The size myth: how does the Pacific Division measure up?

[Horvat]

I just think people are missing the point, its not about being the biggest, its about nott being the smallest

[asian player]

We have Shink in the system, adding Ehlers to that would completely change the look of this team

[Brocklovich]

I think the best bet a good mix of size speed & skill

[Dogbyte]

Great thread.

It's my opinion that good players beat players that are not as good as them. Height, Weight, Speed, and all that are other crap are just quantifiers used to measure and judge and whine about after the fact. Bottom line our top 6 lacks so until you put up a proper line-up against these guys it's tough to even compare metrics. It's a pretty easy cop out for us CDC fans though.

For example, a guy like Skinner may be way more effective than a guy like Higgins or Setoguchi just because he's just a better hockey player. It's not like you can just plug in any 235 lb player and you're going to be better or that a 225lber beats a 200lber. That's fairly irrelevant in comparison to hockey smarts and ability.

If the game was just height and weight we wouldn't even be close. Well upon reading the stats we'd be 7th or 10th so yeah that's short-minded jibberish.

[Del Rio]

Ducks are 73.2 inches tall on average. Canucks are 73.5

Ducks are 204 on average. We are 201.

Chicago is 73.4 and 203 pounds. That is one tenth of an inch shorter and 1.8 lbs heavier. In other words virtually identical.

Sharks are 73.3 but are 206 on average.

Here is the biggest myth of them all

Bruins are virtually the same size as we are. 73.6 inches to our 73.5

Boston weighs 202.7 lbs to our 201.2

So lets just throw that whole myth out right now. The difference is the talent.

I agree 100%. Bruins also play a big game, as all their players finish their checks and paly an overall hitting game. Marchand as much as we all hate him he plays a lot bigger than his size.

Hawks play a game with speed and skill but they also play a girtty tough game. They are probably the most complete team.

[TOMapleLaughs]

(Ladd cross-check)

It's like we have no memory at all.

But this takes the cake:

If the Canucks let Brad Marchand take free shots at their Art Ross player in the most important series of their lives, then there is a SERIOUS problem with the team. And ain't just size.

[Dogbyte]

(Ladd cross-check)

It's like we have no memory at all.

But this takes the cake:

If the Canucks let Brad Marchand take free shots at their Art Ross player in the most important series of their lives, then there is a SERIOUS problem with the team. And ain't just size.

I still think that whole rabbit punching thing is made up by butt hurt Canucks fans and idiot media haters.

If we really lost the series because we didn't retaliate to a couple baby punches in the middle of the SCF well ... I don't what to say. People take punches all the time and of course no one that cites this does so in context of the game only the incident itself. You can't just retaliate whenever you want in the playoffs. Maybe we should of played different but we weren't the Bruins and expecting retaliation in that moment is Flyer mentality. No one would be saying that if we got a penalty off of that and scored.

You can't just fight every player that does something cheap to you in the playoffs. That's stupid.

[TOMapleLaughs]

I still think that whole rabbit punching thing is made up by butt hurt Canucks fans and idiot media haters.

If we really lost the series because we didn't retaliate to a couple baby punches in the middle of the SCF well ... I don't what to say. People take punches all the time and of course no one that cites that does so in context of the game only the incident itself. You can't just retaliate whenever you want in the playoffs. Maybe we should played different but we weren't the Bruins and expecting retaliation in that moment is Flyer mentality. No one would be saying that if we got a penalty off of that and scored.

Also didn't help that Chara shut down the Sedins, Boychuk crippled Raymond and Lucic crushed Hamhuis.

The Marchand incident was just more embarrassing than anything else.

And no, more Sestito-types aren't the answer.

[Nino]

Great post OP, I agree the Canucks problem is that MG went over size befor skill and now we can't score. If a player big great but skill has to be the first priority, hockey is all about putting the puck in the net.

[JiffyPB]

B-b-but I thought drafting Nick Ritchie was supposed to fix all of this.

[Angry Goose]

A balanced approach of size, speed and skill is the way to go. LA is the biggest team but like the Bruins, they have a good blend of all three characteristics. try playing hockey against those types of players and you'll understand.

[Wonder__Bread]

In general you can usually tell how much hockey knowledge someone has based on what they look for in a player. You sir strike me as a rather intelligent fellow, at least when it comes to hockey. I've gotten so incredibly tired of seeing this napoleon complex that's taken over CDC since 2011. Watching people say to draft the biggest players in this years draft, because well they're big, has really bothered me.

I don't want to derail the thread with draft talk but my point is that size was never the issue with the Canucks, it's always been that we've lacked high end skill. Malhotra wasn't high end skill but he was so effective in his role that he allowed Kesler to play that role. Their aren't too many players on our team with high end hockey IQ, let alone the skill to go with it.

[Fozzy]

There seems to be a great deal of perception that the Canucks can't compete in the Pacific because they can't match up with the overpowering size of their opponents in the Pacific division.

