korab rules Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 You're the one who said you can't see a team with *three* small players going far in the playoffs. I really want to know if three is a key number here while two small players really doesn't matter. Would we be better off if we traded ALL our small players now rather than risk that they might be "potentially neutralized" in the playoffs. It seemed like we were set to win the Stanley Cup in spring 2006 with most of our key forwards either being small or average in size. But that plan was derailed by injuries.....to defensemen with size (Tallinder, McKee). Oh God, did I hurt your feelings? I seriously just want to know why anyone thinks having two small forwards on the top three lines leaves you with a legit chance of winning the Cup, but having three small forwards on the top three lines dramatically lowers those chances. This isn't the first time someone has openly worried about allowing Roy, Ennis, and Gerbe on the team all at once. I won't pretend to speak for LB, but I too worry about too many midgets. 2006? That was the first year after the lockout. Refs thought they were supposed to follow the rules in the post season then. What happened in 2006-2007? Those same midgets who were successful in 05-06 ran out of real estate. Hell, look back at last year! Refs swallow their whistles, open ice disappears, everyone finishes every check every time, and bigger players push smaller players off the puck resulting in scoring opportunities. Just ask Timmy Kennedy. A couple smurfs are OK, but every one you add carries an element of risk. How many is too many? I don't want to find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Oh God, did I hurt your feelings? I seriously just want to know why anyone thinks having two small forwards on the top three lines leaves you with a legit chance of winning the Cup, but having three small forwards on the top three lines dramatically lowers those chances. This isn't the first time someone has openly worried about allowing Roy, Ennis, and Gerbe on the team all at once. I think you are being intentionally obtuse here. The issue isn't win with 2 but can't win with 3. It is winning at a time when checking is tight and physical play gets ramped up and your team has less mass and strength than the opposing team. We'd all like to think that grit and determination win out over size but the reality is EVERYBODY plays with grit and determination after round 1 so a player like Gerbe loses his advantage of grit and determination. And the checking is tighter so some of his skill advantage goes away as well. Like I stated up-thread, this April will go a long way towards convincing me whether or not all these smaller statured guys can make a go of it on the same team. I hope I am pleasantly suprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Yub Yub! I literally cracked up laughing. Well played sir. :clapping: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 I won't pretend to speak for LB, but I too worry about too many midgets. 2006? That was the first year after the lockout. Refs thought they were supposed to follow the rules in the post season then. What happened in 2006-2007? Those same midgets who were successful in 05-06 ran out of real estate. Hell, look back at last year! Refs swallow their whistles, open ice disappears, everyone finishes every check every time, and bigger players push smaller players off the puck resulting in scoring opportunities. Just ask Timmy Kennedy. A couple smurfs are OK, but every one you add carries an element of risk. How many is too many? I don't want to find out. That wasn't a case of 'bigger' player outmuscling 'smaller' player, that was a case of grizzled vet outsmarting rookie. (Though had you written 'bigger smurfs push smaller smurfs off the puck ...' I'd've had to give you that one. ;) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 That wasn't a case of 'bigger' player outmuscling 'smaller' player, that was a case of grizzled vet outsmarting rookie. (Though had you written 'bigger smurfs push smaller smurfs off the puck ...' I'd've had to give you that one. ;) ) Very true. Although I still think that play was interference. It's not interference if the ref isn't willing to call it. That was a veteran play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 I think you are being intentionally obtuse here. The issue isn't win with 2 but can't win with 3. It is winning at a time when checking is tight and physical play gets ramped up and your team has less mass and strength than the opposing team. We'd all like to think that grit and determination win out over size but the reality is EVERYBODY plays with grit and determination after round 1 so a player like Gerbe loses his advantage of grit and determination. And the checking is tighter so some of his skill advantage goes away as well. Like I stated up-thread, this April will go a long way towards convincing me whether or not all these smaller statured guys can make a go of it on the same team. I hope I am pleasantly suprised. I'm not being obtuse at all. I think "obtuse" is saying three small guys is too many based on the fear that they could be "potentially neutralized" come playoff time. I'm talking about building the best possible team. And I would never advocate building a team of guys who are all less than six feet tall. The key word is BALANCE. You can win with three small players (hell, even four small players) on your top three lines so long as you have larger players playing with them. The 2006 team wasn't a fluke or the result of rule changes. The key players