Enroth as a number 1

[drnkirishone]

Howie Morenz was 5 foot 9 and 165 so that means ennis's size wont hold him back right?

[Taro T]

I'd make everyone on the Sabres 4 inches taller if I could, but I don't think it's going to have a significant effect on Enroth's play. Plenty of tall goalies get drafted and amount to absolutely nothing. Of all the positions in hockey, goalie is probably the one where I'd put the least emphasis on size.

 

Vision, reflexes, rebounds, positioning, poise -- we're only fixated on height because it's the easiest thing to point to.

 

Tim Thomas is also 5'11". He's had a pretty solid career.

 

 

Good Lord. The argument is not "Enroth is another Hasek." The argument is that if he's good, his height won't hold him back because he's not much different in height than one of the best of all-time.

YOUR argument isn't that Jhonas is/might be another Dom. Read what JJ's writing and then tell me he doesn't claim it's possible. 'Well we just don't know what he can become' is essentially the latest incarnation of his argument.

Comparing Hasek to what Enroth has done is like comparing EJ Manuel to JIm Kelly. It's a pointless comparison because at 25 there wasn't any indicator that Hasek would turn out to be who he ended up being.

 

If he was CLEARLY so good, then the Blackhawks must have thought pretty highly of Stephane Beauregard. :rolleyes:

Beauregard never played for the Blackhawks and never truly was a Blackhawk. He was involved in the trade ONLY so the Jets could keep him from getting claimed in the expansion draft.

 

The real trade was Dom for Ruuttu and the pick that turned into Daze.

 

And you are flat out mistaken that there was no indication that Dom was something special.

[JJFIVEOH]

YOUR argument isn't that Jhonas is/might be another Dom. Read what JJ's writing and then tell me he doesn't claim it's possible. 'Well we just don't know what he can become' is essentially the latest incarnation of his argument.

 

Beauregard never played for the Blackhawks and never truly was a Blackhawk. He was involved in the trade ONLY so the Jets could keep him from getting claimed in the expansion draft.

 

The real trade was Dom for Ruuttu and the pick that turned into Daze.

 

And you are flat out mistaken that there was no indication that Dom was something special.

 

The point is, if Hasek was really that much of a prized possession before getting his NHL chance, there would have been much more going back than Ruuttu or Beauregard. You can choose whichever you want, but you're arguing over details (even though Beauregard technically was the other part of the trade) and completely ignoring the point.

 

And no, I didn't say Enroth is going to turn into the next Hasek. I said you chose a poor comparison because when Hasek was Enroth's age he wasn't an NHL starter either.

[TrueBlueGED]

I'd make everyone on the Sabres 4 inches taller if I could, but I don't think it's going to have a significant effect on Enroth's play. Plenty of tall goalies get drafted and amount to absolutely nothing. Of all the positions in hockey, goalie is probably the one where I'd put the least emphasis on size.

 

Vision, reflexes, rebounds, positioning, poise -- we're only fixated on height because it's the easiest thing to point to.

 

Tim Thomas is also 5'11". He's had a pretty solid career.

 

Muggsy Bogues could dunk. I guess when other 5'3" guys can't dunk, it has nothing to do with their height.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

The point is, if Hasek was really that much of a prized possession before getting his NHL chance, there would have been much more going back than Ruuttu or Beauregard. You can choose whichever you want, but you're arguing over details (even though Beauregard technically was the other part of the trade) and completely ignoring the point.

 

And no, I didn't say Enroth is going to turn into the next Hasek. I said you chose a poor comparison because when Hasek was Enroth's age he wasn't an NHL starter either.

 

Actually, Ruuttu, Beauregard and a pick would pretty much be like the Sabres trading Ennis, Enroth, and a pick.

 

Value that as you wish. I don't know who to side with on that one.

[Taro T]

The point is, if Hasek was really that much of a prized possession before getting his NHL chance, there would have been much more going back than Ruuttu or Beauregard. You can choose whichever you want, but you're arguing over details (even though Beauregard technically was the other part of the trade) and completely ignoring the point.

 

And no, I didn't say Enroth is going to turn into the next Hasek. I said you chose a poor comparison because when Hasek was Enroth's age he wasn't an NHL starter either.

I didn't choose the comparison. I was responding to another post that compared the 2 and then you ran with this hound's breakfast.

