Can we please get over this obsession with size? Make Canuck Hockey fun to watch again

[.Naslund]

Ive done my research and Ritchie at 6th seems like the best option. Virtanen a close second. The euros I havent seen play, and they dont blow me away from what ive seen/heard. Ehlers looks like he could be a player, but hes redundant when we already have Shinkaruk at the same position. You think they are going to take Ehlers at 6th, when they could take a player they desperately need for the division they are in? Ritchie makes WAY more sense in every way. Virtanen has a chance to get selected as well since he has size, speed and is a home town boy. If we take Ehlers ill be absolutely shocked. They would have to be in love with the guy as much as SNYPER is.

How is Ehlers REDUNDANT? Has Shinakruk made it to the NHL yet? There's no guarantee that any of our prospects will, so trying to forge a future lineup by plugging holes doesn't really make sense. Shinkaruk is a late first round draft pick and historically not many of them even make an impact in the NHL.

Be realistic, don't just assume everyone is going to reach their potentials.

[Sergei Shirokov]

Our best players are the sedins. Playing a defensive style was never gonna work in our favor.

[bigbadcanucks]

Good OP...I'm of the opinion that size for the sake of size is a one way ticket to the bottom of the standings. However, size, speed, skill, and heart packaged in a single player, and having lots of these type of players is a sure fire way of improving the odds of winning on a consistent basis.

As much as I dislike the Bruins, I think their talent and skill level is grossly underestimated...Bergeron, Krejci, Smith, Krug, Eriksson, and even the rat Marchand and thug Lucic are very skilled players. Throw in Chara, who is far more talented than he's given credit for, and you have a team that is actually average sized, other than the obvious players that jump out at you (Chara, Thornton) but gritty and talented.

The Avalanche's top players are big-bodied skilled players who can play through pain and traffic (i.e. Statsny, O'Reilly, Duchesne, Landeskog) are all 200 lbs.+. McKinnon when he fills out will probably be a 200 pounder as well, so when you have a healthy mix of size and skill in a single package, you can play the game pretty much anyway you want, which is what I would love the Canucks to be.

The team we watched in the second half of this season was neither skilled/fast enough nor tough enough. Even Sestito (bless him for playing the role he does), as much of a gamer he is, is a punching bag who lost more fights than won.

If...kids like Bo Horvat and Brendan Gaunce can play in the NHL like they did in the OHL (sooner the better)...Kassian plays consistently like he did in the final quarter of the season...if Jensen plays consistently like he did when recalled...if Matthias' skill set and speed is as good as we witnessed...if our defence can be more mobile and fluid...we're going to be on the right track.

So, I hope we end up with a pile of skilled 200-205 lb. forwards to go along with a bunch of fast puck moving d-men real soon.

[JeremyCuddles]

There are a lot of fast exciting players in the top 10 that also have size. Why get one when you can have both?

The problem with this team was we had a defensive coach and an offensive minded GM. We need an identity. Whether's it's LA's defence or SJ's offence, we need to pick a mold.

[TOMapleLaughs]

The people 'obsessed with size' aren't writing essays in the subject.

They don't want to watch big sloths or goons wandering around the ice. That doesn't work. But neither does an obsession with midgets.

Look, the Canucks throughout their history have picked up small guy after bust after midget after off the board pick and hey look: IT HASN'T WORKED!

Maybe they're just tired of watching their team being physically dominated every time their team is close to doing anything decent.

Maybe, just maybe, they want to see their team just pick up decent players with legit upside instead of little guys with prayer upside. I dunno, maybe that'll work. Just a theory though that better players have a better shot at winning.

[Absent Canuck]

I made a post about this a couple of days ago .

+1 for the OP

Guys on here think that if Ritchie is packing 8 inches, we will soon be hoisting the cup. Or Vitanen or whatever. If these guys were honestly super skilled , they would be first overall picks and already have nike signing them up as the next Eric Lindros. Everyone and their dog has scouted these guys since they were 14 and nobody thinks Lindros needs to be worried.

They are big guys who look super skilled against amateur BOYS. 90% of these juniors never even get drafted, let alone play 100 NHL games. 90% of the those drafted never play 100 NHL games.