were small-ish (Briere, Drury, Roy, Afinogenov, etc.) but there were guys like Grier, Dumont, and Gaustad playing on those lines too. The 2007 team was all about finesse and didn't have much of a gritty side by comparison. The next three forwards the Sabres farm system is going to give us are: Luke Adam, Marcus Foligno, and Zack Kassian. They're all big guys. There's no reason we can't have a balanced team next season that includes Roy, Ennis, and Gerbe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumb_dumb88 Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 But two midgets is OK? What if the rest of the team is big guys? What if all three midgets are scoring goals? Just saying, I don't know about these random rules for how a team must be constructed to be successful. This is a very common sense type of response, and I like it. There is no established parameters that ensure only 6 foot or taller with 200 pounds or more hockey players find success on an NHL team, regardless if there are 2 of them or 5 of them. What will the nay sayers think when Byron is brought up full time in a year or two? Oh, heaven forbid any of these vertically challenged players as a group prove them wrong. :rolleyes: ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumb_dumb88 Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 I'm not being obtuse at all. I think "obtuse" is saying three small guys is too many based on the fear that they could be "potentially neutralized" come playoff time. I'm talking about building the best possible team. And I would never advocate building a team of guys who are all less than six feet tall. The key word is BALANCE. You can win with three small players (hell, even four small players) on your top three lines so long as you have larger players playing with them. The 2006 team wasn't a fluke or the result of rule changes. The key players were small-ish (Briere, Drury, Roy, Afinogenov, etc.) but there were guys like Grier, Dumont, and Gaustad playing on those lines too. The 2007 team was all about finesse and didn't have much of a gritty side by comparison. The next three forwards the Sabres farm system is going to give us are: Luke Adam, Marcus Foligno, and Zack Kassian. They're all big guys. There's no reason we can't have a balanced team next season that includes Roy, Ennis, and Gerbe. I'll disagree with you here on the bolded part. Not one of Luke Adam, Marcus Foligno, and Zack Kassian make the Sabres next season. Adam has already proven he is not remotely ready. Foligno and Kassian will go straight to Portland, of this I have no doubt. You need to remember, only 1 player in 13 years with Regier as the GM has made the jump from Juniors directly to the NHL, Tyler Myers. There is a very solid reason why that is. Dineen has already stated, following the Kassian contract signing earlier this season, that he looks forward to working with Kassian in futhering his development to the professional level and both Regier and Ruff have commented how Kassian will need to work on his game, specifically his skating ability in order to make the adjustment. Foligno isn't ready for the NHL either in my opinion. All 3 of those players will be in Portland next season, and rightfully so. There is just no reason to rush these young kids up here to Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 I'll disagree with you here on the bolded part. Not one of Luke Adam, Marcus Foligno, and Zack Kassian make the Sabres next season. Adam has already proven he is not remotely ready. Foligno and Kassian will go straight to Portland, of this I have no doubt. They may not start the season in Buffalo. But the hockey season is long. I'm betting you'll see all three. And Luke Adam may not be ready today, but 7 months from now is a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Daddy Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 They may not start the season in Buffalo. But the hockey season is long. I'm betting you'll see all three. And Luke Adam may not be ready today, but 7 months from now is a long time. Plus, Pegs and/or Black stated that they'd be spending more $$$ on player development coaches. Hopefully to work with the current roster as well as Adam, Kassian & Foligno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumb_dumb88 Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 They may not start the season in Buffalo. But the hockey season is long. I'm betting you'll see all three. And Luke Adam may not be ready today, but 7 months from now is a long time. I will agree, as call ups for injuries or as they prove themselves they may indeed, find themselves in the blue & gold. I think the larger picture to look at here though is it just makes no sense to sacrifice very valuable training and adjustment time down in the AHL, especially given that it's needed for each one of these players. Don't get me wrong, I believe each one of these players has the potential to succeed, but I want them afforded the opportunity to do so in such a way that would maximize their potential and not put them in the hot seat, so to speak, to quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 They may not start the season in Buffalo. But the hockey season is long. I'm betting you'll see all three. And Luke Adam may not be ready today, but 7 months from now is a long time. Not to mention his AHL numbers this year as a rookie are pretty great. He's averaging more than a point per game. I'm wondering how much more he has to learn or prove at the AHL level before he needs to continue his development in the NHL. Maybe dumb_dumb can fill us in as I think he actually