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

[Angry Goose]

Everyone loved the 2011 run, but I have to admit I didn't enjoy the abuse the Canucks took. I've always enjoyed a more hard hitting style of hockey over pure skill (But you obviously need to have a very skilled team to win games).

A more skilled, harder hitting version of the 94 Canucks is really what I would like to see as the 'vision' for this team moving forward. Glad Linden is at the helm for that.

[bluesman60]

When we lost to Chicago, Buff was the one guy we did not have an answer for. When we played Boston, they had both size and skill....same for LA and SJ.

Vancouver needs more size and skill in the lineup as well as speed. This year was painful to watch because of injuries (heck we spent most of the year without either a complete 1st or 2nd line)....same as when we lost to Boston in game 7. The team we have can't handle the rough going over the stretch to go all the way. The 2011 team might not have gone to the final season because they would have to get past LA, SJ and Anaheim to advance.

On a final note, are you trying to sell me on your idea that watching a Boston, LA, SJ or Chicago team who can all score as well as dish it out, is boring? I think watching a team go into Game 7 knowing that they are going to get overpowered and can't push back ( and I don't mean fighting) on either the scoresheet or the physical part of the game is boring hockey.

[bluesman60]

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.

RJ Umberger did turn out to be a decent NHL player. The reason that he didn't pan out for the Canucks is because Brian Burke's ego took over and let him walk over a difference of $100k....a stupid move on Burkes part to let your 1st round pick walk because you can't reach an agreement over $100k.

Hossa is a big player with skill....that's what we need. Vancouver absolutely needs to draft some big skilled players. If it comes down to picking a good small man versus a good big man, I will take the big man everytime.

Same in this years draft, Nylander or Dal Colle....you gotta take Dal Colle.

[Guest Dasein]

No you need a center who's at least 6'0" or if that's not the case, then surround him with big wingers to survive in the West. The Sedins are not small players - they are 6'1" (Daniel) and 6'2" (Henrik) - being their size allow them to have some success. I doubt the Sedins could have become the players they are had they been Ehlers' size. Look at any other team in the West that is a contender:

Anaheim - Getzlaf 6'4"

Chicago - Toews 6'2"

St. Louis - Backes 6'4"

San Jose - Thornton 6'4" or Couture 6'1"

Los Angeles - Kopitar 6'3"

Colorado - Duchene, Stastny, O'Reilly all 6'0"

Minnesota - M Koivu 6'3"

Dallas - Seguin 6'1"

Those are the #1 centers for the playoff teams in the West - not a single guy under 6'0" and six guys at 6'2" or taller. Size matters - especially in the West. The Sedins are great offensive talents, but they would not have found success if they weren't 6'1" and 6'2" and able to physically fend off the likes of the guys above in order to display their skill. Size is prior to skill. Once you have the size to compete, that's when skill becomes a factor.

EDIT: It seems like I put too much emphasis on height, but you can be 5'10" or 5'11" as long as you are heavier or play a tenacious game like you are bigger - for example, Mike Richards. Ehlers is not that.

[kmotamed]

If we had a player of Lecavalier or Nash join us the following year like we should have had, then it could have made a difference... Instead of a plethora or Weise/Sestito types that have all body and no skill.

[Fred65]

I'm not saying size is the be all. Folks tend to try and argue one versus the other......you want both it's not either, or. I watched the Minny game and the Stars game last night and it was physical....in the case of Minny maybe not the biggest ( 6' - 6'2" range) but their physicallity won the game. Big or playing big, does play a factor at this time of the year. Some of the crap going on and being let go would never happen in the regular season.

I thought Vcr played boring hockey this last season but that's because of Fred Shero....ooooops I mean Tortorella style...static hockey...over coaching...

[hlinkas wrister]

Nothing the matter with smaller players but they better either have the heart of a lion (Gallagher) or hands of gold (St.Louis) or a combination of both (Johnson in Tampa).

[CowtownCanuck]

It's crazy to keep chasing what the last guy did to win, because good coaches and GMs will always find a solution to the current problem. We do need to be a step ahead. Whether or not it is or is not size is hard to say.

Detroit for years has had the "problem" of consistently being good and making the playoffs. As a result they go off the common model every other team drafts by. They know they have to look at skills and intangibles over the obvious of size, height, weight or junior team they play for.

[combover]

i would take speed and skill over size especially on the top 2 lines.

[Dogbyte]

You can preach to me all you want but Linden and Benning/whoever will go with Ritchie or Virtanen over Ehlers. You can quote me. Someone in the east will take him and he will be a good player no doubt. I see the appeal of Ehlers , hes exciting. Ritchie is huge, has great hands, good shot, hes a good skater for his size... we can converse about it all day but I dont see the Canucks taking Ehlers unless we make a trade and Shinkaruk is involved or something along those lines.

I'm not on the Ehlers bandwagon but equating Shinkaruk to Ehlers is bad scouting. They are no where near the same player. There is a reason we got Shinkaruk at 24 or whatever it was.

