ATD#8 Jim Robson Round 1: #4 New York vs. #5 Portage la Prairie

VanIslander
11-18-2007, 08:13 PM
The Jim Robson division:

First Round Match-Up



New York Raiders

Coach: n/a
Captain: Scott Stevens
Alternates: Doug Gilmour, Rod Brind'amour

J. P. Parise - Eric Lindros - Dino Ciccarelli
Dave Andreychuk - Doug Gilmour - Vladimir Martinec
John Ogrodnick - Rod Brind'Amour - John McKenzie
Steve Vickers - Don Luce - Mike Foligno
Ivan Hlinka, Ziggy Palffy

Guy Lapointe - Scott Stevens
Bill Gadsby - Charlie Huddy
Alexander Gusev - Joe Watson
Marty McSorley

Dominik Hasek
Pete Peeters



vs.



Portage la Prairie Plains

Coach: Toe Blake
Captain: Ted Lindsay
Alternates: Bill Cook, Eddie Gerard

Ted Lindsay - Elmer Lach - Didier Pitre
Bun Cook - Sid Crosby - Bill Cook
John Tonelli - Walt Tkaczuk - Larry Aurie
Harry Westwick - Frank Frederickson - Scotty Davidson

Sprague Cleghorn - Eddie Gerard
Jack Stewart - Eddie Ivanov
Harvey Pulford - Pat Egan

Gerry Cheevers
Lorne Chabot

Mike Grant
Harry P. Watson
Eddie Johnston

VanIslander
11-18-2007, 08:14 PM
New York Raiders

PP1: Ogrodnick - Lindros - Ciccarelli - Lapointe - Gadsby
PP2: Andreychuk - Gilmour - Foligno - Stevens - Huddy

PK1: Luce - Gilmour - Stevens - Gadsby
PK2: Brind'amour - Parise - Lapointe - Watson

vs.

Portage la Prairie Plains

PP1: Lindsay - Lach - Bill Cook - Pitre - Gerard
PP2: Tonelli - Crosby - Aurie - Cleghorn - Ivanov

PK1: Bun Cook - Tkaczuk - Stewart - Pulford
PK2: Aurie - Lach - Cleghorn - Gerard

God Bless Canada
11-18-2007, 08:48 PM
I think the guy who is happiest to see this match-up is Hockey Outsider. Assuming Halifax and Sherbrooke win their respective series (which I think they will), the Canadiens will face the winner of this series, which should be a tough, drawn-out war.

In a division rife with tough, physical teams, these are the two toughest, most physical teams. Both teams are loaded with guys who work hard, hit hard, but also play smart.

Portage has unarguably the two best forwards in the series (Lindsay and Bill Cook), and the third best forward in Elmer Lach. Portage has four well-assembled line. I think we should all give props to doc for his old-school fourth line, and for being the first guy to pick Scotty Davidson. It's not a traditional fourth line, but when you look at Portage's line-up, you realize they can use their first three lines in defensive/shut-down roles. As I said in Portage's evaluation, Crosby is the only weak spot in this line-up. If doc pulls the trigger, he could have Lindsay-Lach-Bill Cook, which would be one of the best lines in the draft.

New York doesn't have the personel that Portage does, but they've done their best to find lines that work. VanI's decision to wait on some selections resulted in some players being miscast - most notably Parise being on the first line. They don't have a true shut-down line, but they have four lines that can handle a defensive load. And VanI could just as easily toss out a line with Brind'Amour-Luce-McKenzie that would make life difficult for Portage's top two lines.

VanI has the top two defencemen in this series with Gadsby and Stevens. Those two, and Guy Lapointe, are all good enough to be No. 1 defencemen. The thought of a Scott Stevens vs. Black Jack Stewart hitting contest should be enough to cause sleepless nights for forwards on both teams. A lot of defence corps would have trouble with the relentless forecheck of forwards from New York and Portage. These defence corps won't.

On the surface, goaltending appears to be a big edge to New York. I'll give the edge to New York, but Cheevers is one of hockey's truely great clutch goalies. It's a much smaller gap than the regular season.

The same could be said for coaching, to a certain extent. On the surface, Portage has a big edge. Blake is the No. 2 coach of all-time in my books. Shero is somewhere around No. 10 on my list. But this is a Shero type of team. VanI knew what he wanted from the start, and he went for it.

