This team vs 2011 team

[MikeyD]

2011 also had a much stronger PP and PK which were huge difference makers.

 

I'd take the 2011 defense even with Hughes being a Norris guy because they could actually play defense without a structure. Hronek, Cole, Juulsen, Zadorov, and Myers all have flaws defensively and can be inconsistent. Hamhuis was a stud. Salo was a stud. Tanev was a stud. Even Ballard was a stud that year and stuck in the doghouse for reasons we didn't know of. Ehrhoff was decent, Bieksa was decent, Alberts was inconsistent like Myers and Zadorov are. Let's face it, we have a lot of #4-5 guys now. Hamhuis was a legit #2, Ehrhoff was a #2, Bieksa was a #3, Salo was a #3, Edler was a #3, Tanev when used was a #3. Sure we didn't have a strong #1 but our middle guys were all playing above salary and expectations. 

 

The 2011 team had heart from top to bottom. Something this team has but at various points throughout the lineup. They were the cardiac kids. Couldn't keep them out of games. 

 

Our wingers are definitely our sore spot. Too many one dimensional players on our wings on most nights. Center depth I'd take now though. 

[IBatch]

18 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

I will agree to disagree on fitness today not being better.  Even simply because of technology alone with new equipment, and with new fitness medical knowledge.  Diets. Then there is prospects taking their fitness way more seriously at a younger age, as the years have gone on.  Good veteran players play longer. Good young players play earlier.

 

If you mean 'toughness' sure I could agree there.  GINO GINO GINO. But thats different than fitness. You are conflating these. Along with fitness comes skating speeds, and endurance. 

 

Players have gotten larger over the decades, even as there is a reduction in players there solely for their toughness.  Even though size has plateaued lately. You can look up any of this. This article came out during Bennings reign. This was happening while we were going backwards.

https://thehockeynews.com/news/nhl-players-keep-getting-faster-stronger-and-more-skilled-how-far-can-hockey-evolution-go

 

Large players today have to also be able to play the game and skate. Including defencemen.

 

Another article about changes in hockey.  https://montrealgazette.com/health/diet-fitness/fitness-for-the-love-of-hockey-and-conditioning

 

A quote:

Players also got fitter. The positive association between aerobic fitness and recovery meant players with higher VO₂ max scores demonstrated less fatigue in the third period as well as a quicker recovery between games.

 

But also what's contributed to every team getting better are the anti-obstruction rule changes have helped develop speed as well. As well as stick technology to create a more wicked shot. Improved protection tech so more shots can be blocked safely.  Skates themselves have most likely evolved.  Just saying that hockey in general, through fitness tech, and equipment tech, has gotten better, more competitive. 

IMO Petey would have survived just fine in 2011,  Just like the svelte Gretzky survived fine in his era.  As long as he has support on the ice. Even if he and Miller would have a tougher time in moments...when they ran into a wall like Chara for instance, i  think  they'd find ways to use better skill and skating, and fitness levels as well, to overcome that aspect.

 

Its the "tough" slower D like Rome, Alberts that would get left behind in today's hockey. 

 

My only point is that all boats are rising. The plethora of teams today with expansion and the fear of a watered down product has not materialized. With more US players coming in, as well as more countries contributing to the pool together with better fitness tech, is making this possible. 

 

I agree with you in that I'm also stoked to have Tocchet and Foote steering this team.

 

 

 

 

That's one dialogue.  I'd say that the fitness craze in the 80's changed athletes.   And the way the Red Army trained was legendary.    Imagine having to drink a tsp of fat a day ... good fats, to maintain the body, that tech was around in the early 90's, my brother actually was doing their method .   I've seen all sorts of diets.   One comes in bumps another for decades.   As for living in the gym, can say kids these days don't do that, or spend the time outside either.    They aren't taking boxing lessons at 12 either.    Faster than ever?   The fourth lines absolutely.      Like I said, when's the last time there has been a dozen all-stars, manage a 13.5 lap.   And you have to wonder what a 25 year old Gartner could have done.   Instead of a 17 year vet.    Maybe McDavid can do that at 36.  

 

Edit:  BTW.  players are back to late 80's levels as far as "larger goes".    That matches up well with the eye test as well.   They got a lot bigger in the 90's and the 2000's, since then have been shrinking. 
 

From what i've seen anyways,  the Gen X and late boomer's took the gym a lot more seriously, then the generations we've seen drafted since the 2010's maybe earlier.    There are no monsters anymore and haven't been for quite some time.    

 

Edited March 26 by IBatch

[IBatch]

19 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

I will agree to disagree on fitness today not being better.  Even simply because of technology alone with new equipment, and with new fitness medical knowledge.  Diets. Then there is prospects taking their fitness way more seriously at a younger age, as the years have gone on.  Good veteran players play longer. Good young players play earlier.

 

If you mean 'toughness' sure I could agree there.  GINO GINO GINO. But thats different than fitness. You are conflating these. Along with fitness comes skating speeds, and endurance. 