sees the Pirates play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Not to mention his AHL numbers this year as a rookie are pretty great. He's averaging more than a point per game. I'm wondering how much more he has to learn or prove at the AHL level before he needs to continue his development in the NHL. Maybe dumb_dumb can fill us in as I think he actually sees the Pirates play. Adam seemed to get lost a lot on backchecking assignments. But he'll be a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 You're the one who said you can't see a team with *three* small players going far in the playoffs. I really want to know if three is a key number here while two small players really doesn't matter. Would we be better off if we traded ALL our small players now rather than risk that they might be "potentially neutralized" in the playoffs. It seemed like we were set to win the Stanley Cup in spring 2006 with most of our key forwards either being small or average in size. But that plan was derailed by injuries.....to defensemen with size (Tallinder, McKee). Oh God, did I hurt your feelings? I seriously just want to know why anyone thinks having two small forwards on the top three lines leaves you with a legit chance of winning the Cup, but having three small forwards on the top three lines dramatically lowers those chances. This isn't the first time someone has openly worried about allowing Roy, Ennis, and Gerbe on the team all at once. How many NHL teams have 3 forwards 5'9" or less(the listed heights for Roy, Ennis & Gerbe)? My guess would be very few(Montreal??). I'm not saying they have to dump any of them ASAP, I am just expressing concern over their potential limitations in the playoffs. If you don't agree that in many cases the smaller you are the tougher it gets in the playoffs, then we will agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 How many NHL teams have 3 forwards 5'9" or less(the listed heights for Roy, Ennis & Gerbe)? My guess would be very few(Montreal??). I'm not saying they have to dump any of them ASAP, I am just expressing concern over their potential limitations in the playoffs. If you don't agree that in many cases the smaller you are the tougher it gets in the playoffs, then we will agree to disagree. I do agree with that, except that wasn't what you said on page 3 of this thread. You said you couldn't see a team with "3 midgets" going far in the playoffs. I said I could and then explained why. If I could magically make all of our players seven feet tall, I would. Why not? But if three of them are 5'9" or shorter, that doesn't mean I don't think they can win in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Plus, Pegs and/or Black stated that they'd be spending more $$ on player development coaches. Hopefully to work with the current roster as well as Adam, Kassian & Foligno. Speaking of that, I'll be very curious to see how many additional "development" coaches Lindy is going to be willing to bring in to develop HIS players. I don't see it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Very true. Although I still think that play was interference. It's not interference if the ref isn't willing to call it. That was a veteran play. Kennedy tried to line up Recchi and Recchi stiffened and dropped him. Just a puck battle, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 Kennedy tried to line up Recchi and Recchi stiffened and dropped him. Just a puck battle, no? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfD2eafbz9Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 Kennedy tried to line up Recchi and Recchi stiffened and dropped him. Just a puck battle, no? IIRC puck was in the corner, neither wanted to go in first. Recchi dropped Kennedy before touching the puck. It could have been have easily been an interference call rather than the goal. Rules change in the playoffs. Edit: ThanksASSQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 Hockey play. Midget got outmuscled by slightly larger player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 How many NHL teams have 3 forwards 5'9" or less(the listed heights for Roy, Ennis & Gerbe)? My guess would be very few(Montreal??). I'm not saying they have to dump any of them ASAP, I am just expressing concern over their potential limitations in the playoffs. If you don't agree that in many cases the smaller you are the tougher it gets in the playoffs, then we will agree to disagree. What do they weigh? If we want to seriously discuss their sizes we have to talk weight as well because Miller is what 6' 1" and weighs 170ish? Gerbe is 5'5" and weighs 178pds so it all depends on whats their strenght within that size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 Hockey play. Midget got outmuscled by slightly larger player. Call it what it really was: a young, so-so NHL player getting outfoxed by a future Hall of Famer with almost 600 career goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 Call it what it really was: a young, so-so NHL player getting outfoxed by a future Hall of Famer with almost 600 career goals. Toe-may-toe Toe-mah-toe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 There are a ton of guys in the league as that are probably 5'8" that are listed as taller.. Briere, Kane, St. Louis,M. Comrie, Sullivan, Callahan, Marchant, Ray Whitney, Yuri Hurdler... I don't get why 5'9" means much for forwards unless your job is screening the kitchen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 Hockey play. Midget got outmuscled by slightly larger player. No brain at work at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.