Very, very tough series to call. I think I'll leave it up to the GMs to convince me. VanI and doc, make up my mind.

pitseleh
11-18-2007, 08:50 PM
This one is going to be fun, fun, fun with two of the toughest teams in the draft. I really think the coaching matchup is an interesting one as well.

As much as I love Cleghorn and Stewart, New York has a rather large advantage on the backend and in net. With Stevens/Gadsby/Lapointe playing upwards of 75 minutes on the back end then having to contend with Hasek will be tough for Portage la Prairie. That said, they do have a ton of scoring depth, so it may work in their favour.

New York is really going to need Lapointe and Gasby to step up offensively, as I see them having trouble keeping with their scoring up front. doctordark has one of the few teams I can see being effective playing the physical brand of defense that will be necessary to keep New York at bay.

nik jr
11-18-2007, 10:06 PM
1st thing is that NY has a huge edge in net. cheevers is overrated, imo, and honestly i have no idea why some people think hasek was not fantastic in the playoffs.

cleghorn could be the best D, but i think NY has the edge overall.

gilmour vs crosby is advantage gilmour, imo. i don't think lach is a big advantage over lindros. portage certainly has a huge advantage among wingers.
i agree with GBC that lindsay--lach--cook would be a better way to go, since lindsay seems to have been better with great players. but then the 2nd line of cook--crosby--pitre is lacking.

portage lacks a real defensive line, but NY doesn't have a lot of firepower, so that shouldn't be a big problem. NY will need some offensive help from the D.

arrbez
11-19-2007, 12:16 AM
1st thing is that NY has a huge edge in net. cheevers is overrated, imo, and honestly i have no idea why some people think hasek was not fantastic in the playoffs.

Not that Cheevers is terrible or anything, but I agree than a big edge has to go to Hasek. Of all the goaltenders I've seen, Hasek was on a whole different level in the 90's. I've never been more afraid to see any player take the ice against my team as with Hasek at his peak.

shawnmullin
11-19-2007, 02:22 AM
Hasek over Cheevers is significant IMO.

However, I think the top line and PP advantage is significantly in Doc's favour.

And the top 4 D are significantly in New York's favour.

Very interesting match up. I like New York up the middle. Strong two-way game there.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-19-2007, 08:16 AM
So...how long before people get to vote on this bad boy? I'm not quite sure on how the playoff format works or how long each series lasts.

I really want to get a write-up in here, because I'm very confident in how my team stacks up against VanI's, and there are a few important misconceptions I have to clear up.

BM67
11-19-2007, 09:17 AM
I'd say let's see how active the talk is before making a vote date. It shouldn't be before the weekend at least anyway.

There's no rush. We aren't getting the playoffs done before Christmas unless we skip the discussion phase entirely.

VanIslander
11-19-2007, 10:42 AM
Against some high powered offenses, the Raiders might have to score more than 2 or 3 goals a game to win, but the Plains isn't one of those. Sure they have scoring on all their lines but New York isn't built front-heavy when it comes to defense: every line and every defensive pairing equally buys into a team defense. The Raiders don't need a shutdown line against the Plains if every skater does his job. New York is more vulnerable against Gretzky's Seals or Beliveau and Forsberg's Rangers type of top end offensive lines than against spread out scoring. That said, for those key defensive situations, like when protecting a lead, the Raiders will ice a Brind'amour - Luce - MacKenzie third line. While "Terrible Ted" and Bill Cook could bully their way to the net against some teams, this NY team has the sort of centres and defensemen to cause them great difficulty doing what they do so well.

With both teams in this match-up playing physical, special teams will be key, and the Raiders are built to handle the penalty kill real well, in fact, a distinctive competitive advantage in this series. Brind'amour and Gilmour are Selke winners, and while many can recall some sweet Dougie shorthanded goals, Brindy and Luce are among the all-time leaders in SHG (was down on the top-30 list pnep posted somewhere). The Plains will be susceptible to interceptions and broken plays headed the other way quickly as their powerplay units are based more on passing than getting to the net, as their units are quarterbacked by a 5'9 playmaker extraordinaire Lach and a playoff-inexperienced Crosby, with Aurie liking to hold onto the puck. And if any team is built to withstand the net-crashing effort of Tonelli, Lindsay and/or Bill Cook, it is the Raiders! Those wingers are known to take the puck toward the net but the New York defense is built to handle such muscle. Stevens and Gadsby will be out there against Lindsay and Bill Cook, while Lapointe will have tough Watson and "Tank" Parise against the less-physical Tonelli-Crosby-Aurie unit. And, of course, the goalie is a team's number one penalty killer.

