- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,857
- 13,013
My argument isn't unfounded, the teams that usually win the cup have physical dmen as a basis for their d thats a fact, its staring everyone in the face when they hoist the cup, whether they are smaller gritty guys like Lindgren or 6'7 like Hedman. You are trying to dimiss the fact that while there are teams that have done it without it the teams that are most always successful in playoffs have that element.
This statement is so vague how can it be a fact?
Tell me how much size is needed. You can't.
It's a fact that other than the Lightning most Cup Winners have had more than one sub-6'1 defender soaking up big minutes. Try going back further than 2 years.
Also, you're pretending Schneider is a bad dman, like there is a serious drop off from Lundkvist to him, they play different styles, Schneider is really really good and much more than just 6'3 and tough as a player.
When did I say Schneider is a bad dman? He's an excellent prospect.
He's just not as good as Nils. I don't think he's as good offensively or defensively other than his ability not to get out muscled, but there's more to defending than that.
Schneider is a gem just like Robertson is, but we have so many that someone (or some TWO) is going to get squeezed out. I reject the notion that it's predetermined that for the best interest of the team it has to be Nils. No, it can just as easily be Schneider (or Trouba) if we want to get into an HONEST breakdown of what is needed.
Everyone falls back on these cliches like "well, size wins in the playoffs," but then they don't answer how Boston keeps advancing or how Pittsburgh won two cups or they don't bother to answer why having only 4 six foot plus Ds is not gonna work but having 5 is just right. The logic here is completely full of holes.
Solution: Stop writing in Schneider like it's a foregone conclusion. Or adopt some other outside the box thinking (maybe Trouba should be moved off the roster? Maybe someone should play the left side? etc).