get) and poise(the ability to play well in "clutch" situations(Pavol Demitra may very well have the most natural skill of any player in the league but he doesn't play well in the clutch and therefore isn't considered a "great" player).

Skating(see Robitaille), size(see St. Louis, Fluery(before he destroyed himself) and Housley), leadership(see Brett Hull) and any other physical atributes can be overcome if a player has those 3 things(or even 2 of them(so long as 1 is hockeysense)). Having those traits certainly gives a player the POTENTIAL to do more at the NHL level but they are not qualifiers for being successful at the NHL level. Hockey sense is the only real "qualifier" for being successful at the NHL. If a player can't read the game well then the odds of him becoming anything at the NHL level are VERY slim.

 

[Wisent]

While I agree the hockey sense is something important, I don't agree that it can't be taught. I mean, what is hockey sense? It is the ability to read the play in a way a hokcey player can. Sure some people are better than others but all players become better with experience. Your hockey sense improves when you know how to react in the hockey. And I believe it is part of coache's job to show you exactly that.
Anyway I'd go with hockeysense too, but I would rather choose "work ethic" if that was on the list.