Flames: Youngest, Lightest and (Mostly) Smallest Team in the NHL

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It's as good of a case as you made.


Also, Edmonton is no good

you seriously couldn't tell that was a joke?

[Gaskal]

Boy we need Kanzig to even this out a bit. He's 3 for 3...size, truculence, and youth!

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Boy we need Kanzig to even this out a bit. He's 3 for 3...size, truculence, and youth!

Release the Kraken!

[Rick M.]

Grit and size aren't necessarily synonymous. When Calgary won its only cup our top 2 right wingers were under 6 ft. tall (Joe Mullen was 5'9"). Our number one centre (Doug Gilmour) was under 6' tall as well. Nobody pushed them around. We had 2 abrasive guys to dig pucks out of the corner and run people over (Colin Patterson and Gary Roberts). They could also chip in with some timely goals (Roberts' 50 goal seasons were in the future). Character is equally important as size and weight.

[Stupid]

Originally Posted by Falclore

Interesting how St. Louis is 2nd shortest and 18th in overall weight, with Calgary the 3rd shortest and the overall lightest team. St. Louis is over 6lbs heavier per person. That overall bulk really helps them in the down low game compared to the Flames.

I was looking at the same thing but then with Montreal instead of the Blues.
Montreal is shortest and 16th heaviest!

[Husky]

I think this is somewhat useless. I'm too lazy to actually read it but I am guessing keeping 4th line forwards and depth D skews data. More sense to plot players who eat up the bulk of ice time.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Husky

I think this is somewhat useless. I'm too lazy to actually read it but I am guessing keeping 4th line forwards and depth D skews data. More sense to plot players who eat up the bulk of ice time.

Pretty much this. Do the top 6 (maybe top 9) forwards and the top 4 defencemen and it would be more useful.

[Fire It Up]

As Burke mentioned in a past presser, you need speed, size, and skill to get through the playoffs cause in each round you are bound to play against a club with one of those attributes. I think we got the speed down, now it's time to build on our skill and size.

[driveway]

What I'd really like to see is the relationship between a team's size and age and their success over the last 10 years. If there is a correlation between heavier, older teams doing better or not, then it's something we should be focused on. Without the data regarding success this is just interesting information and not really actionable information.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by Fire It Up

As Burke mentioned in a past presser, you need speed, size, and skill to get through the playoffs cause in each round you are bound to play against a club with one of those attributes. I think we got the speed down, now it's time to build on our skill and size.

I agree with this and think that's why teams like Dallas are on the right track... They are big, fast, and skilled. 2 years from now they'll be a decent contender in my opinion. They need more pieces obviously but they already have the two biggest pieces in seguin and benn.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by stemit14

I agree with this and think that's why teams like Dallas are on the right track... They are big, fast, and skilled. 2 years from now they'll be a decent contender in my opinion. They need more pieces obviously but they already have the two biggest pieces in seguin and benn.

I disagree somewhat. Being big, skilled and fast is ideal, but not for the reason you stated. Chicago isn't big, and doesn't change their game based on their opponent. Detroit looked foolish when trying to match Boston's size.

On the other hand, a big skilled and fast player has easier time imposing their will than a smaller, slower or less skilled player.

[tripin_billie]

I think one of the most interesting things I notice from the age listings is that you can clearly see that there is a specific team age that is the golden-zone, right at around league average. The teams younger, in general, are in rebuilds, and the older teams are seeing their current window get smaller (minus maybe Pittsburgh).

It's all about being built correctly as a team right when the team average age hits that point.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by tripin_billie

I think one of the most interesting things I notice from the age listings is that you can clearly see that there is a specific team age that is the golden-zone, right at around league average. The teams younger, in general, are in rebuilds, and the older teams are seeing their current window get smaller (minus maybe Pittsburgh).

It's all about being built correctly as a team right when the team average age hits that point.

Yeah, I agree and another point is with the salary cap, it pays to have some good young players still on entry level contracts, so you can pay the vets. Once those players get their next contract, the team may need to make some big changes as happened in Chicago.

[Itse]

The way I see it, championship teams are generally teams that have many strengths and close to no weaknesses. Size is like having a great goalie, or being fast etc. Helpful, but not mandatory. But having a bad goalie, or being too slow or too weak makes it almost impossible to win.

I think Burke is absolutely right in saying that we need to get bigger. We're already small, and we have a couple of small wingers pushing for spots in Gaudreau and Baertchi. We need to bulk up in other positions just to stay where we are now.

[4oh3]

Yeah the size thing is semi important but grit and heart is also a factor I would rather have a 5'5 150 pound scrappy guy that tries to hit and will go into corners, than say, a 6'8 250 pound , Daniel sedin, ryan nugent hopkins kind of player.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by 4oh3

Yeah the size thing is semi important but grit and heart is also a factor I would rather have a 5'5 150 pound scrappy guy that tries to hit and will go into corners, than say, a 6'8 250 pound , Daniel sedin, ryan nugent hopkins kind of player.

Daniel Sedin has Hart

[PeteMoss]

I don't think the size thing is something that leads you to wins or losing by itself but I think it is good to have an identity or something you are striving to be. That I believe is one of the main points of having a president. He sets the direction of the organization and the GM and coach can be hired to fit that direction.

You also need to make sure these hires are strong and not just yes-men. I think in Toronto , a lot of the scouts and other front office people spent too much time in the draft trying to impress Burke by taking the big player regardless of their NHL ability. You don't want a bunch of guys scouting by tape measure. You might perhaps shift your rankings to favour big players, but you want to avoid having it be the only factor you consider.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Daniel Sedin has Hart

Henrik.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Henrik.

Haha thanks. You can understand my confusion though?

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Chicago isn't big, and doesn't change their game based on their opponent.

Originally Posted by Itse

The way I see it, championship teams are generally teams that have many strengths and close to no weaknesses. Size is like having a great goalie, or being fast etc. Helpful, but not mandatory.

I think size is mandatory. Look at the teams that have won the Cup. Who doesn't have a top 6 powerforward or a big guy who stepped up in the playoffs? Chicago had size everywhere in the lineup when they won their first Cup with their current group and they won their 2nd getting some big performances from a big guy like Bickell and Handzus.

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You also need to make sure these hires are strong and not just yes-men. I think in Toronto , a lot of the scouts and other front office people spent too much time in the draft trying to impress Burke by taking the big player regardless of their NHL ability. You don't want a bunch of guys scouting by tape measure. You might perhaps shift your rankings to favour big players, but you want to avoid having it be the only factor you consider.

I agree but I think it's okay for amateur scouts to be more of a yes man than say a GM or AGM and I think a lot of us underrate just how much of an effect "shifting your rankings" can be. When it comes to the draft there tend to be a lot of players that scouts like. You hear and see it in those behind the scenes video. You can easily move a player up the rankings simply by favouring size.