 

You CLEARLY are overlooking why Dom didn't make it to the NHL until his mid-20's; I'll give you a hint: it had something to do with the politics of the prior incarnation of the current Olympic host country.

 

As for why Dom was available: Chicago had the rookie Vezina winner as their #1. Very good young goalies get moved when there is a log jam of very good young ESTABLISHED goalies ahead of them e.g. Kiprusoff for a 2nd rounder. (Want to make any bets as to whether SJ regrets that one?) Ruuttu and a pick was a lot more than a 2nd.

 

And Vladimir Tretiak never was an NHL starter either - at any age. Perhaps Enroth might end up better than him as well? :rolleyes:

Edited February 13, 2014 by Taro T

[ALF]

If the trade deadline passes and Miller is still here and refuses a new contract, play Enroth full time to get experience and see if he could be a #1 GT. Other teams know what Miller is capable of already.

[JJFIVEOH]

Muggsy Bogues could dunk. I guess when other 5'3" guys can't dunk, it has nothing to do with their height.

 

So you're saying that not all short guys are limited by their size.

Edited February 13, 2014 by JJFIVEOH

[Ross Rhea]

Not even making this up. When I said population 2 or 3 I thought of you haha

 

Were you now, good for you!

 

See the problem with all the RM fan boys is not being able to cope with the fact he is about to be gone. The coping process has now gone to unrealistic, unproven fabricated made up Enroth bashing about his size. Once that is beaten to death, what will be the next Enroth bashing topic? Even strength goals against? PP goals against? more bad rebound control? Will you use the "crap defense infront of him" excuse like you use for RM? or no it's all Enroths fault? Which will it be? The guy needs to be given the opportunity to actually see if he do the job. Until the nobody knows if he will succeed or fail.

[Robviously]

Muggsy Bogues could dunk. I guess when other 5'3" guys can't dunk, it has nothing to do with their height.

Thanks for coming back to accidentally make the point that I'm making.

 

Muggsy Bogues is proof that you can still succeed without prototypical size. There are countless examples of this. The Bills passed on the QB that just won the Super Bowl because they thought he was too short. That's the problem with letting one trait dominate all your thinking.

 

Enroth is 1-2 inches shorter than Hasek and Tim Thomas. Is that ideal? Nope. But from a practical standpoint, is that what's going to make or break him? Not even close. Of all the positions in hockey, goaltending is the one where being 1-2 inches shorter or taller makes the least difference.

 

But he's 1 inch shorter than the guys who won Stanley Cups, Vezina Trophies, and Hart Trophies. Let's make ALL the analysis about that. Because that's smart.

[Kristian]

Thanks for coming back to accidentally make the point that I'm making.

 

Muggsy Bogues is proof that you can still succeed without prototypical size. There are countless examples of this. The Bills passed on the QB that just won the Super Bowl because they thought he was too short. That's the problem with letting one trait dominate all your thinking.

 

Enroth is 1-2 inches shorter than Hasek and Tim Thomas. Is that ideal? Nope. But from a practical standpoint, is that what's going to make or break him? Not even close. Of all the positions in hockey, goaltending is the one where being 1-2 inches shorter or taller makes the least difference.

 

But he's 1 inch shorter than the guys who won Stanley Cups, Vezina Trophies, and Hart Trophies. Let's make ALL the analysis about that. Because that's smart.

 

Enroth can work around any size problem he has easily - Just don't drop into the butterfly the second someone pulls their stick back.

 

His problem is not his size, his problem is he goes down too early and too often.

 

And like I said - He can work on that.

[Eleven]

Enroth can work around any size problem he has easily - Just don't drop into the butterfly the second someone pulls their stick back.

 

His problem is not his size, his problem is he goes down too early and too often.

 

And like I said - He can work on that.

 

That looks about right to me. He needs to work on positioning in general, too.

[apuszczalowski]

Thanks for coming back to accidentally make the point that I'm making.

 

Muggsy Bogues is proof that you can still succeed without prototypical size. There are countless examples of this. The Bills passed on the QB that just won the Super Bowl because they thought he was too short. That's the problem with letting one trait dominate all your thinking.

 

Enroth is 1-2 inches shorter than Hasek and Tim Thomas. Is that ideal? Nope. But from a practical standpoint, is that what's going to make or break him? Not even close. Of all the positions in hockey, goaltending is the one where being 1-2 inches shorter or taller makes the least difference.

