Burke behind the times on size?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

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

Montreal is - but I'm not sure how they make Mirtle's argument valid at this point. Tampa is not a strong team, and the Bruins are easily the slowest in the league (One could make a sandwich and drink a coffee which Krejci, Lucic and Iginla are on a rush).
This is quite a ways below Mirtle's usual, imo.

[AcGold]

There are different roles on a hockey team, the only one that a team can get away with not having is an enforcer but the rest are needed. Size is only one factor, all the roles need to be filled and generally bigger guys can fit certain roles. As of now we have zero power forwards (maybe Wolf works out) and not really any d-men that can clear out the front of the net with force. Our lack of size is reflected in a team with roles to fill.

[Erick Estrada]

Let me know when a small team like the Habs win a cup and become a perennial contender and I may consider the merit of this article.

[mile]

Burke has stated before that there is room for smaller players in the lineup - but it is also important to have size to complement them and at least create a balanced lineup. You can never get too big, but there is such a thing as being too small (which is what the Flames were at the start of last season, and the reason why he constantly mentioned it to the point where some believe size was his only concern)

Burke has praised the play of players like Giordano, Brodie, and Backlund - guys who are not necessarily the biggest. The goal of management is to ice the best team - Burke is foremost concerned with acquiring the best hockey players, and address size afterwards because that is something that can be fixed later.

If Burke could acquire a guy like Brendan Gallagher and felt he was a better player than a guy on his team who is bigger but not as effective in the same role, I doubt he would turn down the opportunity to improve his team.

The idea that Burke is obsessed with size is exaggerated, the reason he is saying we need to get bigger right now is because we are too small and need be to at least adequate enough to match the other top teams.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by 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.

Size and skill aren't mutually exclusive.

Marian Hossa is a big dude. Over six feet, over 200 pounds.

Sharp is over six feet, 200 lbs.

Jeff Carter is 6'3.

Skill with size will always trump skill without size.

[BigFlameDog]

I didn't think the Habs were exactly a "small" team....haven't been paying attention I guess.

...didn't think they were huge, just wouldn't have put them in my small column.

[Flash Walken]

According to Mirtle, Calgary was the lightest team in the NHL last year, 2.5 pounds smaller than the Habs, nearly 8 lbs off the league average. The biggest team in the NHL, San Jose, was 6 lbs bigger than the average. That's how small the Calgary Flames were. If you do as Mirtle does and remove two big guys from the lineup, say, McGrattan and Westgarth, I'm sure it would be much more obvious.

Calgary is so far off that it will be difficult to go anywhere but up.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Size and skill aren't mutually exclusive.

No. But it's expensive to get both in the same package, so you often have to accept trade-offs: the 5-11 guy who's an 8/10 in skill, or the 6-3 guy who is 6/10 in skill. Because the 6-3 guy who is an 8/10 in skill is not easy to find, and will cost you dearly in draft ranking, trade value, or salary.

I'm not against the Flames getting bigger and tougher to play against. But after suffering under a GM who overvalued characteristics that were becoming less and less important (Sutter and his gritty vets), I'm wary of another GM who looks to the past rather than the future. If there's anything broadly true about the NHL game today, it's that the more you have the puck on your stick the better chance you have to win. So is being big the better way to ensure you have the puck on your stick, or is having soft hands and smarts? I honestly don't know.

[Arsonist22]

Mirtle is saying that it's not important, but the 4 best teams who's stats are listed (LA, Boston, Chicago and Anaheim), happen to be the 4 tallest and 3 out of the 4 are the heaviest.
I think that it's not team size is not the important factor though, it's that a team plays physical and doesn't allow themselves or their stars to be pushed around. It just happens that the more physical teams generally happen to be the bigger ones.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

No. But it's expensive to get both in the same package, so you often have to accept trade-offs: the 5-11 guy who's an 8/10 in skill, or the 6-3 guy who is 6/10 in skill? Because the 6-3 guy who is an 8/10 in skill is not easy to find, and will cost you dearly in draft ranking, trade value, or salary.

I'm not against the Flames getting bigger and tougher to play against. But after suffering under a GM who overvalued characteristics that were becoming less and less important (Sutter and his gritty vets), I'm wary of another GM who looks to the past rather than the future. If there's anything broadly true about the NHL game today, it's that the more you have the puck on your stick the better chance you have to win. So is being big the better way to ensure you have the puck on your stick, or is having soft hands and smarts? I honestly don't know.

As an incoming GM of the Calgary Flames, whatever candidate that was hired was going to have to address the size of the team.

Like I said, it would be difficult to get any smaller.

It's not indicative of Burke prioritizing size over skill, it's a matter of saying you can't have Hudler and Cammalleri on your top line with a 6'0 centre and win anything. It's like walking into a building with a leaking roof and noting the roof needs to be repaired.

[Coach]

I don't Burke has an unhealthy obsession with size, I think the media (and CP) has an unhealthy obsession with Burke's opinion on size. He gets asked pointed questions about it (as did Treliving) all the time. When asked if the team needs to be bigger what is he supposed to say? Does anyone here think that's not true? He's never said that each team member has to be 6 ft 2, 220 lbs. But as a group, yeah size needs to be addressed, especially when it looks like our future top 6 wingers will likely include both of Sven and Gaudreau. Most teams that have size also have no porblem employing smaller players, provided the rest of the team is not necessarily BIG but plays a big game.

Case-in-point, Torey Krug in Boston. A very undersized defenseman that gets deployed on their top PP unit, but he generally doesn't have to deal with tough-to-defend players because they have Chara, Boychuk, Seidenberg (usually), McQuaid etc... to deal with that part of the game.

