Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Franz Liszt

Mike Gillis Wants To Get "Younger & Bigger" - My Take

Recommended Posts

In 1997, The Hockey News commemorated their 50th anniversary with a list of the 50 top NHL players of all-time

The top ten players, in order, were:

Wayne Gretzky, Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe, Mario Lemieux, Maurice Richard, Doug Harvey, Jean Beliveau, Bobby Hull, Terry Sawchuk and Eddie Shore.[3]

Gretzky 6 '

Orr 5 ' 11

Howe 6' 1 "

Le Mieux 6' 4"

M. Richard 5' 10"

Harvey 5' 11"

Beliveau 6' 3"

Hull 5' 10"

Sawchuk 5' 11"

Shore 5' 11"

Six of the top 10 all time best players in NHL history were 5' 11" and under.

Seven of the top ten all time best players in NHL history were 6' and under.

Quantity will never replace quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,if you believe any of those players would be less effective because they are a few inches shorter than many of the oxen today,I disagree.

Pavel Bure was this team's best ever player and it would not matter how many 6'4" hench men are on the ice,he is still going around them or through them.

The list is there and it is pretty evident that 'bigger is better' is a fallacy and even a laughing matter.

Talent is not given out in height measurements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the right thing to do "to get younger and bigger". After the 94 Finals we kept trying to put more experienced guys in place, instead of trying to get younger. Although we had a good intentions with players like Mogilny and Tikkenen, it never panned out in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree. The only way it's a factor is if the smaller player in question buys all the media/fan/Gillis hoopla about "the importance of size", and it adversely affects his play. But even then, that's a character flaw (lack of self-belief), and not evidence that it's size which is holding him back.

It's complete nonsense that a guy who's 6'3" and 200 lbs. is somehow inherently more valuable than a guy who's 5'11" and 200 lbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I can't figure out is this relationship between Gillis & Coach V. What does this have to do with "Younger & Bigger" you ask? Well, it's just that Gillis has supported and rehired a coach who refuses to give young players ice time, and then made a public statement about getting younger and using his draft picks.

We only have to look back to Cody Hodgson (?) and Michael Grabner to see an example of Coach V at work. Especially with Grabner; he gives the guy 2 or 3 minutes a game with the 4th line plumbers and then when the guy isn't on pace for a point a game, or lets someone get by him for a goal, he's back to the farm team.

Sure, he gave Tanev some ice time, which surprised the hell out of me, but then, he really didn't have much of a choice did he?

I'm sure that when the season gets going we will see the same bloody lines as last year, and the same revolving door on a 4th line that will never get a chance to gel and develop chemistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go with your theory.

Why did Gillis just re-sign Ebbett ? He is 5'9" tall. 172 lbs..Every other NHL winger available must be taller and larger than he is?

Why was Ebbett able to score five goals and two game winners in 18 games played?

If Gillis is prescribing to your theory Ebbett is never signed but will indeed play another season for the Nucks.

Let's take 5' 11" Keith Ballard. Nobody hits harder,more strategically and with greater emphasis than this 'shrimp'.

Not only can he take you out with a variety of clean,old-fashioned hockey moves but he can clean your clock,even if you are 6'3".He has repeatedly demonstrated his capabilities at performing both tasks extremely well.

The height factor having supremacy in the talent and heart department is ridiculous.

Size matters to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1997, The Hockey News commemorated their 50th anniversary with a list of the 50 top NHL players of all-time

The top ten players, in order, were:

Seven of the top ten all time best players in NHL history were 6' and under.

Quantity will never replace quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go with your theory.

Why did Gillis just re-sign Ebbett ? He is 5'9" tall. 172 lbs..Every other NHL winger available must be taller and larger than he is?

Why was Ebbett able to score five goals and two game winners in 18 games played?

If Gillis is prescribing to your theory Ebbett is never signed but will indeed play another season for the Nucks.

Let's take 5' 11" Keith Ballard. Nobody hits harder,more strategically and with greater emphasis than this 'shrimp'.

Not only can he take you out with a variety of clean,old-fashioned hockey moves but he can clean your clock,even if you are 6'3".He has repeatedly demonstrated his capabilities at performing both tasks extremely well.

The height factor having supremacy in the talent and heart department is ridiculous.

Size matters to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1997, The Hockey News commemorated their 50th anniversary with a list of the 50 top NHL players of all-time

The top ten players, in order, were:

Wayne Gretzky, Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe, Mario Lemieux, Maurice Richard, Doug Harvey, Jean Beliveau, Bobby Hull, Terry Sawchuk and Eddie Shore.[3]

Gretzky 6 '

Orr 5 ' 11

Howe  6' 1 "

Le Mieux 6' 4"

M. Richard  5' 10"

Harvey 5' 11"

Beliveau  6' 3"

Hull  5' 10"

Sawchuk  5' 11"

Shore  5' 11"

Six of the top 10 all time best players in NHL history were 5' 11" and under.

Seven of the top ten all time best players in NHL history were 6' and under.

Quantity will never replace quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.