 

But he's 1 inch shorter than the guys who won Stanley Cups, Vezina Trophies, and Hart Trophies. Let's make ALL the analysis about that. Because that's smart.

Disagree, i think it can make a big difference, but thats not to say that height means everything. Its just the natural talent/ability of the player has to make up for the lack of height. Smaller height means smaller equipment and smaller body area to cover the goal opening that has to be made up with speed, agility, flexibility, etc.

[Taro T]

Enroth can work around any size problem he has easily - Just don't drop into the butterfly the second someone pulls their stick back.

 

His problem is not his size, his problem is he goes down too early and too often.

 

And like I said - He can work on that.

Nice post.

 

He can work on it. But it isn't often a guy can make what amounts to a major revision in his style. Though it can happen - Roloson learned the butterfly in his stint in the minors post-Sabres and Roy was not the same goalie in the '90's that he was against the Flames in '86 are 2 examples; it's pretty rare.

 

Roy worked with the master of the modern butterfly and Rollie worked on it under the less demanding conditions of not being in the NHL. Thomas' game probably underwent revision post Vermont in his long run as a journeyman, though I don't recall the details of his play in collge so I can't say for certain.

 

It's been obvious that Jhonas plays small for a long time - he doesn't have the physique to play the true butterfly like he does. That he's shown little to no signs of altering his technique to date likely should be viewed as as indication that he won't be able to make that change to his game while performing at the NHL level in his present circumstances.

 

His reflexes are very good. That's what is keeping him in the NHL. Ordinary NHL goalie level reflexes would have him behind Hackett at present. But those reflexes can only do so much when starting from butterfly routinely. It's supposed to be proactive & then essentially passive (when done right)- he's too small for it to be passive.

 

Though I hope he can make the adjustment, I've seen no indication he will. I 've also seen no indication that the modification to his style would put him top 20, which I'd want at minimum for a 'true' #1.

[Kristian]

Nice post.

 

He can work on it. But it isn't often a guy can make what amounts to a major revision in his style. Though it can happen - Roloson learned the butterfly in his stint in the minors post-Sabres and Roy was not the same goalie in the '90's that he was against the Flames in '86 are 2 examples; it's pretty rare.

 

Roy worked with the master of the modern butterfly and Rollie worked on it under the less demanding conditions of not being in the NHL. Thomas' game probably underwent revision post Vermont in his long run as a journeyman, though I don't recall the details of his play in collge so I can't say for certain.

 

It's been obvious that Jhonas plays small for a long time - he doesn't have the physique to play the true butterfly like he does. That he's shown little to no signs of altering his technique to date likely should be viewed as as indication that he won't be able to make that change to his game while performing at the NHL level in his present circumstances.

 

His reflexes are very good. That's what is keeping him in the NHL. Ordinary NHL goalie level reflexes would have him behind Hackett at present. But those reflexes can only do so much when starting from butterfly routinely. It's supposed to be proactive & then essentially passive (when done right)- he's too small for it to be passive.

 

Though I hope he can make the adjustment, I've seen no indication he will. I 've also seen no indication that the modification to his style would put him top 20, which I'd want at minimum for a 'true' #1.

 

I agree, there's no guarantee he'll succeed in adjusting, let alone try.

 

At least it's in his own hands though.

[TrueBlueGED]

Thanks for coming back to accidentally make the point that I'm making.

 

Muggsy Bogues is proof that you can still succeed without prototypical size. There are countless examples of this. The Bills passed on the QB that just won the Super Bowl because they thought he was too short. That's the problem with letting one trait dominate all your thinking.

 

Enroth is 1-2 inches shorter than Hasek and Tim Thomas. Is that ideal? Nope. But from a practical standpoint, is that what's going to make or break him? Not even close. Of all the positions in hockey, goaltending is the one where being 1-2 inches shorter or taller makes the least difference.

 

But he's 1 inch shorter than the guys who won Stanley Cups, Vezina Trophies, and Hart Trophies. Let's make ALL the analysis about that. Because that's smart.

