How much is size actually an issue on this team?
- Thread starter Raspewtin
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
OverTheCap
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2009
- 10,454
- 184
Lack of size isn't really the issue, it's that some of the players with size don't exactly use it to their advantage. Rick Nash has thrown 7 hits all year, Richards, 19, Stepan, 25. Players like Iginla and Brown do a much better of throwing their weight around than the players in our top 6 with the possible exception of Cally.
Chaels Arms
Formerly Lias Andersson
Size and toughness only become issues on this board whenever we start losing and people are too intellectually lazy to discern what the real problems are.
We've been winning lately so the "toughness" crowd has disappeared. They'll come back though once the losing starts again and assure us that their post about lack of toughness "has nothing to do with the recent losses."
We've been winning lately so the "toughness" crowd has disappeared. They'll come back though once the losing starts again and assure us that their post about lack of toughness "has nothing to do with the recent losses."
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 44,300
- 21,901
Rick Nash is on the team to score goals and protect the puck, not hit people.
If he was hitting that would be gravy.
OverTheCap
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2009
- 10,454
- 184
Scoring goals and hitting people are not mutually exclusive. A lot of the players you listed like Backes and Iginla have proven they are capable of doing both. Nash struggled in the playoffs last year when things got tight and more physical so it could be a potential weakness when compared to some of these other teams.
Perry, Getzlaf, Backes, are also on their teams to score goals and protect the puck but they also hit when the chance to make the hit is needed. Nash rarely does this even whenever he has a chance, he will pull back and just swipe at the puck with his stick, instead of using his body.. and whenever the garden is quiet, since the Rangers think of him as a leader, why not lead by example, throw a hit to get the crowd and team into the game..isn't that what leaders do.
i just cant stand big forwards that dont hit.. imagine if Nash would hit like Callahan would.. no one would be complaining about Nash.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
You're right, they are not.
They are totally unrelated. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 44,300
- 21,901
Perry, Getzlaf, Backes, are also on their teams to score goals and protect the puck but they also hit when the chance to make the hit is needed. Nash rarely does this even whenever he has a chance, he will pull back and just swipe at the puck with his stick, instead of using his body.. and whenever the garden is quiet, since the Rangers think of him as a leader, why not lead by example, throw a hit to get the crowd and team into the game..isn't that what leaders do.
This isn't a thread to ***** about Nash.
Outside of Backes who in St. Louis' top 6 scares you, physically? Are you afraid of a Ranger player getting crushed by.......Jaden Schwartz?
Perry is not the physical presence everyone thinks he is. He's similar to Nash, he's averaging barely a hit a game. He'll fight for loose pucks and all, but he's not this big scary powerforward people like to romanticize players like him to be.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
What are you even talking about? Every thread should be a discussion about how the team's best offensive weapon who happens to have concussion issues should play more recklessly.
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 44,300
- 21,901
Beacon
Embrace the tank
- May 28, 2007
- 13,676
- 1,454
Exactly. To borrow from another scenario where men also tend to lie by 1-2 inches: it's not the size of the vessel, it's the motion of the ocean. Well, it's kinda both I guess.
Callahan is much smaller than Boyle, but much tougher. If McIlrath makes the team next year, it would help a lot making it tougher.
28th in height? Guess we're a team of manlets. 
Blues fan here (in peace).
To the post above, most of the "meat" (as it pertains to our size) is in our bottom six with the likes of Lapierre, Reaves, Morrow and Berglund (all of whom are above 6'0" and 200lbs.). The only two players in our top six that are "big" are of course Backes and Sobotka (who's only 5'10", but plays like he's 6'4"...basically our Brad Marchand).
Anyway, I felt the need to post in this topic becuase, as big as we are, we still have a few weak areas as it pertains to size and toughness needed to compete with the juggernauts in the Pacific. It's a similar concern.
Also, your complaints about Nash sound just like the ones we deal with when it comes to Stewart.
Body of Tarzan, but he plays like Jane (although he laid a few hits tonight after we experimented putting him on a line with Backes and Steen to get him going).
Blues fan here (in peace).
To the post above, most of the "meat" (as it pertains to our size) is in our bottom six with the likes of Lapierre, Reaves, Morrow and Berglund (all of whom are above 6'0" and 200lbs.). The only two players in our top six that are "big" are of course Backes and Sobotka (who's only 5'10", but plays like he's 6'4"...basically our Brad Marchand).
Anyway, I felt the need to post in this topic becuase, as big as we are, we still have a few weak areas as it pertains to size and toughness needed to compete with the juggernauts in the Pacific. It's a similar concern.
Also, your complaints about Nash sound just like the ones we deal with when it comes to Stewart.
Body of Tarzan, but he plays like Jane (although he laid a few hits tonight after we experimented putting him on a line with Backes and Steen to get him going).
with a guy his size, he should be more aggressive in hitting and using the body.. .... instead of hitting a forward, he will swipe at the puck. i tend to notice that he does this a lot. one of these days he will get called for tripping.... things like that bother me, especially when its a good time to make a hit.
HockeyBasedNYC
Feeling it
First off, awesome analysis Raspewtin. I've never seen this kind of study laid out so nicely. There is definite importance to this, because all we hear from the hockey media is how "strong" and "big" and "tough" it is to play against teams like the Kings and Boston. This puts some statistics to that notion.
Personally I dont think the Rangers are very "weak" or not big or "tough" enough. Whatever that means, its very subjective. The heights are one thing, but its probably the combined weight/muscle of the team that makes more of a difference when talking about size. I think you need a happy medium of size and skill to be competitive in this league.