Especially in this day and age where hooking , holding and impediment of any kind is being eliminated, the focus is on speed and skill.

Its nice to have size. However, only if its ON TOP of the exact same speed and skill. Not replacing it. Take the best player avail. Not the biggest so we can feel manly.

[Warhippy]

The people 'obsessed with size' aren't writing essays in the subject.

They don't want to watch big sloths or goons wandering around the ice. That doesn't work. But neither does an obsession with midgets.

Look, the Canucks throughout their history have picked up small guy after bust after midget after off the board pick and hey look: IT HASN'T WORKED!

Maybe they're just tired of watching their team being physically dominated every time their team is close to doing anything decent.

Maybe, just maybe, they want to see their team just pick up decent players with legit upside instead of little guys with prayer upside. I dunno, maybe that'll work. Just a theory though that better players have a better shot at winning.

This....this exactly

[etsen3]

OP I couldn't have said it better myself. After 2011 we got away from what made us successful and lost our identity. It's like McDonald's selling fine steaks. We ended up with a team that was neither skilled nor tough. In my view it's not the style you play that counts, it's how good you are at executing that style. Plus, we actually had a tough team in 2011. One of the keys to our success in that run was our physical play.

[Brick Tamland]

Size is fun, watch the 94 playoffs.

[messier's_elbow]

How is Ehlers REDUNDANT? Has Shinakruk made it to the NHL yet? There's no guarantee that any of our prospects will, so trying to forge a future lineup by plugging holes doesn't really make sense. Shinkaruk is a late first round draft pick and historically not many of them even make an impact in the NHL.

Be realistic, don't just assume everyone is going to reach their potentials.

Your asking me to be realistic? Pretty sure I am being realistic thats my whole point. Ritchie makes way more sense then Ehlers for a handful of reasons for the canucks. Plus from what ive heard from Linden Ritchie is exactly what they want. Size and decent speed.

[Hank Moody]

The people 'obsessed with size' aren't writing essays in the subject.

They don't want to watch big sloths or goons wandering around the ice. That doesn't work. But neither does an obsession with midgets.

Look, the Canucks throughout their history have picked up small guy after bust after midget after off the board pick and hey look: IT HASN'T WORKED!

Maybe they're just tired of watching their team being physically dominated every time their team is close to doing anything decent.

Maybe, just maybe, they want to see their team just pick up decent players with legit upside instead of little guys with prayer upside. I dunno, maybe that'll work. Just a theory though that better players have a better shot at winning.

Give me some examples of some "Midgets" that we've drafted that didn't pan out to their potential? And their "Big" counterparts that we should've taken?

Schroeder? Guy was taken 22nd overall, how does that make him a "bust"? We've also taken guys like "Big Bad RJ Umberger" who's listed at 220 in the first round and they didn't pan out either. How about big Nathan Smith? Big Brian Allen?

What, you wanna call Grabner a first round bust? Guy was picked 14th overall in a weak draft and went on to score 30 goals with the New York Islanders. He's not what I call a bust. We just never gave him a fair chance, and for good reason. At the time of the deal, Ballard was more valuable to us than a redundant Grabner. Doesn't mean he wouldnt've flourished on todays Canucks.

At 6th Overall, take the MOST SKILLED PLAYER.

At 22nd overall, if you want to take a chance on the bigger guy who may end up being a 1st liner but may end up being a 3rd liner, go ahead. Lower risk, higher reward. But to miss out on taking a potential future who knows, Forsberg or Sharp or Hossa in the name of size would be absolutely foolish in my eyes.

You want some "Big sure-fire picks" as you suggest? Taylor Pyatt. 8th overall. Hugh Jessiman. 12th overall in the deepest draft ever. Kyle Beach anyone?

It works both ways. Small and big guys pan out and don't pan out. Take the best player.

[messier's_elbow]

I made a post about this a couple of days ago .

+1 for the OP

Guys on here think that if Ritchie is packing 8 inches, we will soon be hoisting the cup. Or Vitanen or whatever. If these guys were honestly super skilled , they would be first overall picks and already have nike signing them up as the next Eric Lindros. Everyone and their dog has scouted these guys since they were 14 and nobody thinks Lindros needs to be worried.

