I would love to see stats pertaining to size, injuries, and career length... I think the "smaller = fragile" theory is a myth, or at least greatly exaggerated.
- Pat1993

yeah, you have all types of fragile players, small and big. not sure there's a link there. but that's not the point. the point is when you play 82 games againts bigger players.... small ones at one point will suffer more. more difficult to get the puck in the corner, more difficult to stand in front of the net, more difficult for dmen to box out bigger players...
like I said, you can have 1 on your team, not 4 or 5. just look at past cup winners.

No they were advertised as they have size “and you can’t teach size”
- mr.peanut

that's why guys like John Scott need to be cherished and rewarded with all-star game appearances.

yeah, you have all types of fragile players, small and big. not sure there's a link there. but that's not the point. the point is when you play 82 games againts bigger players.... small ones at one point will suffer more. more difficult to get the puck in the corner, more difficult to stand in front of the net, more difficult for dmen to box out bigger players...
like I said, you can have 1 on your team, not 4 or 5. just look at past cup winners.
- fidopro

well it kind of is, you were implying that if Tinordi and McCarron were smaller they might not still be playing.

well it kind of is, you were implying that if Tinordi and McCarron were smaller they might not still be playing.
- Pat1993

not because they would be injured

Jarvis, Gilmour... many small players had very long careers without missing games.
and some big ones did miss a lot of games. like I said no link there imo.

When the talent is equivalent, you go for the bigger guy ... hope that clears it up.

not because they would be injured
- fidopro

so, because they sucked..? chances are, if they were smaller, they would probably be quicker, and represent a different kind of player entirely.

When the talent is equivalent, you go for the bigger guy ... hope that clears it up.
- Garfield512

it's more complicated than that though imho, bigger and smaller guys usually have different skill sets that can fill different needs. very rarely do you get the ultimate full package (big, fast, aggressive, can hit, offensively very gifted...)

it's more complicated than that though imho, bigger and smaller guys usually have different skill sets that can fill different needs. very rarely do you get the ultimate full package (big, fast, aggressive, can hit, offensively very gifted...)
- Pat1993

Bigger players are more useful over all ... you can put them in the bottom 6 to bang the opposition around.

Smaller players are useful when they are in the top 6, other than that they are vulnerable when slotted against other team's bottom 6 players.
That's why I say skillfull small players still have their place.

When the talent is equivalent, you go for the bigger guy ... hope that clears it up.
- Garfield512

the exact opposite for gf

the exact opposite for gf
- fidopro

gf?

gf?
- Garfield512

girl friend

Bigger players are more useful over all ... you can put them in the bottom 6 to bang the opposition around.

Smaller players are useful when they are in the top 6, other than that they are vulnerable when slotted against other team's bottom 6 players.
- Garfield512

well that would depend on who you pair them with imo. Paul Byron barely ever played in the top 6 but was pretty damn useful.

bygones I guess.

girl friend
- fidopro

well that would depend on who you pair them with imo. Paul Byron barely ever played in the top 6 but was pretty damn useful.

bygones I guess.
- Pat1993

good example there Pat. Byron was never injured. lol

- Garfield512

good example there Pat. Byron was never injured. lol
- fidopro

oh come on, that dumb fight against Weegar was what really (frank)ed him up lol, he was never the same player afterwards.

you also agreed with me earlier that there was no correlation between size and injuries, so I'm not sure where you're going with this anymore.

oh come on, that dumb fight against Weegar was what really (frank)ed him up lol, he was never the same player afterwards.

you also agreed with me earlier that there was no correlation between size and injuries, so I'm not sure where you're going with this anymore.
- Pat1993

true.
Byron was crazy fast, he had that one elite quality, among others. something small players like Farrell and Mesar do not have.

true.
Byron was crazy fast, he had that one elite quality, among others. something small players like Farrell and Mesar do not have.
- fidopro

never said they did either.


jpense qu'on a faite le tour

never said they did either.


jpense qu'on a faite le tour
- Pat1993

it's like for TVs. go big, you won't regret it.

it's like for dildos. go big, you won't regret it.
- fidopro

- Pat1993

also true I guess lol

also true I guess lol
- fidopro

I dunno, regrets could become a very real possibility imho lol.

well that would depend on who you pair them with imo. Paul Byron barely ever played in the top 6 but was pretty damn useful.

bygones I guess.
- Pat1993

Ti-Paul was a big hearted player and always faced big bottom 6 guys from other teams night after night ... but his career was cut short because of injuries.

I have no way to prove this but if he had played in the top 6, he might still be playing. Just saying ...

If Caufield wasn't in the top 6 ... do you see him having any role in our bottom 6?
He's on the team because he's skilled in spite of his small size.

Ti-Paul was a big hearted player and always faced big bottom 6 guys from other teams night after night ... but his career was cut short because of injuries.

I have no way to prove this but if he had played in the top 6, he might still be playing. Just saying ...
- Garfield512

mostly because of a dumb fight that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

if he had played against top 6 guys and top dmen all the time he might not have been as efficient either.

Ti-Paul was a big hearted player and always faced big bottom 6 guys from other teams night after night ... but his career was cut short because of injuries.

I have no way to prove this but if he had played in the top 6, he might still be playing. Just saying ...

If Caufield wasn't in the top 6 ... do you see him having any role in our bottom 6?
He's on the team because he's skilled in spite of his small size.
- Garfield512

small but completely different player to Byron, not the same at all.