Stephen
Moderator
- Feb 28, 2002
- 81,541
- 59,330
Florida’s D was mostly 6’-6’2 with only Ekblad and Mikkola above that, the Avs only had Manson and Johnson as big guys, 4 of their D were below 200 pounds and they had a pair of 5’10 guys playing big minutes. Rielly at 6’1 225 would be considered one of the bigger guys on most cup winning blue lines outside of Vegas, Washington, and St Louis.
I’m not saying you need 6 Torrey Krugs but most teams have the majority of their D as 6-6’2 guys at 200 pounds +/- 15lbs, and there’s a lot of bigger defenses in the basement.
I didn't really state a size requirement for length defenders, but I think you want a good core of guys at 6'2" and up and the construction of the Leafs blueline now is a good proof of concept that size helps.
I don't really care to draw lessons from Colorado with Makar and Toews and Girard or Florida with Montour and Forsling or other specific cases because we don't have access to a lot of those higher end skill defensemen. More likely you can fill gaps with available, larger defensemen who can cover more ice and be a challenge to play against.
I also don't think it's productive to have a simplistic referendum on size vs skill on defense, and fall into the intellectually impoverished Dubas-think that I just want guys who can think the game, so let's go after market inefficiencies and sign a bunch of smaller D. No thanks. Hard no to 6x Torey Krug's.
Yes all day to high end elite defensemen of any size. No to average smaller defensemen when a bigger guy at the same skill level can be had. And pay attention to the group dynamic so you don't run small to average and wonder why you get torn apart by a heavy forecheck.