Pragmatism

A physical game is not a prerequisite for a bottom six forward. There are those who would argue that is, but I really don’t see it as a defensible argument. Consider the following list of forwards:

I didn’t include any players with less than 2-1/2 seasons at the NHL level (200 games), and I didn’t include any retired players. I also didn’t include any players who have the reputation of having an above-average physical game. Certainly there’s some grit there – Matt Pettinger and Andy Hilbert, for example, have some decent size and definitely some grit, but they aren’t physically dominant players. The players on that list, and especially at the top of it, have made a career of either shutting down top opponents with speed and positioning, or doing something very simple: scoring more goals than their opponents.

Teams need a balance; a team without physical players is going to get pushed around, and obviously there should be some grit in a team’s bottom-six. But to argue, for example, that Marc Pouliot won’t have a career as a third line forward because he doesn’t have a dominant physical game is to ignore a host of very good players who have proved exactly the opposite.

It’s been that way all down through history – players like Rick Meagher and Bob Gainey forged reputations as defensive stalwarts, despite not being physically dominant. More recently, a player like Marty Reasoner has forged an NHL career despite a) no real physical game b) suspect skating and c) minimal offensive production.

The reason these guys have careers is because despite what people will tell you, toughness, speed and even goal-scoring aren’t the most valuable assets to a team that a player can possess. The most valuable asset is actually rather elementary – scoring more goals than the opposition. It’s how teams win games, and it’s glossed over far too often in favour of big hits and flashy but one-dimensional play.