 

I didn't make your point for you at all. You're using exceptions to the rule to judge Enroth's chances and completely eliminate the possibility that his inherent height disadvantage is relevant to his success. That's poor evaluation. His height doesn't doom him to failure, but it does mean other attributes need to be that much better to compensate. It's a conditional relationship--the more net a goaltender naturally covers, the less they have to rely on reflexes and whatnot. Just because his height won't be the sole determinant of his success does not mean it's irrelevant. If Enroth flops as a #1 it will be because he's shorter than a typical goalie AND he didn't have the ability elsewhere (vision, reflexes, positioning, ettc.) to overcome that disadvantage. His height will be a factor in conjunction with other things.

 

From a probabilistic standpoint, you're basically making the equivalent of the "Ryan Getzlaf was drafted 19th overall, therefore we don't have to nor should we, tank to get the #1 overall and a top center" argument that you love to ridicule. You don't have to draft high to get a franchise player, but boy does it tilt the odds in your favor. If we can agree that shorter goaltenders need to compensate with talent/technique and that highly talented individuals are less common than individuals with average talent, then we can reasonably conclude Enroth's chances to emerge as a #1 are lower than a goaltender who is several inches taller. Nobody is saying Enroth can't succeed because of his height, but it sure does make it less likely.

 

Edit: Furthermore, I'd contend height is more important to goaltenders than for other positions. So much of goal scoring is based on weird bounces and random chance that I think naturally covering the net matters more than a forward just being a couple inches taller. For forwards in particular I'd argue that weight and body type are more important than height--I'd rather have a stout 5'11" winger than a 6'1" stick figure.

Edited February 13, 2014 by TrueBluePhD

[Robviously]

I didn't make your point for you at all. You're using exceptions to the rule to judge Enroth's chances and completely eliminate the possibility that his inherent height disadvantage is relevant to his success. That's poor evaluation. His height doesn't doom him to failure, but it does mean other attributes need to be that much better to compensate.

No, seriously, this IS my point. You ARE making it for me. Please stop.

 

We already know goalies roughly his size can be successful in the NHL, sometimes wildly successful. His height is not the deciding factor, but it is literally the ONLY factor that some posters want to talk about. If he's good, his height won't be a big deal. If he's not good, it won't matter if he's a foot taller.

 

It's a conditional relationship--the more net a goaltender naturally covers, the less they have to rely on reflexes and whatnot. Just because his height won't be the sole determinant of his success does not mean it's irrelevant. If Enroth flops as a #1 it will be because he's shorter than a typical goalie AND he didn't have the ability elsewhere (vision, reflexes, positioning, ettc.) to overcome that disadvantage. His height will be a factor in conjunction with other things.

 

From a probabilistic standpoint, you're basically making the equivalent of the "Ryan Getzlaf was drafted 19th overall, therefore we don't have to nor should we, tank to get the #1 overall and a top center" argument that you love to ridicule. You don't have to draft high to get a franchise player, but boy does it tilt the odds in your favor. If we can agree that shorter goaltenders need to compensate with talent/technique and that highly talented individuals are less common than individuals with average talent, then we can reasonably conclude Enroth's chances to emerge as a #1 are lower than a goaltender who is several inches taller. Nobody is saying Enroth can't succeed because of his height, but it sure does make it less likely.

 

Edit: Furthermore, I'd contend height is more important to goaltenders than for other positions. So much of goal scoring is based on weird bounces and random chance that I think naturally covering the net matters more than a forward just being a couple inches taller. For forwards in particular I'd argue that weight and body type are more important than height--I'd rather have a stout 5'11" winger than a 6'1" stick figure.

Height is more important for skaters than it is for goalies because of (a) reach and (b) it gives you a bigger frame to pack muscle onto. The latter is more important. I would want every skater on my team to be heavier and stronger for the one on one puck battles in the corner before I wanted both goalies to be slightly taller to take up more room in the net.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Robviously

[TrueBlueGED]

No, seriously, this IS my point. You ARE making it for me. Please stop.

 

We already know goalies roughly his size can be successful in the NHL, sometimes wildly successful. His height is not the deciding factor, but it is literally the ONLY factor that some posters want to talk about. If he's good, his height won't be a big deal. If he's not good, it won't matter if he's a foot taller.

 

Height is more important for skaters than it is for goalies because of (a) reach and (b) it gives you a bigger frame to pack muscle onto. The latter is more important. I would want every skater on my team to be heavier and stronger for the one on one puck battles in the corner before I wanted both goalies to be slightly taller to take up more room in the net.

