On the topic of size, Islanders' lack thereof

I’ve commented a number of times that the Isles need more size to compete effectively. I certaintly didn’t intend to suggest that it was all they needed or that they just needed size for the sake of size. Teams need a blend of speed, skill, and size to match up with anyone. The problem comes when you have to much of any one element and you become vulnerable to clubs that can expose you. Like Serrano (major league) whose bats were afraid of curveballs. You need enough size and toughness to keep other teams honest and to play a tough grinding game when necessary but you also need enough speed, skill, and finish to play an uptempo game when that gives you the best chance of success.

When even the Anaheim and LA broadcasters mention that the strategy is to cycle down low to take advantage of the Islanders lack of size then it really is obvious how much they need a big shutdown defenseive pair. To have the luxury of Langevin and Morrow once again would be outstanding.

Size matters depending on the physicality of the team being played, in the case of Anaheim or the Flyers, they play an aggressive game and have players that hit out of their weight class. Against them you need to be able to withstand the punishment or at least overpower a player once in a while. So Atlanta may play small against the Islanders, but it can help Atlanta take the hits from the Flyers.

Very very few NHLers are 230 lbs (and none of the Flyers are). >95% of NHLers are 180-220lbs. For the simple fact that if youre to big you don’t have the speed/endurance and if your to small you don’t last. It would be extemely difficult to keep that type of bulk on and play this type of game unless your are extremely tall

Its not only size but what you do with it…. On paper Hunter, Gillies and Jackman are the same size. Comeau is the same size as moulson etc. These guys aren’t the same size on the rink though

In my opinion the only thing that matters is how good you are. Sometimes being big contributes to a player’s game but that should be evident in his statistics (taking +/- into account or some other defensive stat). The idea that a player who is big, but doesn’t score goals or get many assists and who has a lousy +/- is somehow helping the team in some intangible way is folly. If he’s helping it will show up in his stats (again including defensive stats). Teams regularly play inferior players over superior players that are available because of an obsession with size and intimidation. Its such a common mistake that a study showed that the biggest busts in the NHL draft overwhelmingly turn out to be big players who didn’t have great numbers at lower levels but GMs were overly enamored with their size.

I want to say right now that what Garth Snow should care about is one thing and one thing only and that is how good the player is. Again size can help a player be better if he has skill to use his reach, his mass etc, but if a small player is putting up better numbers (again, including defensive #s) the smaller player is the better player. Just take the better players, no matter their size. Maybe you need a Semenko or McSorley to keep the dirty players on other teams honest, but beyond that its all about how skill.

I just don’t agree with it. If the best players available or the best deals available are for small players, should Snow keep looking until he finds a decent pickup with size? I say no. A resounding no. If the best player we can afford happens to be big, fine get him. But if the best available player is small, get him. Having a small or big or mixed team doesn’t matter at all, in my opinion. Having a good team is what matters. Its like when a baseball team picks up some mediocre player because he’s fast and the team lacks speed, instead of getting a better available player who is slow. Its a mistake, in my opinion. I think any team will do best to just put together the best players they can get (with consideration for position of course – you don’t get 10 goalies because they’re available when you need D-men).

I understand the argument for needing big players. You ‘get pushed around’. Yes if your team is small the other team will try to hit you into submission. They will likely outhit you in most games. Probably every game. So what? The question is will they outscore you? If your guys are faster and more skilled you can get outhit and win consistently. Wayne Gretzky was outhit unmercifully. Still a team full of Gretzkys (at forward) would almost never lose and they would never, ever outhit the opposition. Of course a lot of big players are very good. I’m not opposed to big players. I’m just saying you don’t need them. Take two players, B and S. In this case S is the better player. When you combine everything they do, S contributes more to winning than B. If B is a more physical player, this means that the advantages that S has MORE than compensate for his deficit in physical play. If that team is already small they may take B instead of S thinking that they are small so they need the size. In my opinion this would be a mistake. They will still be better off with the smaller better player despite his deficit in physical play and despite the fact that they are already a small team. Of course I know this is not what we hear all the time but I believe its true. I hear all the time about how you need to be ‘hard to play against’. There is some value to that but what’s really hard to play against, even if not in the sense of physical pain, is a team that is really good at skating, stick-handling, passing and shooting. That’s hard to play against. Anyway I realize I’m in the minority on this but its what I believe.