Burke behind the times on size?

[CliffFletcher]

James Mirtle has a well-substantiated column in the Globe and Mail today arguing size matters less in the league now than it did 5-10 years ago.

Mirtle: Habs proving size doesn’t really matter in NHL

I hope we don't have another GM who wants to model a team around what worked in the past, rather than what's working in the present and going forward.

[FlamesAddiction]

There is more than one way to build a winner. L.A. won a Cup and their size was huge plus for them that year.

[jg13]

It matters less than it did 5-10 years ago however size is still important and we are one of the smallest teams in the league.

We do need to add some bigger bodies but i don't think it's as important as Burke does make it sound.

[A Shot Wide]

It's a 7 game series, not a sweep.

If anything it proves there are different ways to build a successful team, which is a good thing. Fast teams have been champions before, and so have big teams... doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive. Plus, Burke has never said anything about not wanting to be a fast team, I'm sure every manager in the league wants to be the biggest, the fastest, and the most skilled.

[PeteMoss]

Its also a one year tiny sample size. Last year in the playoffs Montreal got throttled physically by Ottawa and knocked out.

Also helps when you take two of Montreal's biggest players who played the vast majority of the year out to make them seem smaller than they already are.



There are many ways to skin a cat. Montreal is small, Boston and LA are big. Neither way is better than the other.

[formulate]

Not a fan of how this article is presented.

Yes, Montreal has done quite well, pushing Boston to 7 (possibly moving on).
Yes, Chicago has won 2 cups. Most teams find it rather difficult to collect the skill of Kane, Toews, Hossa, Sharp, Keith, Seabrook etc.

Fails to mention the success of LA and Boston recently, and Anaheim in these playoffs.

Of course size isn't the only way of building a team, but in the West if you can't put together an extremely skilled team, you had better get some size to compete.

[codynw]

Good teams have a combination of skill, speed and size. Almost all of the good teams are built this way.

[RedCoffee]

yeah whatever. Put the Habs in the Western Conference and see how fast they are.

I think size matters even more now since you can't hold or interfere.

Can you imagine prime Iginla, Shanahan or Lindros playing in this era?

[Huntingwhale]

Size matters, however it is just one of many things that need to go right for a team in order to make it far in the playoffs. Habs might not have big beef throughout the lineup, but they still do have players that hit hard (Bourque, Subban) and can grind it out. Habs are keeping up with the Bruins because they have a couple gamebreakers in their lineup that can turn the tide with a big goal. Guys like Subban and Vanek who can pot a couple goals when needed. Gamebreakers matter too. Flames have none of those and that is what we need the most IMO.

[ForeverFlameFan]

I think Burke isn't as highly on size as he was before, but he still thinks we need a bit of size to play at a contending level. Our team is still small, hopefully this draft can address some of that size, lots of big boys to choose from beyond the first round. I do remember him in an interview saying that not only do we need size, but we also have to have speed and skill as well.

You still need size. Yes, Montreal is doing just fine without it, but that's because they are trying to match Boston's grit. If the whole series was based on size Boston would have won by now. But, the Habs are making it a series with their speed, offsetting the size and the grit level is about the same.

[EldrickOnIce]

The Habs just match up very well against the Bruins. Montreal might be the fastest team in the league - Boston, imo, is the slowest team in the league. Against LA or Anaheim, it would not be pretty for the Habs.
You need size to compete in the West. But you can certainly have Gaudreau and Baertschi sized players in the lineup, as long as you have some beef as well. You don't have to be the biggest, but you certainly be the smallest. The Flames definitely need to be bigger

[SHOGUN]

Flames lacks size, it's a fact. If we can get bigger without sacrificing much skill and speed, then I'm all for it.

[FanIn80]

I'd like to point out that the two reasons the Habs are where they are right now are Price and Subban. Neither of whom are considered small players.

They might have a few midgets running around out there, but you take Price and Subban out of the equation, and this article never gets written.

[GoJetsGo]

It's important to remember, the quoted I've heard from Burke continuously is:

"We need to get bigger, and tougher to play against"

Regardless of that article or any trends, that statement couldn't be more true. We've already gone about starting to address it this year (Colburne, Smid, Westgrath etc)... but there should definitely be some more attention paid through drafting moving forward. The emphasis we put on signing Gaudreau shows there's room for skill and speed with smaller players. But there's no denying we need some size and jam moving forward to supplement that.

[4oh3]

I think it's taken out of context. If Burke only wants huge players I don't think he would be high on Gaudreau he knows you need skill to which is why he likes him even though he is small. We have a bunch of small players and need to get bigger I don't think he wants a bunch of 6'5 non skilled players.

[Vulcan]

I've always liked the fact that small players can make it in the NHL. Baseball is maybe the other big four sport that has a place for the small guy. Being too small as a team though is a disadvantage and why I hope the Flames can get bigger. The problem that can happen though is that we go for size just because that's what we need. For our defencemen, Brodie has to be the poster boy for a smallish defenceman able to come out on top against big forwards in battles in the corner. So much skill that boy has, he's a treat to watch.

[habernac]

Montreal's problem is still that they have too many small guys. No one has ever said you can't have a couple. They have half a dozen.

[Table 5]

For every philosophy of how to build a winner, there's some opposite, but equally successful, philosophy to counter it. I don't think there is only one way to build a winner at a particular moment in time...there can be 3-4 at at time that are equally as likely to win. Sometimes it just comes down to timing and luck.

The one thing that I have yet to see however, is a Stanley Cup winner that drafts poorly. I don't care what your philosophy is...but you better do most of it through the draft. Very few, if any, teams have put together Championship teams through mostly trades.

[Flash Walken]

Sensationalist title there, Cliff.

Where is the evidence that a bottom 5 team in size can be successful in the NHL? That is where Calgary find themselves.

You don't have to be the biggest team in the league, but you absolutely cannot be the smallest. Calgary is much closer to one end of the spectrum than the other, and it was a visible weakness last year on the club.

[googol]

Obviously having size is beneficial. But overall I'd say skill trumps size.

Would you rather have larger team or a more skilled team? My gut feeling is that a skilled team put more wins up.