In comparison, the Plains penalty kill won't be as effective against the Raiders' powerplay. New York has true powerplay specialists when it comes to crashing the crease and parking oneself there for deflections, rebounds and screens: Ciccarelli and Andreychuk anchor each pp unit, literally, at the crease. Little Dino can be knocked down but that bugger ain't movin' away from the net unless you crosscheck or trip him and create a two man pp opportunity (which happened A LOT with Dino); Andreychuk is strong, tall, patient and has 291 NHL powerplay goals. The Raiders' ability to clog the net and frustrate the goalie runs deep as a third powerplay unit could be iced in a long battle-weary series with Brind'amour, who was great at tip-ins in Philly and knows how to earn space in the middle, and one of the top-30 all-time NHLers in powerplay goals per game over his career in "Pie" McKenzie. And I haven't even mentioned Vickers. So there will be a major contest for space around the crease, even for the Plains physical defense. More importantly - in that no one has mentioned it yet - this New York team has plenty of shooting from the point, as five of the top six defensemen had offensive talent. Many of Stevens 1000+ NHL points on defensive teams came from his shot, and Lapointe was deadly with his accuracy. Shooting was also part of Huddy and Gusev's game. Gusev is a sub, not on the pp units, as Gadsby is simply too good all around to leave off the pp, and he'll feed plenty of passes over to Lapointe, up to Lindros or Gilmour along the boards, behind the net or at the circle, and tossing it on net for those near the crease. The Plains second pk unit has 5'9 nonphysical Lach and really small "Little Rag Man" Aurie, neither of whom stack up well against the physical powerplay forwards of the Raiders.

The Raiders are built to play well on special teams and expect this to be a competitive advantage in this series in particular, with the Plains defensemen providing a match physically but New York not facing the sort of defensive forwards or goaltending needed to negate the Raiders' honed powerplay.

As for Raiders' scoring, it too is spread out, as each line and pairing is built to play the boards, the net and the point. This is not a team that will pass on the perimeter or tic-tac-toe galore like the NHL's Pittsburgh Penguins has long done it. It will be like the Hasek Sabres of the nineties in one respect: it'll have an aggressive forecheck, but of course it's more of a Devils and especially ol' Flyers type of team. I cannot imagine having made a better Shero-type team given the constraints that this is an all-time context and outright goons have no place in the line-up (McSorley wasn't just a goon! and as 7th d-man in a physical series you bet he'll see some early action, geared to goad a Plains d-man or scoring winger to sit in the box or set to have one of his 4-goal playoffs).

This series will have a lot of penalties on each side and a lot of 2-1, 3-2 games and that suits the Raiders style immensely. The Plains centers will be punished with a lot of finished checks when they play the puck in open ice and their goalie will face a lot of traffic around the net - more than in the battle of the Plains of Abraham - and if he - Cheevers - strays from his net to play the puck like he loves to do, well, goalies who do that outside their crease (and contemporary trapezoid) are open to being checked. :hit:

Frightened Inmate #2
11-19-2007, 10:43 AM
When I look at the Raiders the more I see them as a helicopter offense, very good to great centers, but there just isn't much on the wings in my opinion, a lot of solid complimentry players but I don't see a first line wing of the bunch and even their first line wingers I wouldn't qualify as an elite second liner in an all time format.

When looking at the wings I think it breaks down as follows:
First line (0): N/A
Second line (2): (Andreychuk, Ciccarelli)
Third line (4): (Parise, Ogrodnick, McKenzie, Foligno)
Fourth Line (1): Vickers
Have no place on a Shero coached team (2): Palffy, Martinec

I don't know what everyone else sees but I see really limited offensive potential, especially since there aren't any real snipers on the team, a lot of gritty playmakers and players who will bang in the garbage goals, but other than Martinec (who was known for being easily rattled and taken off his game by physical contact in European leagues, World Ice Hockey Championships and the like - which wasn't as physical as NHL contact - not really a Shero type player) I don't see much in the way of raw skill on the wings.

