Conor Garland | #8 | RW/LW

[bigbadcanucks]

On 9/13/2021 at 2:35 PM, kloubek said:

I was worried about this with Garland as well, but I was assured by another CDCer that he plays like Motte, and despite his smaller size it isn't a detriment to his play. (Like it isn't an issue with Motte). I just haven't seen him play enough to have had any sense of his motor and tenacity, but that sounded good enough for me. And Hoglander plays much the same way. 

No, you don't ultimately want to have a bunch of smaller sized guys, but if your smaller guys do play with passion, it's not usually a real problem.

How does that old saying go? Oh yah...it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog that matters.

 

Hoglander, Garland, Motte - the "small" guys that everyone is concerned about are fierce and fearless.  Just what you want from these guys.  So happy that Benning got rid of all the players that lacked or played without heart.  That includes Roussel who was a shell of a player since coming into his first camp with a concussion he used to be.

[N4ZZY]

6 hours ago, bigbadcanucks said:

How does that old saying go? Oh yah...it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog that matters.

 

Hoglander, Garland, Motte - the "small" guys that everyone is concerned about are fierce and fearless.  Just what you want from these guys.  So happy that Benning got rid of all the players that lacked or played without heart.  That includes Roussel who was a shell of a player since coming into his first camp with a concussion he used to be.

That’s true. I would agree that Höglander, Garland and Motte are fierce competitors. Even if they are on the smaller side, they’re that much more determined than say, Virtanen is, who has size above all of them, but has zero competitive drive. I’d take the smaller guy every single day of the &^@#ing week, if their drive is that intense. 

 

[kloubek]

18 hours ago, bigbadcanucks said:

That includes Roussel who was a shell of a player since coming into his first camp with a concussion he used to be.

Overpaid or not (and he was), I was excited to get Roussel on the team. We badly needed guys who played tenaciously. But you're right... he became a shell of the player he was. Ferland was another, and didn't work out either - though he was a pretty big boy. And we all know what road Jake went down.

 

Now we have legit forechecking and net presence guys. Something we've lacked for a long time, save for 4th liner Motte. Our D may or may not be improved but if we can play a stronger possession game, hopefully we can focus the play out of our zone at least.

[N4ZZY]

3 hours ago, kloubek said:

Overpaid or not (and he was), I was excited to get Roussel on the team. We badly needed guys who played tenaciously. But you're right... he became a shell of the player he was. Ferland was another, and didn't work out either - though he was a pretty big boy. And we all know what road Jake went down.

 

Now we have legit forechecking and net presence guys. Something we've lacked for a long time, save for 4th liner Motte. Our D may or may not be improved but if we can play a stronger possession game, hopefully we can focus the play out of our zone at least.

I think it's tough for larger players. They manhandle their way to the NHL, and maybe they don't even play the right way. It's too bad, where smaller players have to learn to play the right way, and they have to fight through everything. I think with players like Virtanen, they had their road way too easy. He really struggled once he got to the pro levels - even the AHL,  but especially the NHL. I mean, Virtanen has regressed to the point where he doesn't even throw bodychecks anymore. Wouldn't be surprised if Garland was more physical than Jake ever was. 

 

[Coconuts]

On 9/18/2021 at 2:07 PM, bigbadcanucks said:

How does that old saying go? Oh yah...it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog that matters.

 

Hoglander, Garland, Motte - the "small" guys that everyone is concerned about are fierce and fearless.  Just what you want from these guys.  So happy that Benning got rid of all the players that lacked or played without heart.  That includes Roussel who was a shell of a player since coming into his first camp with a concussion he used to be.

Rouss was fine during his first season, in fact he hit a career high in points despite playing fewer games than he did during some of his earlier successful seasons. The kicker for him seemed to be the knee injury, and that's a tough injury for any player to come back from. 