 

Players have gotten larger over the decades, even as there is a reduction in players there solely for their toughness.  Even though size has plateaued lately. You can look up any of this. This article came out during Bennings reign. This was happening while we were going backwards.

https://thehockeynews.com/news/nhl-players-keep-getting-faster-stronger-and-more-skilled-how-far-can-hockey-evolution-go

 

Large players today have to also be able to play the game and skate. Including defencemen.

 

Another article about changes in hockey.  https://montrealgazette.com/health/diet-fitness/fitness-for-the-love-of-hockey-and-conditioning

 

A quote:

Players also got fitter. The positive association between aerobic fitness and recovery meant players with higher VO₂ max scores demonstrated less fatigue in the third period as well as a quicker recovery between games.

 

But also what's contributed to every team getting better are the anti-obstruction rule changes have helped develop speed as well. As well as stick technology to create a more wicked shot. Improved protection tech so more shots can be blocked safely.  Skates themselves have most likely evolved.  Just saying that hockey in general, through fitness tech, and equipment tech, has gotten better, more competitive. 

IMO Petey would have survived just fine in 2011,  Just like the svelte Gretzky survived fine in his era.  As long as he has support on the ice. Even if he and Miller would have a tougher time in moments...when they ran into a wall like Chara for instance, i  think  they'd find ways to use better skill and skating, and fitness levels as well, to overcome that aspect.

 

Its the "tough" slower D like Rome, Alberts that would get left behind in today's hockey. 

 

My only point is that all boats are rising. The plethora of teams today with expansion and the fear of a watered down product has not materialized. With more US players coming in, as well as more countries contributing to the pool together with better fitness tech, is making this possible. 

 

I agree with you in that I'm also stoked to have Tocchet and Foote steering this team.

 

 

 

 

Personally I witnessed the water down product.   It's really great to see scoring up.   And save percentages tanking.    It's going to be interesting to see what folks in their teens-30's  now, say about the players in 20-30 years from now.   Like it's going to get all that better.    And they will never have to deal with the sort of violence that was in the game from the 70's until the lockout (and a few years after) again.   My bet is you won't see a guy like Tony Twist or Rod the Bod again either.   Imagine instead they will be talking about Miller and how he had a fight once with Kempe, and how Zadorov was a big dude that was "super scary".    

 

2 time champs 3 to the final:  Why would we consider these guys as the epitome of the history of the NHL?   Know I sure don't.   They don't look like elite athletes,  then again neither did Gretzky.   Stamkos looks like the average kid I grew up with, that hit the gym 4 times a week.   Or the local roofing crew versus landscaping crew beach volleyball session.   

Edited March 26 by IBatch

[kilgore]

11 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Personally I witnessed the water down product.   It's really great to see scoring up.   And save percentages tanking.    It's going to be interesting to see what folks in their teens-30's  now, say about the players in 20-30 years from now.   Like it's going to get all that better.    And they will never have to deal with the sort of violence that was in the game from the 70's until the lockout again.   My bet is you won't see a guy like Tony Twist or Rod the Bod again either. 

 

There is a watered down effect, with expansion naturally.  I just think its offset a lot by simply more players from around the world and the US available now.  Good players. Helps that Russia has turned into a hell hole and the smart players don't stick around in the KHL.

 

Add tech advancements in sticks, skates, and protection.  And 12 month conditioning programs.  As well as rule changes like no red line, stricter hooking/holding calls, and other tweeks through the years.  Another article on the future of hockey affected by advancement in equipment, training, and  conditioning.  https://www.si.com/nhl/2017/01/13/future-nhl-hockey

 

I still think some players will be big and jacked.  But they have to score, at least once in awhile and be able to skate. Not quite sure why you'd lump Brind'Amour in with Twist though.   That's a good example of a jacked player that would still flourish because of talent, and one that would now be a dinosaur because he only had one job. But yeah, that type of player will go. The fact that even a fourth line has to be more than the pylon line these days, means games are more entertaining over all.  The last LA game excluded.

 

But yeah it would be interesting to know just what the sport will look like in 30 years.  Some things we love about old school hockey will disappear, but other advancements make the game faster and more entertaining.

 

[IBatch]

On 3/26/2024 at 2:53 PM, kilgore said:

 

There is a watered down effect, with expansion naturally.  I just think its offset a lot by simply more players from around the world and the US available now.  Good players. Helps that Russia has turned into a hell hole and the smart players don't stick around in the KHL.

 

Add tech advancements in sticks, skates, and protection.  And 12 month conditioning programs.  As well as rule changes like no red line, stricter hooking/holding calls, and other tweeks through the years.  Another article on the future of hockey affected by advancement in equipment, training, and  conditioning.  https://www.si.com/nhl/2017/01/13/future-nhl-hockey

 

I still think some players will be big and jacked.  But they have to score, at least once in awhile and be able to skate. Not quite sure why you'd lump Brind'Amour in with Twist though.   That's a good example of a jacked player that would still flourish because of talent, and one that would now be a dinosaur because he only had one job. But yeah, that type of player will go. The fact that even a fourth line has to be more than the pylon line these days, means games are more entertaining over all.  The last LA game excluded.