If you look at a team like the Penguins, one of if not they "smallest" teams on that elite list, they do just fine to get themselves into a great playoff position but then it might get tougher for them when the **** hits the fan. Ultimately you are going to need your skill/power guys to come up big when it counts because after all, its goals that win games, but theres something to be said about size, and how you use it - that makes a difference in the postseason.
Thats why i feel like coaching, systems and the discipline of the players (finishing checks, being hard in front of the net, good positioning) comes into play as well. You dont necessarily have to drive a guy through the glass, just be in the right spot and do the right thing. If you watched Boston in the playoffs last year, they definitely used their size well, but their defensive posture and positioning/spacing was flawless for many games - especially when they swept the Pens.
So i think its a little bit of everything, but I do feel the Rangers can compete in that category to a certain extent with the emergence of Kreider. Zuccarello hurts those numbers a lot, but he plays bigger than his size which is what I was talking about. Him, Cally and Hagelin win a lot of battles on the boards using their quickness. So you dont want to load up on a bunch of Lucic's.
Personally I dont think the Rangers are very "weak" or not big or "tough" enough. Whatever that means, its very subjective. The heights are one thing, but its probably the combined weight/muscle of the team that makes more of a difference when talking about size. I think you need a happy medium of size and skill to be competitive in this league.
If you look at a team like the Penguins, one of if not they "smallest" teams on that elite list, they do just fine to get themselves into a great playoff position but then it might get tougher for them when the **** hits the fan. Ultimately you are going to need your skill/power guys to come up big when it counts because after all, its goals that win games, but theres something to be said about size, and how you use it - that makes a difference in the postseason.
Thats why i feel like coaching, systems and the discipline of the players (finishing checks, being hard in front of the net, good positioning) comes into play as well. You dont necessarily have to drive a guy through the glass, just be in the right spot and do the right thing. If you watched Boston in the playoffs last year, they definitely used their size well, but their defensive posture and positioning/spacing was flawless for many games - especially when they swept the Pens.
So i think its a little bit of everything, but I do feel the Rangers can compete in that category to a certain extent with the emergence of Kreider. Zuccarello hurts those numbers a lot, but he plays bigger than his size which is what I was talking about. Him, Cally and Hagelin win a lot of battles on the boards using their quickness. So you dont want to load up on a bunch of Lucic's.
The question was about size. Not toughness. The team lacks both. Toughness is not personified by who an drop gloves.
Size is a big issue for this team. But it is not just size, but playing to your size. Nash does not play to his size. And I am not referring to being another Lucic. Most successful teams have players that play to their size. And most successful teams have size.
What the team lacks, aside form size, is a mean streak. Has for a very, very long time. Again, this is not about fighting. Both size and a mean streak are needed in a 7 game war of attrition.
stan the caddy
Registered User
- Sep 27, 2011
- 2,360
- 281
It's not size. The Rangers have a competitive team, they've been competitive since the lockout. They've just never had the elite talent to go win a cup. We get excited about MZA, the Penguins have two Hart winners. We have some solid two-way forwards, the Blackhawks have Toews and Hossa, etc.
HatTrick Swayze
Just Be Nice
For me, its less about physical size and more about how a team plays. Can they win battles in the corner for possession? Will they take a hit to make a play? Give a hit? Can they score dirty goals, or just on perfectly executed passing plays? Do they hinder the opposing goalie's line of sight?
And even more so, how a team's playing style will translate in the postseason. It's pretty obvious that NHL referees let a lot more go in the postseason. It is a lot harder to find space to make plays and go to the front of the net. Having players who are willing and able to battle through that can make the difference in a series.
The Rangers, this year, have had some real struggles against teams that "play big" like Anaheim, St. Louis, LA, Boston. Obviously they did not lose every game. And the Ducks/LA games were early on in the season. But when I watch those games, it was clear that that they were having a much harder time generating and sustaining pressure. A lot more trouble keeping the puck in the offensive zone, a lot more trouble winning battles in the corners. I do worry about how this team will really perform when they have to play that style of game for a 7 game series. The good news is most of those teams are in the West.
And even more so, how a team's playing style will translate in the postseason. It's pretty obvious that NHL referees let a lot more go in the postseason. It is a lot harder to find space to make plays and go to the front of the net. Having players who are willing and able to battle through that can make the difference in a series.
The Rangers, this year, have had some real struggles against teams that "play big" like Anaheim, St. Louis, LA, Boston. Obviously they did not lose every game. And the Ducks/LA games were early on in the season. But when I watch those games, it was clear that that they were having a much harder time generating and sustaining pressure. A lot more trouble keeping the puck in the offensive zone, a lot more trouble winning battles in the corners. I do worry about how this team will really perform when they have to play that style of game for a 7 game series. The good news is most of those teams are in the West.
Savant
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2013
- 39,308
- 11,949
Functional size would be nice as opposed to just some big mongoloids skating around. Stewart if AV can perform a heart transplant would be nice and I certainly wouldn't mind a Ladd type, but I wouldn't try to add size just for the sake of it. Honestly there aren't a whole lot of open spots on the team right now anyway.
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 44,300
- 21,901
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 44,300
- 21,901
Where do you pull that from?
By that definition, were Lemieux and Jagr not effective because they weren't hitting?
I agree Nash makes some dumb stick plays, but lets not make statements like he should be hitting because he's big. That isn't stated in any rule book. There are plenty of big players that don't hit and are effective.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I think its safe to say that the ability to not be effected by a hit is actually more valuable than delivering a hit.
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 44,300
- 21,901
Now this I agree with.
Take a hit to make a play. Play tough and sturdy, no matter how big you are.
