How much is size actually an issue on this team?

[SnowblindNYR]

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.

He'd possibly be more injury prone then. He already has had concussion issues.

 

[Punxrocknyc19*]

He'd possibly be more injury prone then. He already has had concussion issues.

so did Eric Lindros had concussion issues and that didnt stop him from hitting... im sorry but Nash was a much more physical forward on the Jackets..







i also tend to see Nash in front of the net a lot more...

 

[Thirty One]

so did Eric Lindros had concussion issues and that didnt stop him from hitting...

Probably should have.

 

[Blue Blooded]

Nash was a lot more physical last season, especially in the playoffs.

2012-13: 3.1 Hits/60min
Playoffs: 4.4
2013-14: 0.7

If we restrict ourselves to 5v5 play the numbers go:

4.0
5.4
0.8

His 2nd concussion in a short period of time probably made him readjust his game.

 

[stan the caddy]

Nash is a cherry picker. I don't think it's reasonable to expect him to throw his body around a lot.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

so did Eric Lindros had concussion issues and that didnt stop him from hitting... im sorry but Nash was a much more physical forward on the Jackets..







i also tend to see Nash in front of the net a lot more...

Yeah and Lindros will have to live with the consequences for the rest of his life. You're basically saying "screw your health, I want to be entertained".

 

[Punxrocknyc19*]

Yeah and Lindros will have to live with the consequences for the rest of his life. You're basically saying "screw your health, I want to be entertained".

Nash is playing hockey even by avoiding contact he could still get hurt.. if he that is worried about his concussions, he should not be playing..

 

[Kel Varnsen]

A ton of those listed numbers look like they were just picked out of a hat. Not the OPs fault, but teams lie like crazy about how big their players are. And we seem to be one of the worse offenders looking at those numbers.

Hagelin isn't 188, Step isn't 196, Rich isn't 198. Zucc is listed as 5-7 and 179 which is just comical.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

A ton of those listed numbers look like they were just picked out of a hat. Not the OPs fault, but teams lie like crazy about how big their players are. And we seem to be one of the worse offenders looking at those numbers.

Hagelin isn't 188, Step isn't 196, Rich isn't 198. Zucc is listed as 5-7 and 179 which is just comical.

AV's fault.

 

[Chaels Arms]

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.

Are you using "mean streak" and "toughness" interchangeably or are those two distinct things? It's hard for me to keep track of all the different intangible, unmeasurable, vague elements of this team that are apparently "big issues."

If you are using those two terms interchangeably, can you clarify exactly what they mean and how an objective observer can decide which teams have the requisite "mean streak" or "toughness" and which teams are lacking in those departments? Aside from just saying that it's so because you watch the team and you've come to that conclusion?

 

[Chaels Arms]

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.

I would trade Rick Nash straight up for either Perry or Getzlaf in a heartbeat. They're just better players than Nash in almost every single way. If you want to single out their physicality as being the main reason, that's fine. If Rick Nash was Corey Perry or Ryan Getzlaf he wouldn't have been traded for Brandon Dubinsky, Artem Anisimov and Matt Gilroy.

People always make these arguments... "imagine if Nash would hit like Callahan...". OK, than he would be a different player than he is? Imagine if Callahan handled the puck like Nash. Imagine if Zuccarello was 6'5. Imagine if Ovechkin passed like Crosby. Imagine if Backstrom shot like Ovechkin. Imagine if Datsyuk hit like Backes. You can combine the best elements of any two players in the league and end up with a better theoretical player. The fact that Nash doesn't hit like one of the best players in the league doesn't mean he's a bad player, it just means he doesn't hit that much.

 

[Machinehead]

The Blues are 2nd in weight and 28th in height? Bunch of ****ing sausages.

 

[Clausewitz]

Size is irrelevant. Yes, there are many talented players with large frames (no one is saying otherwise), but I don't think many people discount Crosby, Zetterberg, Alfredsson, Marty St. Louis, Patrick Kane, Zach Parise, Saku Koivu (in his prime) -- and countless others -- for being less than 6"0. And, if it seems that most stars are at least 6"1, then we should also note that, as of 2010, the average NHLer was nearly 6"2 and over 200lbs.

Source for player average NHLer sizes:
http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2010/10/15/1751273/sizing-up-the-nhl-by-height-weight-and-age

 

[Bluenote13]

And for what it's worth, the Rangers are 13th in the league in hits. Ahead of Boston, San Jose, Chicago, and St. Louis.

St. Louis and Boston are for the most part what fans of this team want them to be.

Those teams are too busy holding the puck and scoring, bunch a wimps

If McIlrath makes the team next year, it would help a lot making it tougher.

It helps but one guy can't do it all. Hitting/being physical works for good teams cause they have players throughout their lineup that can play that game.

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.

Great points all around.

Though I don't look for every guy over 6'3 to be physical punishers. Just like other hockey roles, they come in all different shapes and sizes.

I think its safe to say that the ability to not be effected by a hit is actually more valuable than delivering a hit.

Some guys will rarely throw a hit, but everyone eventually gets lined up for one.

The Blues are 2nd in weight and 28th in height? Bunch of ****ing sausages.

Lower body strength rules.

 

[justanomade]

It`s not the size of the player`s body it`s the size of the player`s heart that that win games.

 

[Ola]

Rasp- Awsome stuff.

You prove that in terms of avg seize on a roster -- size is not a factor in any way. It's probably the opposite.

However, big players are important, we can all see that. Especially on the wing.

It's also not shown in the numbers, but I think "avg" size is more important. Especially among 4-5 Ds.

 

[Wolfy*]

Size matters? You should ask their gfs/wives

 

[True Blue]

Are you using "mean streak" and "toughness" interchangeably or are those two distinct things? It's hard for me to keep track of all the different intangible, unmeasurable, vague elements of this team that are apparently "big issues."

If you are using those two terms interchangeably, can you clarify exactly what they mean and how an objective observer can decide which teams have the requisite "mean streak" or "toughness" and which teams are lacking in those departments? Aside from just saying that it's so because you watch the team and you've come to that conclusion?

Mean streak means not peeling off checks. Means clearing the front of the net, not just pushing people away. Occasionally mean streaks lead to "mean penalties". Neil is a mean player. Forget about fighting ability or toughness. He brings meaness and attitude. The attitude that frankly I think is necessary in playoffs. Shortest route to the puck and arrive in ill-humor. Ornery hockey.

Toughness is a different story. The 11-12 team was tough. It did not have a mean streak. This current team is neither tough nor does it have a mean streak. Again, do not conflate this with dropping gloves. Your own eyes show you the "toughness" aspect difference. Overall, this is a fairly soft team.

 

[True Blue]

Though I don't look for every guy over 6'3 to be physical punishers. Just like other hockey roles, they come in all different shapes and sizes.

Absolutely. Could not agree more.