Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
This team's measurably (and observably) best possession winger is "easily replacable" by a bigger player who does everything just as well. That's the problem with this emphasis on size. It makes people like Burke, and apparently yourself, oblivious to a player's actual on-ice contribution.
Bollig hit some big shots in the playoffs. Credit to him for that, though more of that credit goes to the skilled guys setting him up. But every other shift he was a liability or generally useless while taking a spot away from younger players like Shore, Granlund, and Jooris. Part of the blame goes to Hartley though, because scratching Jooris for games 4 and 5 may well have cost the team the series. It becomes a problem when a guy playing 10+ minutes is scratched in favor of a less skilled, worse possession guy playing under 7 minutes, all for some artificial emphasis on size.
Colborne, he had some good stretches (Game 1 vs Vancouver, Game 3 vs Anaheim) and yet he remains consistently one of the worst possession forwards on the entire team, a player unable to build chemistry with anyone. Why do you think we hit an 8 game losing streak just as he returned to the lineup, or why the 2nd unit power play had two entire goals this whole season?
People love to ignore his constant turnovers, his inability to win board battles despite being huge, and his general inability to cycle the puck efficiently. He can be invisible for two straight months, then have one pretty assist on the rush and it's back to "Joe Colborne is 6'5 and has the midas touch". When he was on Monahan's line, Monahan's scoring dried up. When he was on Gaudreau's line, Gaudreau got thrown in the pressbox. When he was on Backlund's line, Backlund had his worst stretch of the season. When he was on Jooris/Raymond's line, the team's depth scoring was non-existant. The one constant was that Colborne's line couldn't really get anything going, until the playoffs when Backlund and Bennett's overwhelming greatness carried him. I get that Colborne has upside and might just figure it out. But the elephant in the room is that he's still one of the worst possession players on the entire team.
Right. Because he totally wasn't an anchor on TJ Brodie and gave up a regular scoring-chance-fest all playoffs every time he was on the ice.
Their inability to play hockey very well. If they were 6'0 tall they'd each be AHL long shots. There's a reason the Hawks didn't need guys like that in the Cup final, even in their bottom pairing or their bottom 6. That were perfectly happy with guys like Kruger, Shaw, Teravainen, Timonen instead.
Look, I'm actually someone who wants the Flames to get bigger - specifically on the middle defense pairing - but unlike Burke I'm not oblivious to players' shortcomings if they're 6'2 or taller. |
Who gives a crap what his possession numbers are. He's one of only 3 forwards on the entire team that played any sort of regular games and shifts this past season who was a minus player, and he puts up about 0.3 points per game.
Byron is the definition of easy to replace, in fact the Flames proved / did this numerous times this past season, by choice and due to Byron's injury. Love the guys hart, and willingness to compete and to try to player bigger than his size, but he simply doesn't bring enough to the table overall.
You also go on and on blathering about nothing when it comes to Colborne, stating noting but questionable observations of your own about his play, and some an obsession with possession stats on a team that did not play or have success this year playing a possession game.
Your comments about Engelland's play with Brodie make me question if you even watched the game. I get it, he's not actually a top 4 player, nor should he be, but his play was fantastic. Is Brodie a better player with Gio, of course, but who wouldn't be better playing with the best D-man in the game.
None of anything you said though, backs up your point that Burke is "oblivious" to players down falls if they are bigger than 6'2. All you did was cherry pick some players (poorly as stated) who are larger that you don't like and try to pretend that Burke sees no flaws in their game and those guys are exactly what he's looking for when he says get bigger. It's a ridiculously poor conclusion you are drawing, and then a ridiculously poor argument you make to back up your poor conclusion.