[Canuckz101]

Maybe we can make a draft day trade and aquire another 1st rounder while KEEPING our 6th and draft both Ehlers and a skilled , big forward (Virtanen, Perlini, Ritchie). Best of both worlds and everyone is happy. This is the best scenario. We must draft Ehlers though because he addresses our biggest problem - SCORING.

[Hairy Kneel]

I watched Ehlers on youtube and the power moves he made would not be viable in the NHL (for his size) like Raymond/Scroeder those moves of taking it to the net would need way more grit and physical force esp in the playoffs. I liked the tenacity shown by Virtanen ( if no one drops down..and regardless if he's from Vancity) We need players with size and skill that can play in the dirty areas.

[aGENT]

Maybe we can make a draft day trade and aquire another 1st rounder while KEEPING our 6th and draft both Ehlers and a skilled , big forward (Virtanen, Perlini, Ritchie). Best of both worlds and everyone is happy. This is the best scenario. We must draft Ehlers though because he addresses our biggest problem - SCORING.

Hansen + Schroeder+? to Toronto

[Connauton]

Size is fun, watch the 94 playoffs.

We just need Ehlers to be our Bure.

[NucksCup2015]

I was on the Ehlers bandwagon too but after watching the LA/SJ games wow...size with hands and skating ability is what's needed still.

We have the following in terms of guys who can manage the rough going and still contribute offensively in a significant manner (not bashing Higgy here but he's more of a grinder)

1. Kesler (for how long who knows)

2. Kassian - still developing

3. Jensen - still developing

4. Burr - when on can play above his size

Kesler may be gone, and Burr's production (regardless of last year will start to decline soon)

In the pipeline

1. Horvat - should be able to transition

2. Gaunce - really not likely to translate into an offensive player

3. Fox maybe - but like gaunce skating is suspect

So really we don't have any 'sure things' yet with size. I like Ehlers but if Rictchie falls to us I think we need to take him. I am not a fan of Virtanen. I have heard alot about his lack of hockey sense / hockey iq and that is concerning.

Ritchie is a big man already...with hands. Have not seen anything about skating issues so if we can get a kid like that we may have a team to deal with very soon.

Shinkaruk Horvat Kassian

Ritchie Cassels Jensen

Matthias Guance Archibald

Good mix of skill and grit

[Monty]

Take the guy that brings the most offensive flair to the game and the guy who I will pay to see score goals and create chances.

Like Edmonton, right? Those games are really exciting to watch.

[Absent Canuck]

No you need a center who's at least 6'0" or if that's not the case, then surround him with big wingers to survive in the West. The Sedins are not small players - they are 6'1" (Daniel) and 6'2" (Henrik) - being their size allow them to have some success. I doubt the Sedins could have become the players they are had they been Ehlers' size. Look at any other team in the West that is a contender:

Anaheim - Getzlaf 6'4"

Chicago - Toews 6'2"

St. Louis - Backes 6'4"

San Jose - Thornton 6'4" or Couture 6'1"

Los Angeles - Kopitar 6'3"

Colorado - Duchene, Stastny, O'Reilly all 6'0"

Minnesota - M Koivu 6'3"

Dallas - Seguin 6'1"

Those are the #1 centers for the playoff teams in the West - not a single guy under 6'0" and six guys at 6'2" or taller. Size matters - especially in the West. The Sedins are great offensive talents, but they would not have found success if they weren't 6'1" and 6'2" and able to physically fend off the likes of the guys above in order to display their skill. Size is prior to skill. Once you have the size to compete, that's when skill becomes a factor.

EDIT: It seems like I put too much emphasis on height, but you can be 5'10" or 5'11" as long as you are heavier or play a tenacious game like you are bigger - for example, Mike Richards. Ehlers is not that.

I didn't know Ehlers was a franchise center. Which franchise center are we drafting instead of Ehlers . Dont we already have 2 of the best 6ft 2 Centers in the league?

Try watching Ehlers play. He plays in the dirty areas. Takes the body. He is not a perimeter player. And he is now 5ft 11.5. Or go ask our assistant GM. He just travelled 4000 miles to watch him play the entire last series.

Duchene is 6ft. So is MacKinnon and the rest . None of you call them small but you call a guy 1/2 an inch shorter with even more speed 'too small' ????

Its called 'spin' . You are spinning the negative for Ehlers in spite of the fact it resolves nothing.

Skill is always more important than size. This idea you have that we are still playing 70s style Flyers hockey is again a bunch of silly spin to justify your need for the biggest guy out there.

How often do we draft this high? Take the most talented player possible. The obsession with size is just gone way too far. If size was important MacKinnon , Crosby Kane Stamkos and a laundry list of others would be out of hockey by now. The league is increasingly going to a speed and skill mindset.

(except Getzlaff

[TimberWolf]

Are we having people thinking Ehlers would be the next Bure?

Bure came into town with an upper body build of a ripped 220 pounder. He was big, just not tall

[TOMapleLaughs]

Superstar:

Not a superstar:

Franchise:

Not franchise:

[Me_]

"Can we please get over this obsession with size and make Canucks hockey fun to watch again?"

Why yes. If you don't care about winning the Cup let alone win enough games to get into the playoffs...