|
Post by chsb on Sep 12, 2007 at 9:51pm
Wasn't it Clem Jodoin himself that mentionned that last years edition of the Mainiacs main problem at the Mem Cup was size?It was quite obvious that they were no match physically for the other teams participating. I agree that you don't want a whole team of 6'3 220lbs gorillas,but its two sides to a coin....you don't want too many guys that can't win one on one battles either. Anaheim had lots of size last year.....Vancouver had lots of size last year......and we all know how those teams did last year You want 2 things. First you want your players to be able to "play big". Now I have seen quite a few 5' 9" 170 lb players that had a heck of a lot of fight in them! But, on the average, the physically larger guys will play big. The second thing you want is for your players to be healthy, especially in the final stretch. Concussions, shoulder injuries, pulled this or that muscles, etc all happen MUCH more often to smaller players that to the bigger ones. So, once again, at the end of the season, the team with the most men standing is usually the bigger team. I will concur with that!
|
|
|
Post by Porkchop on Sep 13, 2007 at 12:41am
How can you write up MacAusland besides Perreault? This is ridiculous specially that he did not play 1 single game in the Q yet...!. MacAusland will play on Team Canada at 18 and 19 ... Perrault will not ... thats all that is needed to make the comparison ... the pinnacle of Jr hockey. politics.....no other reason
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sep 13, 2007 at 12:48am
Wasn't it Clem Jodoin himself that mentionned that last years edition of the Mainiacs main problem at the Mem Cup was size?It was quite obvious that they were no match physically for the other teams participating. I agree that you don't want a whole team of 6'3 220lbs gorillas,but its two sides to a coin....you don't want too many guys that can't win one on one battles either. Anaheim had lots of size last year.....Vancouver had lots of size last year......and we all know how those teams did last year You want 2 things. First you want your players to be able to "play big". Now I have seen quite a few 5' 9" 170 lb players that had a heck of a lot of fight in them! But, on the average, the physically larger guys will play big. The second thing you want is for your players to be healthy, especially in the final stretch. Concussions, shoulder injuries, pulled this or that muscles, etc all happen MUCH more often to smaller players that to the bigger ones. So, once again, at the end of the season, the team with the most men standing is usually the bigger team. I know they are an expansion team, but St.Johns has had the biggest team in the Q the last 2 years and it got them a spot at the bottom of the standings and 1 playoff victory in 2 years. Same goes for Shawinigan who has a pile of big guys(last year and this year). Lewiston only had 2-3 guys above 6' and 200lbs....same for VD.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sep 13, 2007 at 12:49am
MacAusland will play on Team Canada at 18 and 19 ... Perrault will not ... thats all that is needed to make the comparison ... the pinnacle of Jr hockey. politics.....no other reason Yeah, it had nothing to do with being among the top 16 year o,lds at 15 at the Canada Games and developing into a junior star.
|
|
|
Post by Steeler1 on Sep 13, 2007 at 12:50am
This thread needs to be on the main board. That's what's the main board was set up for; not for "who has the nicest rink" or "what trips have you made?" threads.
