Burke behind the times on size?

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by FakenHaken

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

Burke said it himself he doesn't want to get big by signing a bunch of 4th line plugs. He wants a mix of size and skill. That doesn't mean he wants a small skilled guy on a line with 2 large pylons. Any GM would say their dream team is a roster of 23 players that are 6'4 with hands like Pat Kane and the speed of Paul Byron.

Burke want's a bigger team, I don't see why anyone would have exception to that. Has a GM ever said he wants a smaller team? That's when you should be concerned.

[mile]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

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?

The debate likely comes from Burke constantly stating that we need to get bigger (which is true) - and some have mistaken this as him thinking that size is the only thing that matters, and that other team needs will be ignored because of it.

We don't need to be the biggest team in the league, but we at least need to be big enough to hold our own against the top teams - which is not where we are at ( and which is what Burke meant when he took the job.)

[Coach]

Originally Posted by mile

The only reason it may seem like Burke is obsessed with size is because he is constantly saying the Flames need to get bigger -

- Because he is constantly asked if the Flames need to get bigger multiple times in pressers and interviews.

I agree with everything else you said.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Bigger means better.

That statement applies to more then just the size of your bird.

For the record this statement does not typically apply to women.

[the2bears]

Made me think of this.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly. Without those 2 in this series, article gets written "Mirtle: Bruins proving size really does matter in NHL".

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

What a weenie article.

Step 1 - start with axe to grind
Step 2 - trump up numbers to make it seem like you have a case
Step 3 - throw in wild hyperbole for conclusions so you seem insightful

I doubt any GM gives a rats ass about their team's average height and weight, or even knows it. And a small guy like Gallagher could play for any of them, any time, while a big but ineffective or inconsistent player like Borque or Murray will be in and out of every lineup, not just the habs.

[TheDebaser]

I feel like there's a massive misunderstanding going on here.

Whenever Burke talks about size, he isn't just wanting big players to go out there winning puck battles, to him it's a confidence thing. Bruins v Canucks is a textbook example of this. That entire series the Bruins broke the Canucks spirit and played with a swagger.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/04/14...-pusillanimous

It's not just about bruising other teams, it's about playing tough mentally and not getting bullied by bigger teams.

"Fear and toughness is contagious on this team."

Just something to think about.

[Oil Stain]

When someone brought it up last month it certainly looked like there was no correlation between winning and size.

It looked like there was a pretty clear correlation between winning and age though.

It's funny how GMs never talk about wanting to get older, and a lot of fans seem to hate the idea, but getting older usually means winning more.

Lots of guys out there getting signed every year to bargain contracts because they are "too old".

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by TheDebaser

I feel like there's a massive misunderstanding going on here.

Whenever Burke talks about size, he isn't just wanting big players to go out there winning puck battles, to him it's a confidence thing. Bruins v Canucks is a textbook example of this. That entire series the Bruins broke the Canucks spirit and played with a swagger.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/04/14...-pusillanimous

It's not just about bruising other teams, it's about playing tough mentally and not getting bullied by bigger teams.

"Fear and toughness is contagious on this team."

Just something to think about.

I think this is a slight misunderstanding. Burke has used the word truculent many times, what it actually means is to be quick to assert ones aggression. I don't think it has to do so much with confidence as it does with having the other teams respect/fear.

Mcgratton is the perfect example, if there's any dirty stuff after the whistle he is their immediately. In the past our guys would let our goalies get run over and Burke wants the other teams to know there is an instant push back, no hesitation whatsoever. Now Mcgratton sometimes gives the other team a talking to before the game even starts. That's what I interpret Burke as wanting, don't back down from the other teams aggression for a second and it's much easier to do with size.

[FAN]

The Habs haven't won anything yet and they may still be bounced by the bigger team. Sure size doesn't matter as much as it did in the clutch and grab era, but the recent Cup winners all have some big bodies who helped them win the Cup.

Ya the Blackhawks won the Cup with Toews and Kane, but the Hawks had a big team in 2010 and last year they had guys like Bickell coming through in the playoffs. LA and Boston were the bigger and tougher team when they won their Cup.

[Caged Great]

To me, talent is the #1 most important thing.

However, if you are significantly deficient in areas compared to the other team it equalizes things.

If the other team out works you significantly, you are in trouble.

If you are shorter than the other team by quite a bit, it is harder to push through that.

If you are slower than the other team they can contain you a bit easier.

If they have a lot better of a goalie, that can stop your team dead.

Talent alone does not get you anywhere, it does usually seed teams close to the right order in each conference. When the playoffs hit, if you are very talented, but the team that you are facing are better in a couple areas above you are in trouble. Your team can get through a round or two on talent alone, just like your goalie could steal a round or two, or your hard working team could frustrate the opposition (see Flames 04).

The key to being truly successful, you need to have balance. You need to be decently sized, decently fast, with a good goalie and good work effort in addition to being talented.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by fotze

I never realized Krug was so small. Size will always be important. It is just better than not size, it just is. But the future is not clinging to age old beliefs, it is in using the players you have to their strengths.

In the past the NHL would discard players in that last category but teams are finding ways to use these players better than in the past and that is what is setting them apart. i.e. Krug.

Also notable about Krug is that he is 5'9 and 180lbs. That's a pretty thick short guy. He's got 1 inch on Gaudreau but 20 lbs. If you'e small you have to be as strong as you possibly can. That doesn't necessarily mean bulk and weight, but just fitness.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Mirtle bandwagon-jumping on this week's fashionable controversy, which is in absolutely no way indicative of the real world or larger overlying trends?

Wake me when the Habs win the cup.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Habs, and would cheer for them as the last Canadian team standing even if I didn't like them, but this is an effing joke.

But one small team makes the 2nd round, and now size doesn't matter in the NHL?

Right...

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

Mirtle bandwagon-jumping on this week's fashionable controversy, which is in absolutely no way indicative of the real world or larger overlying trends?

Wake me when the Habs win the cup.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Habs, and would cheer for them as the last Canadian team standing even if I didn't like them, but this is an effing joke.

But one small team makes the 2nd round, and now size doesn't matter in the NHL?

Right...

I don't disagree with you, but want to add when the habs succeed they are proving they aren't soft smurfs, not that soft smurfs can win.

The guy behind the times is the guy who wrote the article, starting with a cliche about height and weight and trying to make himself sound brilliant.

[dino7c]

Flames also play in the pacific division...a team like the Habs would not get past LA, SJ, Ana

[jeffman]

Because the Oilers are doing so well right now.....
But yeah, like others said, you need a good combo of size, speed and hockey IQ

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Flames also play in the pacific division...a team like the Habs would not get past LA, SJ, Ana

They just beat a team bigger than SJ or Anaheim.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

They just beat a team bigger than SJ or Anaheim.

Yes - but both those teams have skill, are fast.
Bruins are neither

[cDnStealth]

When Burke talks about size and wanting the team to be bigger I think that's more of how he wants the players play rather than simply have physically larger players. You can be a small player and out work bigger guys. It all comes down to work ethic. What you don't want on your team is players like Kesler diving all over the ice.