 

And my point is that there is no deciding factor. There can't be. You cannot separate out height from everything else, as they inherently work together to contribute to success. Yet you're trying to say height is irrelevant and to only consider other factors. I absolutely agree that height shouldn't dominate the conversation...but the complete opposite extreme of eliminating height as a factor is no better.

 

As for the importance of height for forwards, I know you know that height and frame are quite independent from one another ;)

Edited February 13, 2014 by TrueBluePhD

[Robviously]

And my point is that there is no deciding factor. There can't be. You cannot separate out height from everything else, as they inherently work together to contribute to success. Yet you're trying to say height is irrelevant

 

No, I'm not.

Enroth is 1-2 inches shorter than Hasek and Tim Thomas. Is that ideal? Nope.

 

I'm saying that it's a MUCH less important factor than several other factors that will ultimately decide how he does in the NHL and that fixating only on height is silly. If the only thing I know about a goalie is his height, then I basically don't know anything.

[Hoss]

I don't understand why there's so much debate about Jhonas Enroth wearing the number one...

[TrueBlueGED]

No, I'm not.

 

I'm saying that it's a MUCH less important factor than several other factors that will ultimately decide how he does in the NHL and that fixating only on height is silly. If the only thing I know about a goalie is his height, then I basically don't know anything.

Yes, I really want to make the argument that his height isn't the problem. Saying he can't do it because he's an inch or two shorter than some of the best of all-time is lazy.

 

I don't think magically making Enroth 3 inches taller overnight would make him an NHL stud.

 

If he's not going to make it, it'll be because of rebounds, positioning, shooters knowing his tendencies, his confidence, etc.

 

It *won't* be because of his height.

 

Seems like a pretty definitive statement that his height won't matter to me. You completely eliminated the possibility that the importance of those other traits has any relationship to his height.

 

Again, my argument isn't that he'll fail only because he's short...but it will definitely be a contributing factor if he does.

[Robviously]

Seems like a pretty definitive statement that his height won't matter to me. You completely eliminated the possibility that the importance of those other traits has any relationship to his height.

 

Again, my argument isn't that he'll fail only because he's short...but it will definitely be a contributing factor if he does.

If you need to misread what I'm saying to make a point, knock yourself out. You're going into politics, right?

 

It's not irrelevant, but it's a MUCH smaller factor than a bunch of other factors. If you only knew one thing about a goalie and it was his height, would you know anything? Nope.

 

He's 5'10". That's short for an NHL goalie, so that's all anyone talks about. Great. Now look at a ruler and consider what 2 inches actually looks like in real life. If, from the bottom of his foot to the top of his head, we stretched Enroth by 2 inches, is he a significantly different goalie? I doubt it.

 

His stature is a hindrance but it will ultimately come down to everything else.

[TrueBlueGED]

If you need to misread what I'm saying to make a point, knock yourself out. You're going into politics, right?

 

It's not irrelevant, but it's a MUCH smaller factor than a bunch of other factors. If you only knew one thing about a goalie and it was his height, would you know anything? Nope.

 

He's 5'10". That's short for an NHL goalie, so that's all anyone talks about. Great. Now look at a ruler and consider what 2 inches actually looks like in real life. If, from the bottom of his foot to the top of his head, we stretched Enroth by 2 inches, is he a significantly different goalie? I doubt it.

 

His stature is a hindrance but it will ultimately come down to everything else.

 

So a goalie's height isn't irrelevant, it just tells you absolutely nothing about the goaltender? Yes, I'm clearly twisting your point.

 

How would you define a "significantly different goalie"? All else equal, 2 inches of height could be the difference in a couple of bounces being stopped or going into the net on a deflection...and that could be the difference between a below average starter and an average starter. Enroth being 6'2" likely wouldn't turn him into a stud tender, but it may turn him into a starter from a backup. Just like being slightly quicker or better at reading the play could make that difference too. If he fails, it's all likely to have mattered some.

[dudacek]

Forget Miller for a while.

Does anyone think Enroth will be our unquestioned number one goalie two years from now?

I don't. I think what you see is what you get.

He probably outplays whoever his partner is next year on a bad team, but fails to establish himself as the answer.

Discussion about him continues much as it has during the past few months, and he moves on as a free agent the following summer.

[Stoner]

bio and chz, leave the room. We're getting our rulers out!