 

Injuries caught up with him, but he wasn't useless from the get go the way some folks make him out to have been. Rouss was a good player for us, he simply wasn't that good player for as long as we'd have liked and that's not completely on him when you consider injuries. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Coconuts

[PunjabiCanucks]

Hoglander Petey Boeser

Pearson Horvat Garland

___ Miller Poldkozin

Motte Dickinson Sutter

 

3 Offensive lines with a big shut down line

 

 

[The Lock]

On 9/18/2021 at 2:07 PM, bigbadcanucks said:

How does that old saying go? Oh yah...it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog that matters.

 

Hoglander, Garland, Motte - the "small" guys that everyone is concerned about are fierce and fearless.  Just what you want from these guys.  So happy that Benning got rid of all the players that lacked or played without heart.  That includes Roussel who was a shell of a player since coming into his first camp with a concussion he used to be.

Yeah. Size can be such a superficial reasoning to be worrying about, especially if it's just height that people are worried about. Since when has winning a stanley cup been determined by having a "large" team? Last I checked there was typically a lot of luck and momentum along with skill involved at the end of the day.

[Fred65]

I recall Benning talking about the need for a big/tall defence** for the Play-offs. Hopefully with skill to match but every year we see big D excel in the play-offs. I'm not a huge fan of JB but I think he's right about this, TB has a D primarily with D around the 6'3" mark 

 

** This was discussed following the StL SC win

[lmm]

21 hours ago, The Lock said:

Yeah. Size can be such a superficial reasoning to be worrying about, especially if it's just height that people are worried about. Since when has winning a stanley cup been determined by having a "large" team? Last I checked there was typically a lot of luck and momentum along with skill involved at the end of the day.

stl defense 6`3`210  6`203

.................6`6 230   6`4`206

..................6`4 227  6`4 216

..................6`2 198

 

tampa d  6`6 241  6`3 216

.............. 6`203    6`3 230

...............6`1 215  6`2 200

.............. 6`2 225

 

 

they look kind of big to me

[48MPHSlapShot]

1 hour ago, lmm said:

stl defense 6`3`210  6`203

.................6`6 230   6`4`206

..................6`4 227  6`4 216

..................6`2 198

 

tampa d  6`6 241  6`3 216

.............. 6`203    6`3 230

...............6`1 215  6`2 200

.............. 6`2 225

 

 

they look kind of big to me

Should have held onto Gudbranson ffs.

[The Lock]

2 hours ago, lmm said:

stl defense 6`3`210  6`203

.................6`6 230   6`4`206

..................6`4 227  6`4 216

..................6`2 198

 

tampa d  6`6 241  6`3 216

.............. 6`203    6`3 230

...............6`1 215  6`2 200

.............. 6`2 225

 

 

they look kind of big to me

So you're just going to give me the D cores of 2 stanley cup winners to somehow prove otherwise? That's not really saying much to be honest. Give me a full analysis of each team if you want to actually convince me and not just a small portion in order to pretend. I'm willing to listen, but not to an analysis not unlike what a politician would make

 

...unless if you really don't want to start mentioning players like Gourde and Johnson. (and yes, I'm talking about the entire team, not just defense)  

 

If you want to talk about defense, I'd counter argue that it's still not about size but more about how good the defense are at their job and that size is still a superficial benchmark. Sure, size could help in defending, but it can also hamper on other aspects such as speed. That being said, this is a Garland thread.... and Garland's a forward....

Edited September 21, 2021 by The Lock

[lmm]

12 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Should have held onto Gudbranson ffs.

so you are saying, because Jim traded for a big slow developing, slow skating, slow thinking defenseman who needed babysitting in FLA, then plays him above his capabilities, that we should stay away from big players.  

that might work

fffs

which of the players I listed can Guber out skate or out think

ffffs

[Playoff Beered]

38 minutes ago, lmm said:

so you are saying, because Jim traded for a big slow developing, slow skating, slow thinking defenseman who needed babysitting in FLA, then plays him above his capabilities, that we should stay away from big players.  

that might work

fffs

which of the players I listed can Guber out skate or out think

ffffs

 

