Is Truculence the way to win it all?

[GreenLantern2814]

The team needs to be fearless. The team needs to be able to pick its spots with the rough stuff. The team must never be in a position where they are intimidated by the physical dominance of another squad.

These are secondary concerns to a well coached team with consistent goaltending, the proper ratio of size/mobility on the back end, and elite centre depth. They aren't less vital to success, but you have to acquire the other things first.

[moon]

Originally Posted by nik-

Picks like Tyler Biggs make me worry about Burke's myopia on size and "truculence"

What about his pick of Kadri when much more "truculent" players such as Cowen or Kassian were right there to be picked? or Reilly when he could have gone for the more Truculent Dumba?

Even with the Biggs pick it isn't like less truculent forwards taken after him (Puempl, Danult, Phillips, Jensen) are lighting the world on fire. Maybe Namestikov looks good but with the Russian factor many teams would have passed.

[Hustle]

Originally Posted by jg13

being highly truculent is not a bad way to go for sure, LA Kings and Bruins would be the model I imagine Burke is after.

The other way you could go is Chicago, Pittsburgh route extremely fast & high skilled but definitely harder to put a team of that caliber together.

Those seem to be the two most popular models out there right now but i think that's almost too black and white of a definition (not that you're making it.. it's more so what out there in the media these days).

I was lucky enough to see Burke speak a few times when he was the GM of the Leafs and the one thing he always reiterated that while the media always latches onto the soundbites, 'Truculence.. Belligerence etc), he felt that a GM's goal was to build a team that could win playoff series in numerous different manners. They had to be able to win in a bruising series, but they had to also be able to win in a skill series (and that winning in the latter type of situation was actually the hardest). Each time i saw him speak he always mentioned this mantra and that acquiring the right type of skill was actually the hardest and most important part.

It's still definitely up in the air whether he was able to accomplish to do this in Toronto... hopefully he can find a way to make it happen here. He definitely is starting from a better base than he did with the leafs.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by moon

What about his pick of Kadri when much more "truculent" players such as Cowen or Kassian were right there to be picked? or Reilly when he could have gone for the more Truculent Dumba?

Even with the Biggs pick it isn't like less truculent forwards taken after him (Puempl, Danult, Phillips, Jensen) are lighting the world on fire. Maybe Namestikov looks good but with the Russian factor many teams would have passed.

What about them? Him making other good picks doesn't make Biggs a smart decision.

I didn't suggest that all his picks were for truculence, but that one was and it was a poor decision.

[troutman]

[moon]

Originally Posted by nik-

What about them? Him making other good picks doesn't make Biggs a smart decision.

I didn't suggest that all his picks were for truculence, but that one was and it was a poor decision.

It shows that truculence is far from the deciding factor in him making picks.

Just seemed odd to use one pick to get worried about something in the future when Burke has shown that one pick isn't the norm for him at all.

And isn't it a little early to say it was a poor decision?

[BACKCHECK!!!]

#GRITCHART.

Also, moustaches.

[powderjunkie]

FWIW I didn't have a chance to write anything more before hitting post - I didn't intend to draw too close a correlation between PIMs and truculunce, but it was a quick way to get a sense of how many 'truculent' players were on each club (of course not all truculent players = high PIMS, and not all high PIM players are 'truculent'.

It is somewhat interesting that 4 of the last 8 cup winners were in the bottom 5 for PIMs. Also interesting that Anaheim was most penalized, and how many PIMS guys like Selanne and Niedermayer racked up.

If nothing else, we at least learned the true definition of truculence!

[AcGold]

Another definition, and what I think Brian Burke means by it, is that you are quick to fight and stand up for yourself. He doesn't like teams that let their players get pushed around, which applies perfectly to the previous 2-3 years when Kiprusoff would get run and nobody would do anything. Do that now and there are a handful of guys who will at the least give you a facewash. Truculence is how quickly you respond to aggression.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by moon

It shows that truculence is far from the deciding factor in him making picks.

Just seemed odd to use one pick to get worried about something in the future when Burke has shown that one pick isn't the norm for him at all.

And isn't it a little early to say it was a poor decision?

No, it shows that truculence isn't the deciding factor in ALL picks. However it was in one at least which was a poor pick.

And no, I don't think it's too early. He was mediocre in Junior and he's nothing in the AHL. There is nothing to him that says NHL other than his size. This organization can't afford to even waste one pick as a result of an ideology that may not even be valid.

[Resolute 14]

Being a physical, big, nasty team certainly is one way to build a winning team, but not the only way. Hopefully Burke does a better job here than he did in Toronto.

[moon]

Originally Posted by nik-

No, it shows that truculence isn't the deciding factor in ALL picks. However it was in one at least which was a poor pick.