They are big guys who look super skilled against amateur BOYS. 90% of these juniors never even get drafted, let alone play 100 NHL games. 90% of the those drafted never play 100 NHL games.

Especially in this day and age where hooking , holding and impediment of any kind is being eliminated, the focus is on speed and skill.

Its nice to have size. However, only if its ON TOP of the exact same speed and skill. Not replacing it. Take the best player avail. Not the biggest so we can feel manly.

Your spouting nonsense. At least come with a worthwhile argument. Virtanen and Ritchie are both good skaters. Especially Virtanen who might be as fast as Ehlers. Lots of players picked 6th overall become top players.

[Gollumpus]

I wouldn't take Ehlers at 6th. I'm more inclined to take a big, skilled player over a small skilled player, so Ritchie et al are the guys who I would look to for my pick.

If a trade could be completed for a second 1st rounder, and the pick was 7 - 9, I'd be inclined to draft Virtanen (assuming he was still available), or possibly Fleury.

Assuming the Canucks did a trade with Anaheim for a package which included the Ottawa 10th overall, I still wouldn't take Ehlers with this 1st round pick (assuming he was still available). I'd take Fleury (assuming he was still available).

Regardless of whether the trade for the 7 - 9 pick or the Ottawa 10th happened, I'd see if I could get an additional 1st rounder for cheap. If Ehlers was still available at this time, then I would consider drafting him.

regards,

G.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Give me some examples of some "Midgets" that we've drafted that didn't pan out to their potential? And their "Big" counterparts that we should've taken?

Schroeder? Guy was taken 22nd overall, how does that make him a "bust"? We've also taken guys like "Big Bad RJ Umberger" who's listed at 220 in the first round and they didn't pan out either. How about big Nathan Smith? Big Brian Allen?

What, you wanna call Grabner a first round bust? Guy was picked 14th overall in a weak draft and went on to score 30 goals with the New York Islanders. He's not what I call a bust. We just never gave him a fair chance, and for good reason. At the time of the deal, Ballard was more valuable to us than a redundant Grabner. Doesn't mean he wouldnt've flourished on todays Canucks.

At 6th Overall, take the MOST SKILLED PLAYER.

At 22nd overall, if you want to take a chance on the bigger guy who may end up being a 1st liner but may end up being a 3rd liner, go ahead. Lower risk, higher reward. But to miss out on taking a potential future who knows, Forsberg or Sharp or Hossa in the name of size would be absolutely foolish in my eyes.

You want some "Big sure-fire picks" as you suggest? Taylor Pyatt. 8th overall. Hugh Jessiman. 12th overall in the deepest draft ever. Kyle Beach anyone?

It works both ways. Small and big guys pan out and don't pan out. Take the best player.

Yeah, arguing FOR our historical drafting is an uphill battle, my friend.

Fyi picking the best player means taking into account speed, skill and size. If the small guy is as skilled as Kane, then the risk you take on his size is worth it. If the guy is huge, but slow, then you have to take his speed into account. If the guy is small and slow, then you have to be prepared for him to have an AHL career.

Selecting small just just because you like flash is a seriously flawed approach to take. Even a team full of Patrick Kanes would fail. You need the Toews'. You need the Bickell's. It's just about selecting the legit best players available, not the mythical ones. The long-shots. Save the long-shots for later rounds like most teams do.

[Gollumpus]

Give me some examples of some "Midgets" that we've drafted that didn't pan out to their potential? And their "Big" counterparts that we should've taken?

Schroeder? Guy was taken 22nd overall, how does that make him a "bust"? We've also taken guys like "Big Bad RJ Umberger" who's listed at 220 in the first round and they didn't pan out either. How about big Nathan Smith? Big Brian Allen?

What, you wanna call Grabner a first round bust? Guy was picked 14th overall in a weak draft and went on to score 30 goals with the New York Islanders. He's not what I call a bust. We just never gave him a fair chance, and for good reason. At the time of the deal, Ballard was more valuable to us than a redundant Grabner. Doesn't mean he wouldnt've flourished on todays Canucks.

At 6th Overall, take the MOST SKILLED PLAYER.