|
|
|
Post by Porkchop on Sep 13, 2007 at 1:12am
politics.....no other reason Yeah, it had nothing to do with being among the top 16 year o,lds at 15 at the Canada Games and developing into a junior star. Exactly what I said.......he's in the system already
|
|
|
Post by markofthebeast on Sep 13, 2007 at 1:30am
You want 2 things. First you want your players to be able to "play big". Now I have seen quite a few 5' 9" 170 lb players that had a heck of a lot of fight in them! But, on the average, the physically larger guys will play big. The second thing you want is for your players to be healthy, especially in the final stretch. Concussions, shoulder injuries, pulled this or that muscles, etc all happen MUCH more often to smaller players that to the bigger ones. So, once again, at the end of the season, the team with the most men standing is usually the bigger team. I know they are an expansion team, but St.Johns has had the biggest team in the Q the last 2 years and it got them a spot at the bottom of the standings and 1 playoff victory in 2 years. Same goes for Shawinigan who has a pile of big guys(last year and this year). Lewiston only had 2-3 guys above 6' and 200lbs....same for VD. Yeah it was close to the bottom but out of the 2 expansion teams who made the playoffs? The more skilled team? Or the team with the most size? Size counts for a lot, not everything, but a lot. Two players with the same skill set I'd take the bigger one. When it come to mediocre players taking a player with a little less skill and a little more size isn't always a bad thing, if worse comes to worse the bigger player should be able to at least crash and bang ... Now I know there are exceptions to every rule, and yes there are players who play bigger then they are and there are guys who play smaller. The ducks are a good example a big team with a mean streak sure they had small players on there team but they were one of the biggest in the league.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sep 13, 2007 at 2:19am
I know they are an expansion team, but St.Johns has had the biggest team in the Q the last 2 years and it got them a spot at the bottom of the standings and 1 playoff victory in 2 years. Same goes for Shawinigan who has a pile of big guys(last year and this year). Lewiston only had 2-3 guys above 6' and 200lbs....same for VD. Yeah it was close to the bottom but out of the 2 expansion teams who made the playoffs? The more skilled team? Or the team with the most size? Size counts for a lot, not everything, but a lot. Two players with the same skill set I'd take the bigger one. When it come to mediocre players taking a player with a little less skill and a little more size isn't always a bad thing, if worse comes to worse the bigger player should be able to at least crash and bang ... Now I know there are exceptions to every rule, and yes there are players who play bigger then they are and there are guys who play smaller. The ducks are a good example a big team with a mean streak sure they had small players on there team but they were one of the biggest in the league. With very few exceptions in junior hockey, you are sacrificing skill when drafting 6'2" 6'3" and 6'4" players. In the NHL you have 30 teams taking players from a global pool...even with the crackdown on obstruction, there are still a ton of 6'2" and bigger guys good enough for the NHL. In major junior, the talent pool is not nearly as deep.
|
|
|
Post by markofthebeast on Sep 13, 2007 at 2:30am
With very few exceptions in junior hockey, you are sacrificing skill when drafting 6'2" 6'3" and 6'4" players. Where is your data to back that up you cant possibly even say that (unless it's opinion) because there is very little proof. Also players grow while with their teams, a 5'10" 5'11" 15/16 yo can easily become a 6'2" 6'3" 19yo along with putting on muscle mass. Sure the talent pool isn't as big for the Q as the NHL but the correlation between bigger/better should still remain true, except that the average size of a Q team would be below that of the average size of a NHL squad.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Sep 13, 2007 at 11:24am
With very few exceptions in junior hockey, you are sacrificing skill when drafting 6'2" 6'3" and 6'4" players. Where is your data to back that up you cant possibly even say that (unless it's opinion) because there is very little proof. Also players grow while with their teams, a 5'10" 5'11" 15/16 yo can easily become a 6'2" 6'3" 19yo along with putting on muscle mass. Sure the talent pool isn't as big for the Q as the NHL but the correlation between bigger/better should still remain true, except that the average size of a Q team would be below that of the average size of a NHL squad. I don't necessarily have exact data on any of this, but I figure I can rifle off more names of high end "small" players than I could high end "big" players... I will agree however that typically, everything else being the SAME, a team will go for the bigger guy...