And no, I don't think it's too early. He was mediocre in Junior and he's nothing in the AHL. There is nothing to him that says NHL other than his size. This organization can't afford to even waste one pick as a result of an ideology that may not even be valid.

In that case I am jacked to see Burke pick future Hart Trophy winners based on the Henrik Sedin pick.

As for being too early again it wasn't like there are a bunch of future stars drafted around Biggs. That pick was likely to be a dud because it was the 21st pick not because of Biggs the player.

Considering that Burke has shown that truculence has basically zero to do with how he drafts it seems pretty ridiculous to point to one late first round pick as a reason to be worried about his myopia in that regard.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Do any of the cup winners possess a powerforward? Someone who can win battles along the boards and in front of the net but has the skill to play with skilled players.

Do any of the cup winners possess big, strong top 3 defensemen?

That's what Burke wants. That's what we should all want. You need a few players that play a powerful, strong, physical, mean game. They don't all have to be like that and that's probably been the biggest misunderstanding of Burke so far. The Stajan and potential Russell re-signings show that he doesn't need every player to fit that description. But outside of McGrattan, Westgarth and maybe B. Jones do we have players that play a strong power game? Now do we have any of those players in the top 6 forwards or top 4 defensemen? None. And that's the problem.

We're too easy to shut down up front. And not hard enough to play against on defense. This is part of the reason we currently suck in the big, strong Western Conference. It is also part of the reason why the Oilers suck in the big, strong Western Conference and why they have also talked about the need for heavy defensemen and a "Lucic type player".

[ricardodw]

Burke is simply an advocate of my the need for team grit (hitting, blocking shots and winning contested pucks) and the simple fact that you can't be a successful team with 4 or more guys that have low GRIT.


The 8 best teams last year had 3 or less players with low grit.

The only teams in the top 16 with 4 or more softer players was Vancouver , Detroit, San Jose, Minny and Ottawa.

Basically my evaluation of GRIT is what Burke, Bowman, Shero and basically every successful GM understands. Burke calls it truculence instead of GRIT.

8 of the 14 teams that did not make the playoffs had 4 or more soft (non-truculent) players. The other 14 players with GRIT/Truculence are not enough to over-come the 4 softies.

The concept is so simple and accurate that it drives the advanced stats guy bananas.

[Enoch Root]

lol ricardodw...

Everyone understands what grit is.

It is your silly attempt at quantifying it that people took exception to.

If you can find any evidence whatsoever that Burke looks at the stats in a similar way, I will praise your wisdom.

Until then, don't try to pretend that Burke is an advocate of yours

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Burke is simply an advocate of my the need for team grit (hitting, blocking shots and winning contested pucks) and the simple fact that you can't be a successful team with 4 or more guys that have low GRIT.


The 8 best teams last year had 3 or less players with low grit.

The only teams in the top 16 with 4 or more softer players was Vancouver , Detroit, San Jose, Minny and Ottawa.

Basically my evaluation of GRIT is what Burke, Bowman, Shero and basically every successful GM understands. Burke calls it truculence instead of GRIT.

8 of the 14 teams that did not make the playoffs had 4 or more soft (non-truculent) players. The other 14 players with GRIT/Truculence are not enough to over-come the 4 softies.

The concept is so simple and accurate that it drives the advanced stats guy bananas.

But you're missing the one part of the formula to truly quantify GRIT.

The mustache-to-truculence ratio, or better known as MTTR.

[Psytic]

Being a large team in general helps as well. Look at how the Sharks and Blues limit high percentage chances just by boxing people out with bodies.

[Stay Golden]

Truculence isn't the only way champions are built but if Burke goes that route I am not going to oppose it as a fan. Embrace the truculence

[timbit]

Power and skill at forward and defence are two of the prominent attributes of the majority of SC winners over the last few years.

Heavy and skilled hockey.

Man, the Flames have a lot of work to do.

Anaheim, LA, StL, San Jose, Chicago and Boston have it.

Pitt has some of it.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Burke is simply an advocate of my the need for team grit (hitting, blocking shots and winning contested pucks) and the simple fact that you can't be a successful team with 4 or more guys that have low GRIT.


The 8 best teams last year had 3 or less players with low grit.

The only teams in the top 16 with 4 or more softer players was Vancouver , Detroit, San Jose, Minny and Ottawa.

Basically my evaluation of GRIT is what Burke, Bowman, Shero and basically every successful GM understands. Burke calls it truculence instead of GRIT.

8 of the 14 teams that did not make the playoffs had 4 or more soft (non-truculent) players. The other 14 players with GRIT/Truculence are not enough to over-come the 4 softies.

The concept is so simple and accurate that it drives the advanced stats guy bananas.

Please stop...I know you mean well but cmon.