Reality: the big bad Pacific is over-rated, as is their ability to dominate as a result of size - it's nowhere near as determinant as many people think.

The evidence: who dominated the Pacific division this year?

Answer: the entire Central Division, with one exception.

Who was the exception?

ironically, it was the St Louis Blues, the 'big' team in the Central - they were 8-10-3 against the Pacific. They are the 2nd biggest team in the NHL. They were also sent home in the first round once again by a smaller team they finished ahead of in the regular season.

Which teams in the Central were dominant against the Pacific?

Answer: everyone else in the Central owned the Pacific division.

The Hawks were 14-1-6 against the Pacific. 16th biggest team in the NHL.

The AVs were 12-7-3. 14th biggest team in the NHL.

Dallas was 14-3-4. 23rd biggest team in the NHL.

Minnesota was 12-4-5. 29th biggest team in the NHL.

Nashville 11-7-3 18th biggest team in the NHL.

Winnipeg 12-6-3 5th biggest.

Los Angeles is the biggest team in the NHL - they were 9-10-2 vs the Central division.

The next biggest team in the Pacific - Phoenix - was 6-11-4 vs the Central.

The Pacific, once again, was not the best Division in hockey, nor the West.

Folks who are seeking to chase more goalposts, as if attempting to rebuild in the image of the top teams in the Pacific, might be experiencing some short-sighted vision.

The Central, despite Detroit leaving, is still the best division in hockey. The worst team in the division, Winnipeg, was over .500. They were also, aside from St Louis, the biggest team in that division.

But more to the point - the "smaller" teams in the Central are fully capable of handling themselves against big, bad Pacific opponents - and it's not merely an exception in the Chicago Blackhawks. It would appear that the playoff format may actually serve the Pacific in avoiding more matchups with the Central. Anaheim didn't exactly dispel the evidence - they more than had their hands full with the 8th seed Dallas Stars, not exactly the biggest team in the NHL.

Perhaps it's time for some folks to reset their assumptions/misinformed impressions about size - which also seems to be a common/dominant theme in draft discussions - the assumption that the Canucks must focus primarily upon drafting size in order to be successful. The Central trend appears to very clearly dispel that oversimplification.

What you don't add is that the AV's and Hawks have great speed.

Unfortunately the Canucks don't.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

Re: the whole size thing (although a little bit OT from the OP), I've recently been looking back at the 2003 NHL Draft (where lots of great players with size were taken).

Here's a page with the NA rankings, including height and weight (which can be difficult to find for old drafts): http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/news/2003/06/17/draftrankings_naskaters/

It's interesting to see how the biggest (heaviest) guys (at approx. 18 years old) mostly ended up being busts.

But how so many guys who were tall but relatively lanky (under 200 lbs), ended up adding 20-30 lbs or so post-draft, and have grown into some of the league's most effective size+skill players.

Examples of 2003 top ranked forwards:

Ryan Getzlaf: drafted at 6'2.5", 195 lbs (now listed at 6'4", 221 lbs)

David Backes: drafted at 6'3", 192 lbs (now listed at 6'3", 221 lbs)

Corey Perry: drafted at 6'2", 184 lbs (now listed 6'3", 210 lbs)

the list goes on...

And a couple of the biggest 1st round busts:

Steve Bernier: drafted at 6'2.5", 233 lbs (now listed at 6'3", 220 lbs)

Anthony Steward: drafted at 6'1.5", 239 lbs (now listed at 6'3", 230 lbs)

This is a pattern you see repeated often over and over through the years (although 2003 is probably one of the clearest cut examples). The guys who are 6'3", 230 lbs and PPG+ as 18-year-olds have a very high bust potential. Many of the big guys who actually become elite size+skill players seem to have the height early but add significant muscle mass post-draft (between ages 18-23).

[Fozzy]

Re: the whole size thing (although a little bit OT from the OP), I've recently been looking back at the 2003 NHL Draft (where lots of great players with size were taken).

Here's a page with the NA rankings, including height and weight (which can be difficult to find for old drafts): http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/news/2003/06/17/draftrankings_naskaters/

It's interesting to see how the biggest (heaviest) guys (at approx. 18 years old) mostly ended up being busts.

But how so many guys who were tall but relatively lanky (under 200 lbs), ended up adding 20-30 lbs or so post-draft, and have grown into some of the league's most effective size+skill players.

Examples of 2003 top ranked forwards:

Ryan Getzlaf: drafted at 6'2.5", 195 lbs (now listed at 6'4", 221 lbs)

David Backes: drafted at 6'3", 192 lbs (now listed at 6'3", 221 lbs)

Corey Perry: drafted at 6'2", 184 lbs (now listed 6'3", 210 lbs)

the list goes on...