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sep 13, 2007 at 11:52am
With very few exceptions in junior hockey, you are sacrificing skill when drafting 6'2" 6'3" and 6'4" players. Where is your data to back that up you cant possibly even say that (unless it's opinion) because there is very little proof. Also players grow while with their teams, a 5'10" 5'11" 15/16 yo can easily become a 6'2" 6'3" 19yo along with putting on muscle mass. I can see young players adding 1-2 inches from 16-20, it's very rare for players to add more than that...adding muscle mass is a normal part of growing up. Sure the talent pool isn't as big for the Q as the NHL but the correlation between bigger/better should still remain true, except that the average size of a Q team would be below that of the average size of a NHL squad. Just look at the draft...do you think for 1 second that if there was a 6'3" guy with the same skills as Perreault, MacAusland, Kirkpatrick, Tessier, Piche etc that they wouldn't take that guy? I'll go as far as to say that if the 6'2" guy has 80% of the skills of the 5'6"-5'8" guy that the team will opt for the bigger player. The difference with the NHL is that they can take the big skilled guys from all over, but at times the small skilled guy gets overlooked, that never happens in junior. They just don't have enough skill players to not take a Perreault or MacAusland.
|
|
|
Post by chsb on Sep 13, 2007 at 12:19pm
Where is your data to back that up you cant possibly even say that (unless it's opinion) because there is very little proof. Also players grow while with their teams, a 5'10" 5'11" 15/16 yo can easily become a 6'2" 6'3" 19yo along with putting on muscle mass. I can see young players adding 1-2 inches from 16-20, it's very rare for players to add more than that...adding muscle mass is a normal part of growing up. Sure the talent pool isn't as big for the Q as the NHL but the correlation between bigger/better should still remain true, except that the average size of a Q team would be below that of the average size of a NHL squad. Just look at the draft...do you think for 1 second that if there was a 6'3" guy with the same skills as Perreault, MacAusland, Kirkpatrick, Tessier, Piche etc that they wouldn't take that guy? I'll go as far as to say that if the 6'2" guy has 80% of the skills of the 5'6"-5'8" guy that the team will opt for the bigger player. The difference with the NHL is that they can take the big skilled guys from all over, but at times the small skilled guy gets overlooked, that never happens in junior. They just don't have enough skill players to not take a Perreault or MacAusland. Right now the only comparable between Perreault and MacAusland is their size.... The rest(skillwise) is your crap until MacAusland develops into a Perreault....
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sep 13, 2007 at 1:06pm
Just look at the draft...do you think for 1 second that if there was a 6'3" guy with the same skills as Perreault, MacAusland, Kirkpatrick, Tessier, Piche etc that they wouldn't take that guy? I'll go as far as to say that if the 6'2" guy has 80% of the skills of the 5'6"-5'8" guy that the team will opt for the bigger player. The difference with the NHL is that they can take the big skilled guys from all over, but at times the small skilled guy gets overlooked, that never happens in junior. They just don't have enough skill players to not take a Perreault or MacAusland. Right now the only comparable between Perreault and MacAusland is their size.... The rest(skillwise) is your crap until MacAusland develops into a Perreault.... MacAusland was rated top 5 in the draft after his 15 year old season while Perreault went undrafted, MacAusland is a year ahead of Perreault development wise...the Canada games show pretty clearly that he has a lot of talent.
|
|
|
Post by markofthebeast on Sep 13, 2007 at 3:21pm
I‘m not saying biggest is best, I’m saying bigger is better, as I lay out in a scenario before. Players with the same exact same skill set take the bigger player. Once it gets down to 3rd and 4th line guys or last 2 defense even if there is a little more skill but that players is considerable smaller then a bigger player who has a little less skill taking the bigger player would be a good bet. A players size dose count towards his upside.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sep 13, 2007 at 3:34pm
I‘m not saying biggest is best, I’m saying bigger is better, as I lay out in a scenario before. Players with the same exact same skill set take the bigger player. Once it gets down to 3rd and 4th line guys or last 2 defense even if there is a little more skill but that players is considerable smaller then a bigger player who has a little less skill taking the bigger player would be a good bet. A players size dose count towards his upside. Yeah, that's fine...I'm just saying that out of the pool of player available to a junior team, for the most part, building a big team top to bottom means you don't have a lot of skill. St.John managed to draft a lot of big skilled players...but they have drafted 1st 3 years in a row and high in the Euro draft also...
|
|