 

But yeah it would be interesting to know just what the sport will look like in 30 years.  Some things we love about old school hockey will disappear, but other advancements make the game faster and more entertaining.

 

 

Tony Twist had an imposing physique, and used to go sit shirtless on the other teams bench during the warm ups and tape his stick lol.   240lbs,  Arny was winning his Mr Olympia at 6 feet and 222lbs ...  that's straight from the Joe Weider method, the guy who trained the guys who popularized the sport, no he's not 6''2" and never had been, just like Mike Vernon isn't 5'9" and Bieksa isnt 6'4" like the "Tale of the Tape" had him once.   Lindros was a monster.   Now he looks like a mountain.   Wrestler sized NHL player, with speed and skills.   I don't think that players are in "way better shape".   That's a fallacy.   I've also worked in a field of labour, that when gym rats came and played, started to cry and couldn't cut it and quit.    There is a big difference between looking tough and actually being tough as well.   Personally, I don't see a fitness level difference from the mid 80's and now.   And see a fitness level below what the 90's guys were doing.    That's not going to be popular.    In the same way that we can't say Ryan Kesler was in worse shape then JT Miller, who just happens to be at or near the bar for all Canucks right now.  It was JT Miller and Schenn leaving the rest of the team in the dust last year.   OJ isn't the only guy who can't cut it.   Kuzmenko came in underwhelming, as did Joshua.    Again, these kids aren't taking boxing lesson at 12 anymore.    They don't climb mountains for fun (and i'm not talking about a trail, we never used a trail growing up).    Yes they are faster as a group that's undeniable.   Size wise, back to 1988 levels.    And face punching/hitting is gone by the wayside.    As for diets.   At the Red Army was fueled down to the gram of carbs, protein and fat.   They had it as a science in the 80's.      Genetics will always play into it.    Some of those TB guys doing their beach volleyball thing, had a lot of body fat.   Around the mid section.   For elite athletes, it's not exactly  inspiring.   Don't think that past eras are given full credit.    What do you think that EP would look like with the same shoulder pads McSorely (none) Howe and Shanny wore (same leather pads throughout)?    Now these guys wear armour.    Some the old school guys, had to cut their uniforms to get them over their forearms.   Who's doing that now? 

Edited March 29 by IBatch

[erkayloomeh]

2011 was better

I'm a huge Miller fan but this team doesn't have a Kesler. 

Hank is better than pettersson 

[Provost]

I don’t like our forward depth as much and fewer players seems built for the physicality of the playoffs.

 

President’ Trophy AND filled with bite…. 2011 was probably better.

 

Less experienced too now.  I am just hoping for a decent enough run this year  that the core players get a good taste of what it takes.

[bathgate]

On 3/25/2024 at 8:13 AM, IBatch said:

Wonder how these will compare, once the season is over.   One thing, that is a big difference, is age.  

2011 team scored consistently, unlike now score big against poor teams while drying up against contenders.

[Provost]

11 hours ago, bathgate said:

2011 team scored consistently, unlike now score big against poor teams while drying up against contenders.

Aside from not being true… excellent point!

 

In a few threads folks have done the work showing our record against playoff teams was better than all the other top teams.

[NHL97OneTimer]

There are parts of this season where I could say this team is starting to play like the 2011 team......but it hasn't been a reguar theme.  Go back to some highlights through the 2011 team (and earlier) and you'll see how fast, aggressive and lippy that team was.  We didn't know how good we had it and I think the 2011 team destroys this current team to be honest.  Goaltending was better, offence was better, physicality was better and the team were just dialed in with each other.  The only slight advantage I would give this team is that the defence seems deeper right now.  Hughes is the best D out of both teams and is a difference maker. 

 

When comparing rosters, I think it's fair to say that this team on paper looks damn good.  So why do I think the 2011 team would destroy this team?  Goaltending and bite.  We're lucky to have Demko but who takes him over Luongo?  We're also lucky that DeSmith has been playing great.....but who takes him over Schneider?  EP is great, but who takes him over 2 Sedins?   If JT could irritate other teams like Kesler, then JT is clearly better, but I'd give them a tie (JT has better offence but Kesler single-handedly changed games with his snarl and sometimes his offence....not to mention he was way better defensively).  Boeser is great, but Burrows is in the ring of honor for a reason.  Joshua is great, but Lapierre and Torres took other teams out of their comfort zone better.  And we haven't even mentioned the honey badger yet.  Yeah, the 2011 team was way better now that I think of it.

 

Overall, the 2011 team could do everything this team could do but they could also take the other teams out of their comfort zone.  This current team has to outplay the other team since they can't rely on taking the other team off their game.

 

To me, the 2011 team leaves a blueprint for success and the build of this current team is heading in the right direction.  Getting Lindholm was a gamble worth taking, but what they really need is a cheaper FO guy who can shut down the other team......like Malhotra.  The 2011 team had great role players......guys who knew their role and did it extremely well.

Edited April 1 by NHL97OneTimer