Past that Hasek is always great and a top 5 goaltender of all time and I really like the Raiders defense but the offense is somewhat suspect and could possibly hold them back from being a much more dynamic team.

Frightened Inmate #2
11-19-2007, 10:58 AM
Portage la Prairie, other than having the most irritating name in the draft in my opinion has more offensive potential than the Raiders in terms of player skill but for some reason the team doesn't jive, I think it has a lot to do with a lackluster defensive corps and a nagging question in my mind as to how Cheevers will do without the best defenseman in the league and a powerhouse team in front of him. I know he is a money goaltender (whatever that really means) but I don't see much potential from the defensive pairings.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-19-2007, 04:46 PM
Portage la Prairie, other than having the most irritating name in the draft in my opinion

Hey, that "irritating name" was good enough for Cyclone Taylor and Newsy Lalonde to wear on their jerseys, bub.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-19-2007, 06:08 PM
Against some high powered offenses, the Raiders might have to score more than 2 or 3 goals a game to win, but the Plains isn't one of those. Sure they have scoring on all their lines but New York isn't built front-heavy when it comes to defense: every line and every defensive pairing equally buys into a team defense. The Raiders don't need a shutdown line against the Plains if every skater does his job. New York is more vulnerable against Gretzky's Seals or Beliveau and Forsberg's Rangers type of top end offensive lines than against spread out scoring. That said, for those key defensive situations, like when protecting a lead, the Raiders will ice a Brind'amour - Luce - MacKenzie third line. While "Terrible Ted" and Bill Cook could bully their way to the net against some teams, this NY team has the sort of centres and defensemen to cause them great difficulty doing what they do so well.

With both teams in this match-up playing physical, special teams will be key, and the Raiders are built to handle the penalty kill real well, in fact, a distinctive competitive advantage in this series. Brind'amour and Gilmour are Selke winners, and while many can recall some sweet Dougie shorthanded goals, Brindy and Luce are among the all-time leaders in SHG (was down on the top-30 list pnep posted somewhere). The Plains will be susceptible to interceptions and broken plays headed the other way quickly as their powerplay units are based more on passing than getting to the net, as their units are quarterbacked by a 5'9 playmaker extraordinaire Lach and a playoff-inexperienced Crosby, with Aurie liking to hold onto the puck. And if any team is built to withstand the net-crashing effort of Tonelli, Lindsay and/or Bill Cook, it is the Raiders! Those wingers are known to take the puck toward the net but the New York defense is built to handle such muscle. Stevens and Gadsby will be out there against Lindsay and Bill Cook, while Lapointe will have tough Watson and "Tank" Parise against the less-physical Tonelli-Crosby-Aurie unit. And, of course, the goalie is a team's number one penalty killer.

In comparison, the Plains penalty kill won't be as effective against the Raiders' powerplay. New York has true powerplay specialists when it comes to crashing the crease and parking oneself there for deflections, rebounds and screens: Ciccarelli and Andreychuk anchor each pp unit, literally, at the crease. Little Dino can be knocked down but that bugger ain't movin' away from the net unless you crosscheck or trip him and create a two man pp opportunity (which happened A LOT with Dino); Andreychuk is strong, tall, patient and has 291 NHL powerplay goals. The Raiders' ability to clog the net and frustrate the goalie runs deep as a third powerplay unit could be iced in a long battle-weary series with Brind'amour, who was great at tip-ins in Philly and knows how to earn space in the middle, and one of the top-30 all-time NHLers in powerplay goals per game over his career in "Pie" McKenzie. And I haven't even mentioned Vickers. So there will be a major contest for space around the crease, even for the Plains physical defense. More importantly - in that no one has mentioned it yet - this New York team has plenty of shooting from the point, as five of the top six defensemen had offensive talent. Many of Stevens 1000+ NHL points on defensive teams came from his shot, and Lapointe was deadly with his accuracy. Shooting was also part of Huddy and Gusev's game. Gusev is a sub, not on the pp units, as Gadsby is simply too good all around to leave off the pp, and he'll feed plenty of passes over to Lapointe, up to Lindros or Gilmour along the boards, behind the net or at the circle, and tossing it on net for those near the crease. The Plains second pk unit has 5'9 nonphysical Lach and really small "Little Rag Man" Aurie, neither of whom stack up well against the physical powerplay forwards of the Raiders.