At 22nd overall, if you want to take a chance on the bigger guy who may end up being a 1st liner but may end up being a 3rd liner, go ahead. Lower risk, higher reward. But to miss out on taking a potential future who knows, Forsberg or Sharp or Hossa in the name of size would be absolutely foolish in my eyes.

You want some "Big sure-fire picks" as you suggest? Taylor Pyatt. 8th overall. Hugh Jessiman. 12th overall in the deepest draft ever. Kyle Beach anyone?

It works both ways. Small and big guys pan out and don't pan out. Take the best player.

1.) I don't know that there is anything to be gained in a "would'a/should'a/could'a" of who else the team might have drafted. This being said, I note that a lot of people who criticize Canucks scoring more often than note that the team missed out on local players like Weber, Benn and Lucic. Aside from being talented players, they are also "Big".

2.) Schroeder is not a bust, at least not yet. The poor kid has had a lot of bad luck with injuries which has significantly reduced his ice time. I have hopes that he can still make it in the NHL, but I don't see him doing it here, mostly because the guys he would be competing against are better suited for the role he could fill. One of the things which makes them "better suited" is that they have size, as well as talent.

Prior to the 2009 draft Schroeder was listed as the 5th overall in NA skaters, a rating based primarily on his talent level, which I do believe is quite high. This being said, Schroeder fell to 22nd overall in that draft. Why? It has been mentioned that him being 5' 8" and 180 lbs had something to do with it.

This drop in position is not a new phenomenon. Just this past draft Shinkaruk was rated 6th overall amongst NA skaters. He dropped to 24th. Some suggest that his size was a contributing factor in this plummet (and he's not that small at 5' 11" and 175 lbs, right?).

3.) RJ Umberger (had things worked out with him here) might have been a pretty good guy to have around for the last decade. He's been pretty productive (scored 20+ goals 5 times and might have done it a sixth time if he hadn't had an injury) while playing on a much less talented Colombus team. Him on this team during the cup run could have made a lot of difference, both with his talent and his physicality.

4.) Not sure why you're going back as far as Smith or Allen to make your points on size not being a certainly for success.

Smith was troubled with a number of injuries over his time here which pretty much limited his development. Would he have become a top-6 player without those injuries? Maybe, maybe not.

Allen also wasn't as successful in his career as could be hoped for where he was drafted (4th overall). Much like with Smith, Allen did have a few serious injuries during his development, and was finally moved to Florida, which likely didn't help him either.

5.) Grabner was a 1st round bust, for the Canucks and the Panthers.

Grabner finally woke up after he was picked up by the Islanders (who were in willing to take a chance on him for the low financial cost rather than his cap hit). It's too bad he didn't earn his chance to play here so he could show that he wasn't a bust, rather than be gifted with a roster spot in which he might have flourished. Him scoring 30+ goals for the Islanders doesn't impress me.

This being said, I agree with you on your assessment of of the Ballard deal.

6.) I agree that the Canucks should take the most skilled player at 6th overall. There is just a discussion as to what is included under the heading "most skilled". Most folks merely think of offense (shooting and passing). Others will add in defensive ability. Skating ability is always a plus, whether that is going north/south, east/west, or just being strong on your skates so you are hard to check off the puck (size usually helps here). I feel physicality is not given as much credit as it perhaps deserves.

While having size is not a skill, having the "skill" to use it to your best advantage is. Bertuzzi has/had good offensive ability, but he wasn't going to be confused with Gretzky. What eventually made Bertuzzi successful during the WCE era is that he learned how to use his size. When he did this it improved his game, and made his entire line that much more successful.

I think taking Ritchie (for example) is a better choice as he does have lots of positives in all aspects of his game (perhaps similar to Bertuzzi?). He's also big and he looks like he already knows how to use it. That's impressive, and to my mind makes him the best player available at 6th (assuming he isn't taken sooner).

Ehlers has offensive potential, and he is small.

regards,

G.

[Gollumpus]

Yeah, arguing FOR our historical drafting is an uphill battle, my friend.

Fyi picking the best player means taking into account speed, skill and size. If the small guy is as skilled as Kane, then the risk you take on his size is worth it. If the guy is huge, but slow, then you have to take his speed into account. If the guy is small and slow, then you have to be prepared for him to have an AHL career.