[lmm]

11 hours ago, The Lock said:

So you're just going to give me the D cores of 2 stanley cup winners to somehow prove otherwise? That's not really saying much to be honest. Give me a full analysis of each team if you want to actually convince me and not just a small portion in order to pretend. I'm willing to listen, but not to an analysis not unlike what a politician would make

 

...unless if you really don't want to start mentioning players like Gourde and Johnson. (and yes, I'm talking about the entire team, not just defense)  

 

If you want to talk about defense, I'd counter argue that it's still not about size but more about how good the defense are at their job and that size is still a superficial benchmark. Sure, size could help in defending, but it can also hamper on other aspects such as speed. That being said, this is a Garland thread.... and Garland's a forward....

It does not matter what the position, its always about how good you do your job.

but I bring up big defense because big defense neutralizes small forwards

Brendan Gallagher is a good small forward, but Tampa neutralized him in the finals

 

it is interesting that you picked Gourge and Johnson as Johnson was waived and Gourde left unprotected in the expansion Draft

Edited September 21, 2021 by lmm

[The Lock]

7 minutes ago, lmm said:

It does not matter what the position, its always about how good you do your job.

but I bring up big defense because big defense neutralizes small forwards

Brendan Gallagher is a good small forward, but Tampa neutralized him in the finals

But is it the big defense actually neutralizing small forwards or is it the good defense neutralizing small forwards? Do you really think Hedman would be any worse if he was a little smaller? Lidstrom was 6 foot 1 and merely a little over 190 lbs , yet he neutralized fowards quite well. He did everything quite well.

 

Edit: Just to add too, there are a lot of big defense out there who are practically pylons where small forwards could skate circles around.

Edited September 21, 2021 by The Lock

[HomeBrew]

8 minutes ago, The Lock said:

But is it the big defense actually neutralizing small forwards or is it the good defense neutralizing small forwards? Do you really think Hedman would be any worse if he was a little smaller? Lidstrom was 6 foot 1 and merely a little over 190 lbs , yet he neutralized fowards quite well. He did everything quite well.

 

Edit: Just to add too, there are a lot of big defense out there who are practically pylons where small forwards could skate circles around.

Are you really asking if Hedman would be worse of a defenseman if he was 6'1" 190lbs rather than 6'6" and 240lbs? Of course he would be. haha

[The Lock]

Just now, HomeBrew said:

Are you really asking if Hedman would be worse of a defenseman if he was 6'1" 190lbs rather than 6'6" and 240lbs? Of course he would be. haha

Would he? He might lose a bit of size but he'd be more mobile. It's not as obvious as you think.

[HomeBrew]

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Would he? He might lose a bit of size but he'd be more mobile. It's not as obvious as you think.

It actually is. The mobility part is an assumption on your part fwiw. Then he loses his reach, shot, power and strength to defend... all of which makes him a great defenseman, an elite one at that because he's 6'6" and 240lbs... 

 

edit: he already has great mobility.

Edited September 21, 2021 by HomeBrew

[The Lock]

Just now, HomeBrew said:

It actually is. The mobility part is an assumption on your part fwiw. Then he loses his reach, shot, power and strength to defend... all of which makes him a great defenseman, an elite one at that because he's 6'6" and 240lbs... 

The being worse part is also an assumption. It's not like you're thinking any different really. You're basing things on what they are like now, but what would they be like if he was smaller? Worse or just a diffferent defender? He'd still have talent don't you think?

[HomeBrew]

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

The being worse part is also an assumption. It's not like you're thinking any different really. You're basing things on what they are like now, but what would they be like if he was smaller? Worse or just a diffferent defender? He'd still have talent don't you think?

It's not an assumption that he would have less reach, power and size to defend. His game is built and suits a body that is his size. He would have to play a different styled game if he was smaller. To assume he would just become Lidstrom if he was smaller is a reach at best. Would Bertuzzi be Bertuzzi if he wasn't 6'3" and 230lbs?