The Raiders are built to play well on special teams and expect this to be a competitive advantage in this series in particular, with the Plains defensemen providing a match physically but New York not facing the sort of defensive forwards or goaltending needed to negate the Raiders' honed powerplay.

As for Raiders' scoring, it too is spread out, as each line and pairing is built to play the boards, the net and the point. This is not a team that will pass on the perimeter or tic-tac-toe galore like the NHL's Pittsburgh Penguins has long done it. It will be like the Hasek Sabres of the nineties in one respect: it'll have an aggressive forecheck, but of course it's more of a Devils and especially ol' Flyers type of team. I cannot imagine having made a better Shero-type team given the constraints that this is an all-time context and outright goons have no place in the line-up (McSorley wasn't just a goon! and as 7th d-man in a physical series you bet he'll see some early action, geared to goad a Plains d-man or scoring winger to sit in the box or set to have one of his 4-goal playoffs).

This series will have a lot of penalties on each side and a lot of 2-1, 3-2 games and that suits the Raiders style immensely. The Plains centers will be punished with a lot of finished checks when they play the puck in open ice and their goalie will face a lot of traffic around the net - more than in the battle of the Plains of Abraham - and if he - Cheevers - strays from his net to play the puck like he loves to do, well, goalies who do that outside their crease (and contemporary trapezoid) are open to being checked. :hit:

In light of such arguments based on blatant misinformation, I'll skip my opening salvo and get straight to chipping away at the propaganda.

First off, I'll admit that my offense is spread out all my lines, but by the same token, VanI's is spread just as much throughout his line-up. The main difference, however, is that my team is of a much higher offensive caliber. The Plains can boast 4 Art Ross winners (Cook, Lach, Crosby, and Lindsay; Lach and Cook both won twice), a player who almost certainly would've won an Art Ross were it not for a late-season injury (Larry Aurie), an NHA scoring champ (Pitre), and a PCHA scoring champ (Frederickson).

The Raiders don't have a single scoring champ at any major pro level. Lindros and Gilmour were the only ones who even got close, and while Gilmour still has Andreychuk, Lindros has probably the weakest top line wingers in the entire draft. If I were the Raiders, I'd be very concerned about where my offense is going to come from, particularly since my forward lines each have superb defensive players like Lindsay, Lach, Bun Cook, Tkaczuk, Aurie, Westwick, and Davidson to disrupt them.

What's more, my team is plenty proficient in the playoffs too. Aurie and Lach have both led the NHL post-season in scoring, and Pitre and Davidson have both led the NHA.

The Raiders' contention that they have the definitive special teams advantage is downright laughable. On the PK, Gilmour and Brind'Amour are quality, no doubt, but they're certainly no better than Lach, who Dick Irvin valued more for his defense than his offense (a telling statement considering Lach's considerable offensive talents) or Walt Tkaczuk, who completely neutralized a prime Esposito. That's to say nothing of the likes of Bun Cook and Larry Aurie, the latter of whom even earned a nickname for his penalty-killing prowess, for Pete's sake. And given their scoring exploits, I have no doubt that they'll be a threat to put up numbers short-handed, too.

Somehow, the Raiders are under the impression that the Plains are susceptible to broken plays because they're built for passing and not going hard to the net, but that's hard to swallow on two counts:

1) If the PPs are being run by proficient puck-distributors, which they are, broken plays shouldn't be any more common than during a shoot-and-deflect style powerplay, which is more prone to blocks and subsequent odd-man rushes the other way.

2) The Plains simply don't have any problems going hard to the net. Cook, Tonelli and Lindsay are more than capable of getting their noses dirty in the tough areas, and despite the Raiders' thought that Aurie would like to hold onto the puck during the PP - which would apparently detract from Crosby's possession, the "Little Rag Man" moniker was earned from his PKing abilities; he was usually stationed in front of the opposition's net during the man-advantage:

"Aurie would fight a tiger to win and was a damn good hockey player. He was very small, only 145 pounds, but very strong. He would stand in front of the net and take on players 50 to 60 pounds heavier and handled it well. Much like (Dino) Ciccarelli, only Larry could fight. He would drop his stick at the drop of a hat."