Selecting small just just because you like flash is a seriously flawed approach to take. Even a team full of Patrick Kanes would fail. You need the Toews'. You need the Bickell's. It's just about selecting the legit best players available, not the mythical ones. The long-shots. Save the long-shots for later rounds like most teams do.

Agree. +1

regards,

G.

[Bissurnette]

I'm sorry I couldn't read a big chunk of what you wrote OP but I think I got the jist of it and I disagree. Firstly I think you're selecting details that help your argument but turning a blind eye on details that work against you.

For example, the 2010 Hawks were a HUGE team (Ladd, Byfuglien, Brouwer, Seabrook and company...). You're also forgetting that while Toews, Sharp, Seabrook and Hossa may not be hulking, they've certainly got ample size. Seabrook is 6'3" 207lbs, Toews is 6'2" 210 lbs, Hossa listed at the same height and weight, and Sharp is 6'1" and close to 200 lbs... these guys aren't small. They're still the majority of the core this year.

The Bruins did overmatch us with size in 2011 that's how they beat us. We had all the skill in the world and you can argue we were even more skilled than the Chicago team this year. We still lost because the league will not have our back with calls like they do with the Pens and Blackhawks. So the both the Pens and Blackhaws have the option of getting away with building a team mostly based on skill.

The 2012 Kings were also a huge team which let's be honest relied purely on their size and goaltending. Again, Kopitar, Carter and company are skilled but they also have tremendous size. The reason I say they relied purely on size and goaltending is because Quick was playing well, but also all those guys were ice cold in like 3 out of the 4 series. So they didn't really rely on their skill too much. More good defense and an insanely big D-core that always had the middle of ice clogged up so teams took shots from the outside.

The 2013 Hawks were the ones that broke the cycle of the last few years (and take that with a grain of salt because most of their core has good size) , so I'm not about to throw out the lessons I learned from 2011 because of what some might call an exception.

Look at this years playoffs, most of the favourites are huge teams more a lot of skill. I personally feel like Chicago would be lucky if they beat St. Louis, whereas any team would have to get lucky to beat Anaheim. Which is what I'm suggesting our team should look like. We should have mostly big guys who have good skill, skating abilities and footspeed, along with a couple of very skilled small speedy guys. In my opinion, that's what we should model this team after.

EDIT: typos

[Gollumpus]

I'm sorry I couldn't read a big chunk of what you wrote OP but I think I got the jist of it and I disagree. Firstly I think you're selecting details that help your argument but turning a blind eye on details that work against you.

For example, the 2010 Hawks were a HUGE team (Ladd, Byfuglien, Brouwer, Seabrook and company...). You're also forgetting that while Toews, Sharp, Seabrook and Hossa may not be hulking but they've certainly got ample size. Seabrook is 6'3" 207lbs, Toews is 6'2" 210 lbs, Hossa listed at the same height and weight, and Sharp is 6'1" and close to 200 lbs... these guys aren't small. They're still the majority of the core this year.

The Bruins did overmatch us with size in 2011 that's how they beat us. We had all the skill in the world and you can argue we were even more skilled than the Chicago team this year. We still lost because the league will not have our back with calls like they do with the Pens and Blackhawks. So the both the Pens and Blackhaws have the option of getting away with building a team bastly on mostly skill.

The 2012 Kings were also a huge team which let's be honest relied purely on their size and goaltending. Again, Kopitar, Carter and company are skilled but they also have tremendous size. The reason I say they relied purely on size and goaltending is because Quick was playing well, but also all those guys were ice cold in like 3 out of the 4 series. So they didn't really rely on their skill too much. More good defense and an insanely big D-core that always had the middle of ice clogged up so teams took shots from the outside.

The 2013 Hawks were the ones that broke the cycle of the last few years (and take that with a grain of salt because most of their core has good size) , so I'm not about to throw out the lessons I learned from 2011 because of what some might call an exception.

Look at this years playoffs, most of the favourites are huge teams more a lot of skill. I personally feel like Chicago would be lucky if they beat St. Louis, whereas any team would have to get lucky to beat Anaheim. Which is what I'm suggesting our team should look like. We should have mostly big guys who have good skill, skating abilities and footspeed, along with a couple of very skilled small speedy guys. In my opinion, that's what we should model this team after.

