Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

EBondo

What?!?!?!

By EBondo, in Miscellaneous Discussions

Recommended Posts

Eazy_b97    1

Eazy_b97
Posted
Chara has a TON of talent. To say he's in the league on size alone is utter ignorance. Many thought he would win the Norris last year.

You're right, he's a good D now, but he wouldn't have been given a shot had he not had his size. His skills weren't at the level they should have been. Alot of his mistakes are made up for with his size. His reach is incredible and his strength is as well. I do not believe he would be in the NHL today is he was under 6'4" which is definately not small by any stretch. He is getting better by the day and he may (probably does) have a great work ethic, but most NHLers do as well and I think he got into the league on his size, and has played his way into being an average NHL defenseman, but his size gives him an advantage over many others. He came into the league, and was known for his size hoping to develop into a hockey player, and now he has. I go back and look at his numbers: He gets drafted with points that would have him currently just inside the top 50 in WHL scoring among D and a -5 rating. He played most of his Cze junior days in their 2nd tier or junior league (Slovakia and Cze split). He was promoted to the NHL for the last half of the Islanders games with average AHL stats. Never grabbed more than 10 points as an NHL defenseman in the Islander org (usually played about 60-70 games). He made his name in Ottawa, but didn't put up great numbers to get to where he is. If he came into the league as someone who was big (because you can't really hold it against him) and showed talent off the start, like a Pronger or even that new Cze D who is 6'7" then I may think he made it on talent, but from what I've seen of him, and what I read, he was given oppurtunities because of his size and he is now, since he turned 25ish starting to thrive off the oppurtunities. Like I said earlier he'd be a quality NHL defenseman if he was of 6'4" height, but I don't think he would be the impact player he is today, and I doubt he would've been given the oppurtunity to be.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chadd    916

Chadd
Posted
You can teach a jump shot. You can't teach athleticism or ability. There are plenty of old men that can have 90% shooting percentage playing in their local YMCA league, a product of countless hours practicing. But would never even have half the speed, size or strength to get even one of those shots off against NBA or even decent college competition. Athletic ability is a commodity in basketball, where you are on display on a much smaller playing surface and there is little room to hide. Most people don't realize just how fast they are moving up and down the court during games, just like most people watch a hockey game on tv and think they aren't that far off.

Shawn Bradley and Manute Bol (especially) are bad examples of teams trying desperately to find raw size and athleticism to compete with other teams in an era when centers were the hottest commodity in the NBA. For the two that you named, Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, Mutumbo, etc. could all play the game. They all had great fundamentals in the post but were only great because of their natural gifts. I also think that people shortchange Larry Bird assuming he wasn't athletic. In addition to being one of the greatest shooters in history and amazing footwork and work ethic to go along, you can't accomplish what he did without physical gifts. Don't forget that he was also 6'9".

Hockey is/will be no different. When and if the most athletic kids are able to or give hockey a shot instead of being drawn towards sports like football and basketball that place athleticism at the highest premium, then there will be an even higher level of physicality and speed brought into the game. Eric Lindros is a big hockey player, but he's an average sized linebacker, and I doubt he can run a 40 in 4.5 seconds.

You can teach it but the player has to put in the hard work to learn it. The NBA game is as bad as it has been in the 20+ years I've been watching. 90% of the shots are 3 pointers or a shot(dunk) from inside the paint.

I grew up in the heyday of artistic basketball with the Lakers and Celtic rivalries, DR J, Pistol Pete, George Gervin, Dominique Wilkins, etc... Maybe I just miss entertainment in my sporting events.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hipster    5

Hipster
Posted

Raw size is always an advantage when it comes to receiving opportunities and benefits of the doubt.

I remember a guy from my midget team getting drafted by the Hawks and I was like, "Huh??" He's not even the best guy on the team. Not even top 3.

But he was big, so he got his shot.

And if it comes down to two guys of like ability for the last roster spot and one is 6'0 and the other is 5'9"....the 5'9" guy can start saying his good byes.

That's just the way it is.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chadd    916

Chadd
Posted
Raw size is always an advantage when it comes to receiving opportunities and benefits of the doubt.

I remember a guy from my midget team getting drafted by the Hawks and I was like, "Huh??" He's not even the best guy on the team. Not even top 3.

But he was big, so he got his shot.

And if it comes down to two guys of like ability for the last roster spot and one is 6'0 and the other is 5'9"....the 5'9" guy can start saying his good byes.

That's just the way it is.

By the same token, you can't make a smarter player either. You can teach a guy to work in a system most of the time but you can never make him to be creative or to improve his vision.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duder84    0

Duder84
Posted

He means you can teach a guy to play in a system, like a murray baron or Steve Staios, these guys don't have much in terms of skills, but they play the team systems well. However, when it comes to creativity, they can't be taught, and probably can't get any better than they are now.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hipster    5

Hipster
Posted
Raw size is always an advantage when it comes to receiving opportunities and benefits of the doubt.

I remember a guy from my midget team getting drafted by the Hawks and I was like, "Huh??"  He's not even the best guy on the team. Not even top 3.

But he was big, so he got his shot.

And if it comes down to two guys of like ability for the last roster spot and one is 6'0 and the other is 5'9"....the 5'9" guy can start saying his good byes.

That's just the way it is.

By the same token, you can't make a smarter player either. You can teach a guy to work in a system most of the time but you can never make him to be creative or to improve his vision.

Very very true. Smarts can make up for lack of size. Small players have to play smart in order to survive and excel.

You still see skilled small players with great brains playing for paychecks....and you see some big strong oafs playing for paychecks.....but you never see a small dumb player playing for a paycheck.....they get killed off young, I guess :lol:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Go To Topic Listing
×
×
  • Create New...