|
|
Post by canbeer on Sept 13, 2007 7:34:16 GMT -4
My point just being that all other things being equal having size is good. It's not like you look at two lineups and automatically know a team has more skill because they're smaller. Again all things being equal... But I see your point... size at the cost of skill not good. Flip that around though, it's not like you look at two lineups and automatically know which team is better because they're bigger. That's basically what buddy that started this thread is implying. Hence me saying all other things being equal... |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sept 13, 2007 8:01:30 GMT -4
Flip that around though, it's not like you look at two lineups and automatically know which team is better because they're bigger. That's basically what buddy that started this thread is implying. Hence me saying all other things being equal... All things are never eaqual...that's why 5'6"-5'8" guys are drafted(or rated) 1st round. Do you think a team takes 5'8" Perreault if they can get a 6'2" guy as good...or 5'6" MacAusland if they can get a 6'3" guy just as skilled. It's also tougher for 6'3" guys to be as agile/silled as 5'8" guys because they are usually more awkward and less coordinated, plus having longer moving parts, they have a longer road to being as skilled. When growing up, kids who play sports and grow normally to normal size have an easier road than guys that grow rapidly and get to 6'3" because those kids have an awkward stage where they have these long limbs and can't really manipulate them. |
|