Yup. +1

regards,

G.

[VanNuck]

Someone say the same thing to the Edmonton Oilers...

But you are darn right. It does not matter what kind of team you have, championships are not won because champions have embraced a certain style of play or what.

What makes a championship team is the character and tenacity that champions have to do WHATEVER it takes to win, and they go out and do it the best way they know how. They don't try to be someone they are not, they know what they do have and they go out and take full advantage of it.

The Canucks could have beaten the Bruns in 2011 - but they failed when the Sedins allowed the Bruins to get to them. They should have focused on using speed and puck handling to slip by Chara (instead of keeping away from him), and be willing to either stand up to Marchant or otherwise completely ignore him, go on scoring. They let the Bruins get to them, and so went the rest of the team (who was not injured).

[paulis13]

Sorry, how many teams have won the cup recently with their best players being small and offense focused?

Purely offensive small players, especially down the middle, do not win you cups.
Look at the centers from the last few Stanley Cup winners.

Chicago:
Toews
Handzus
Bolland

LA:

Richards
Kopitar
Stoll

Boston:
Krejci
Bergeron
Campbell

Chicago:
Madden
Toews
Bolland

Pittsburgh:
Crosby
Malkin
Staal

Detroit:
Zetterberg
Datsyuk
Draper
Filpulla

Anaheim:
Getzlaf
Pahlsson
Marchant

Notice a trend here?
Unless you have Sidney Crosby, you are not winning the Stanley Cup with small centres who are known mostly for their offensive abilities. Either they are tall and can handle the playoffs physically (Getzlaf, Malkin, Kopitar, Handzus) or defensive (Toews, Pahlsson, Madden, Staal, Bergeron, Bolland).

Heck, let's keep this going and take a quick sample of the wingers.

07 Anaheim's wingers were all massive or defensive except for Kunitz and Selanne.

08 Detroit may have been much smaller on the wings, but they were certainly more defensively talented and experienced than Anaheim with players like Cleary, Maltby, Franzen, Holmstrom, Drake etc.

09 Pittsburgh may be the most offensive minded team out of this group with Kunitz, Sykora, Satan, but they also had some experienced role players like Cooke, Fedotenko, Adams, Guerin, Dupuis.

10 Chicago had a number of huge wingers (contrary to the argument they were an offensively gifted team, which they were, but I don't believe that is why they won the cup. Ladd, Brouwer, Byfuglien, Burish, Eager, Hossa, with a couple skilled small forwards in Versteeg and Kane. But that is some serious weight on the wings, which allowed those couple skilled players to use their skill.

11 Boston. Do I really need to get into what they had? But since you are so clueless about what it takes to win, I may as well get into it. Lucic, Horton, Thornton, Paille, Recchi, Marchand, Ryder, Kelly, Peverley. Marchand and Recchi may have been small, but they played with grit.

12 LA. Brown, Clifford, Williams, Penner, King, Carter, Fraser, Nolan, Gagne. All huge, all played physical.

13 Chicago. Much more offensive minded relative their previous winning team, but it could be argued their success was because of the shorter season which suits smaller teams as they are less likely to be injured come playoffs. That being said, they are still a fairly large gritty team, especially compared to the wingers on teams that did not make the playoffs or go deep (Edmonton, Montreal).
Carcillo, Bickell (proof of how important it is to have size in the playoffs, they can takeover), Bollig, Hossa, Frolik, Kane, Saad, Staalberg.

Everybody here still wanna draft Ehlers? Because of all the players I just listed, a small percentage were small offensive minded players, and Ehlers chance at establishing himself as a successful scorer in the NHL is 50/50 at best. Doubt that? Look at the past 17 drafts and the chance of a first round player becoming a top six forward. Ritchie, Virtanen (I am skeptical of him) and others are way better options. We've got offensively minded prospects in the system in Shinkaruk, Fox. What we lack is size. It is not guaranteed that Gaunce will pan out. Jensen is decently sized, but he is very much still an offensive player right now. Horvat provides us with that defensive force down the middle which is part of the recipe. Let us add to that with a couple large wingers. Ritchie fits the bill.