[EldrickOnIce]

Habs are shortest and middle of the pack in average weight. Bigger than Flames then, but small for sure.
They were, by my quick count, a .500 team versus the West.
Puts them in the range of Vancouver/Winnipeg in record - and not anywhere near the playoffs in the west.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I don't Burke has an unhealthy obsession with size, I think the media (and CP) has an unhealthy obsession with Burke's opinion on size. He gets asked pointed questions about it (as did Treliving) all the time. When asked if the team needs to be bigger what is he supposed to say? Does anyone here think that's not true? He's never said that each team member has to be 6 ft 2, 220 lbs. But as a group, yeah size needs to be addressed, especially when it looks like our future top 6 wingers will likely include both of Sven and Gaudreau. Most teams that have size also have no porblem employing smaller players, provided the rest of the team is not necessarily BIG but plays a big game.

Case-in-point, Torey Krug in Boston. A very undersized defenseman that gets deployed on their top PP unit, but he generally doesn't have to deal with tough-to-defend players because they have Chara, Boychuk, Seidenberg (usually), McQuaid etc... to deal with that part of the game.

Exactly. I think CliffFletcher is purposely misleading, and Burke/reputation for size is greatly exaggerated. Brian Burke also drafted the Sedins, and traded for Kessel.

The truth that Burke has said on how he builds his team is, in 4 playoffs rounds you will play one team with a lot of speed, one team with a lot of size, one team with a lot of skill, and one team that has them all. And you have to able to ice a team that can play against one of those.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by 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.

...and some of their bigger guys play small too.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

I think the Habs are where they are now more because of luck then anything.

The biggest reason that you need size to win is durability. If your the team causing injuries instead of suffering them then your chances of winning have drastically improved. Playoffs are more physical and the smaller teams are going to get more beat up.

Montreal is being led by Price who has been the most confident goalie in the world since the Olympics. The have also been lucky to not have suffered much on the injury front. It's also no secret that one of their most productive forwards is the bigger sized Bourque.

If Montreal beats Boston and somehow solved the puzzle that is Lundquist, do you really think they'll have enough in the tank to take out any remaining western team?

[mile]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I don't Burke has an unhealthy obsession with size, I think the media (and CP) has an unhealthy obsession with Burke's opinion on size. He gets asked pointed questions about it (as did Treliving) all the time. When asked if the team needs to be bigger what is he supposed to say? Does anyone here think that's not true? He's never said that each team member has to be 6 ft 2, 220 lbs. But as a group, yeah size needs to be addressed, especially when it looks like our future top 6 wingers will likely include both of Sven and Gaudreau. Most teams that have size also have no porblem employing smaller players, provided the rest of the team is not necessarily BIG but plays a big game.

Case-in-point, Torey Krug in Boston. A very undersized defenseman that gets deployed on their top PP unit, but he generally doesn't have to deal with tough-to-defend players because they have Chara, Boychuk, Seidenberg (usually), McQuaid etc... to deal with that part of the game.

The only reason it may seem like Burke is obsessed with size is because he is constantly saying the Flames need to get bigger - what he meant was that the Flames need be big enough to at least hold their own against the top teams, and I agree with you that the media and some fans have misconstrued this as him believing that its an absolute must that we need to be the biggest team in the league, and that he is ignoring other team needs.

The Blackhawks Stanley Cup victories were the product of icing the best players - their lineup wasn't the biggest, but it was big enough to hold their own against the big teams which allowed them to attack with their speed.

That is what Burke's issue is, the Flames are not even big enough to be considered at least adequate, and allow their skilled players to flourish in a tough 7 game series.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

The Habs don't have to play in the Pacific division all year so it's kind of a different scenario for them.

To win the cup you have to make the playoffs. To make the playoffs in the Pacific you need to be able to physically stand up to teams like Anaheim, LA, and San Jose. To win the cup you must also beat those same teams in the playoffs as well.

So no, Burke isn't behind the times at all. He's recognizing the reality of our situation. We're in a brutal division with a lot of big, strong, heavy teams. We need to add size and strength to be able to compete against the teams we play most and will be matched up against in the playoffs.

It's almost undeniable that we need to add size/strength. Not sure how there's a debate on that. Especially when you look at our top 6 forwards and top 4 defensemen in particular. We're too small/weak overall. Who can deny it?

[calumniate]

Maybe Burke is saying he wants to get bigger, because he's trying to get smaller and more skilled..

[FakenHaken]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The Habs don't have to play in the Pacific division all year so it's kind of a different scenario for them.

To win the cup you have to make the playoffs. To make the playoffs in the Pacific you need to be able to physically stand up to teams like Anaheim, LA, and San Jose.

So no, Burke isn't behind the times at all. He's recognizing the reality of our situation. We're in a brutal division with a lot of big, strong, heavy teams. We need to add size and strength to be able to compete against the teams we play most.

It's almost undeniable that we need to add size/strength. Not sure how there's a debate on that.

And skill those teams with Getzlaf, Perry, Kopitar, Carter, Marleau, Couture, Thorton are also skilled on top of being big/strength.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by 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.

Precisely.

Burke gets criticized, and I've even done it, on his obsession with size. Well, size isnt the most important thing in the NHL, however, based on the current make-up of the Flames and where we fall on the spectrum it becomes painfully clear that we direly need some, so on our priority list 'Size' is fairly high.

I think the important thing to think about is the mix of the team, and right now we are far too small so becoming bigger becomes a higher priority.