i think as a defensive player it is advantageous to be bigger and stronger than the player you are up against in almost all situations. the top defenceman named by temme are all attacking attributed players, but look at the NHL for example and the average size and weight of defenceman vs forwards they are significantly bigger. They clearly feel it does make a difference as well
Defensive player I agree - bigger/STRONGER is arguably better
Offensive player *This can still be a defenceman* - smaller and lighter is arguably better
For defensive stay at home D men then size is an arguable advantage, although weight/muscle is a bigger advantage than height.
For any offensive/2 way D man, weight is a marked disadvantage, as fatigue on this role is significantly higher and lugging the extra weight around wouldn't help.
Every team needs a balance of both, of course.
We have 3 big, strong, tough stay at home Defensive D men
Batch
Louis
Blood
We have 2 2way D man
Reddick
Richardson
And one pretty offensive D man
Fournier
I can't understand why people would think we are in the market for another Defensive player - we have 3 - one on each D line.
The final player is (if a D man) to replace Tom Parisi.
Parisi was a sub 6ft puck carrying, fast skating D man.
Our Powerplay lines to not involve Louis, Blood nor Batch. We are missing a D man to quarterback the PP unit - Reddick is currently doing this but at a guess he will be moved off once the new guy is here.
There is literally no way we are about to sign some 6ft 5" 230lb stay at home D man as that would not be a suitable replacement.
I've been very wrong on many occasions before though (ask my wife, she'll tell you).
/edit
interestingly,
last year in the EIHL the 4 "tallest" teams by average were also the top 4 teams in league standing.