And a couple of the biggest 1st round busts:

Steve Bernier: drafted at 6'2.5", 233 lbs (now listed at 6'3", 220 lbs)

Anthony Steward: drafted at 6'1.5", 239 lbs (now listed at 6'3", 230 lbs)

This is a pattern you see repeated often over and over through the years (although 2003 is probably one of the clearest cut examples). The guys who are 6'3", 230 lbs and PPG+ as 18-year-olds have a very high bust potential. Many of the big guys who actually become elite size+skill players seem to have the height early but add significant muscle mass post-draft (between ages 18-23).

That would suggest a no go for Ritchie. I'm with that.

[jejejester]

Re: the whole size thing (although a little bit OT from the OP), I've recently been looking back at the 2003 NHL Draft (where lots of great players with size were taken).

Here's a page with the NA rankings, including height and weight (which can be difficult to find for old drafts): http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/news/2003/06/17/draftrankings_naskaters/

It's interesting to see how the biggest (heaviest) guys (at approx. 18 years old) mostly ended up being busts.

But how so many guys who were tall but relatively lanky (under 200 lbs), ended up adding 20-30 lbs or so post-draft, and have grown into some of the league's most effective size+skill players.

Examples of 2003 top ranked forwards:

Ryan Getzlaf: drafted at 6'2.5", 195 lbs (now listed at 6'4", 221 lbs)

David Backes: drafted at 6'3", 192 lbs (now listed at 6'3", 221 lbs)

Corey Perry: drafted at 6'2", 184 lbs (now listed 6'3", 210 lbs)

the list goes on...

And a couple of the biggest 1st round busts:

Steve Bernier: drafted at 6'2.5", 233 lbs (now listed at 6'3", 220 lbs)

Anthony Steward: drafted at 6'1.5", 239 lbs (now listed at 6'3", 230 lbs)

This is a pattern you see repeated often over and over through the years (although 2003 is probably one of the clearest cut examples). The guys who are 6'3", 230 lbs and PPG+ as 18-year-olds have a very high bust potential. Many of the big guys who actually become elite size+skill players seem to have the height early but add significant muscle mass post-draft (between ages 18-23).

I agree, I think some of that has to do with players growing into their bodies as well. But a player who is 6'3 220lbs is going to be a force is junior just by size. Obviously the kid will have some skill but he will be very hard to stop.

These players who are tall but a bit smaller are usually a lot more skilled, like Perry or Getzlaf, and once their body matures and they start to fill out the become a force size wise as well as a very skilled player.

This is why canucks drafting a kid around 5'11 170lbs+ isn't as big as a deal as people make it out, sure this kid will never be 6'3 220lbs, but 6-6'1 and 190+ are very possible and that is still a very good size.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

Brilliant posts from Oldnews and Sid. Looking at the facts, what a concept! Can we put the size mantra to rest and draft some skill now?

[Absent Canuck]

Brilliant posts from Oldnews and Sid. Looking at the facts, what a concept! Can we put the size mantra to rest and draft some skill now?

If I had my way, in this particular draft..........YES.

[JeremyCuddles]

I still think that whole rabbit punching thing is made up by butt hurt Canucks fans and idiot media haters.

If we really lost the series because we didn't retaliate to a couple baby punches in the middle of the SCF well ... I don't what to say. People take punches all the time and of course no one that cites this does so in context of the game only the incident itself. You can't just retaliate whenever you want in the playoffs. Maybe we should of played different but we weren't the Bruins and expecting retaliation in that moment is Flyer mentality. No one would be saying that if we got a penalty off of that and scored.

You can't just fight every player that does something cheap to you in the playoffs. That's stupid.

If you actually knew what people mean when referencing this incident you would'nt have posted this garbage. This is just one of many moments when Van backed down and it made us look weak in the SCF. Our best players are one dimensional. Except maybe Kesler but he should probably be a winger.

[canucklehead44]

That would suggest a no go for Ritchie. I'm with that.

Nilsson - 5'11, 183lbs taken one spot before Bernier. 37 career goals and no longer in NHL. At least Bernier is a solid bottom 6 player.

Jeff Tambellini (5'10 190lbs), Patrick Eaves (6'0 190lbs) and Danny Richmond (6'0, 191 lbs) all taken around the same time as Stewart - none of those players accounted for much.

Almost all big forwards drafted in the top 11 that are not Russian have turned out pretty well in the last 12 drafts. Jeff Carter, Nathan Horton, Dany Heatley, Scott Hartnell, Jason Spezza, Rick Nash, Nathan Horton, Milan Michalek, Blake Wheeler, Andrew Ladd, Bobby Ryan, Eric Staal, Jordan Staal, J Towes, Okposo, JVR, Voracek, Wilson, Kane, Johansen, Niederreiter.

The only real bust is Kyle Beach. Pouliot, Skille, Sheppard, and Connolly all have NHL careers and BARELY made the cut as they are on the smaller side of this list and were never really dominant physically.

In the above list some may argue with names like Raffi Torres but relative to other players picked Raffi was a solid selection.