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:b2wt5KOFrwwJ:www.letsgowings.com/history/legends/aurie_larry.html+aurie+ciccarelli&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca

Damn, that's gotta hurt. Not only are you wrong, but your 1st liner gets compared unfavorably to my 3rd liner. Parry and thrust, baby. ;)

Anyway, I have more to write, but this post is more than lengthy enough as it is, and I need to eat, so I'll address further issues in my 2nd installment, hopefully tomorrow.

VanIslander
11-19-2007, 07:56 PM
Lindros has probably the weakest top line wingers in the entire draft.
Weakest? Of course, not in terms of physical play, not by a long shot. While Parise is not a prototypical first line winger he did play on a scoring line as a role player his whole career and recovered a lot of pucks forechecking along the boards and was effective as Esposito's wingman at the '72 Summit Series so against the highest level of competition he has shown a capacity to play a style of game this team was built to play. The Raiders aren't going to try and carry the puck across the blueline with a couple of cross ice dazzling passes. Each line has a forechecker, a net crasher and a shooter. Btw, Dino Ciccarelli is a legit first line right winger, maybe not as gifted in the wizardry dep't as Martinec but he has his strengths. New Yorks first line - given the team's style - cannot be divorced from the defensemen who will play the point when the Raiders have gotten the puck in deep and battling to keep it there, chipping a lot of points out to the d-men to handle. Coach Shero played a lot of 5-man units for regular shifts! modeled on Tarasov's approach (just like Bowman flirted a bit with in Detroit a couple of decades later). This is not a New York team that'll have a couple of forwards stickhandle the puck into the offensive zone and turn the puck over trying to pass toward the net. The puck will go to the boards, behind the net, carried to the net, chipped on net, and when battling deep, tossed back to the point. Look at the first line in combo with the top pairing as a well-oiled 5-man unit:

Parise-Lindros-Ciccarelli
Lapointe-Stevens

Visualize the style of play. Similarly with the second. The third and fourth lines will be matched with the third pairing and/or some of the Top-3 Raider defensemen, as any great team can rely on its three best defensemen to handle heavy minutes come playoff time.

my forward lines each have superb defensive players like Lindsay, Lach, Bun Cook, Tkaczuk, Aurie, Westwick, and Davidson to disrupt them.
Your team has positionally-sound forwards but let's not be blinded by Lindsay's exceptional physicalty: several of the Plains forwards simply aren't that tough. To use a football metaphor: they are cornerbacks rather than linebackers, facing running backs instead of wide receivers. Lach was a 5'9 playmaker who had determination and hockey sense to be successful defensively against many puck carriers, though he had a lot of injuries, likely due to the rough play and hard checking he faced. Raiders' centres can plow through if not bowl over Lach. It's a mismatch in the physicality dep't. (Crosby too.) Your team has the playmaking excellence at centre ice but the defensive ability of those centres against a surging Brind'amour, Lindros and Gilmour is questionable (not to mention the open ice hits your smaller centres will be susceptible to trying to play the puck over the middle). As for Aurie, he was small even for his time, but "Little Dempsey" does have determination, commitment and willingness to tough it out, getting into traffic, but really not going to physically manhandle the Raiders centers. At least he gets into the mess, unlike Bun Cook, who was a passer whose skating ability and hard work helped him thrive. Bun is NO Bill Cook by what I have come across. Bun is physically strong and tough? That is not his game. I grant that Tkaczuk is a bull on skates like Lindsay and the Plains fourth line wingers Westwick and Davidson are presumably going to have limited minutes unless the Plains will play a more 4-line system game like Shero implemented. Westwick was a puckhandlin' rover whose success defensively comes from positional play and skating not from physicality and toughness (looks like Mike Myers in his photo) and Davidson "played the game cleanly" who at best is a good checker because of his positioning but I really dunno enough to get a clear sense of his ability to play the body. So, to recap, of the defensive forwards you mention:

physical, tough, strong Plains forwards: Lindsay, Tkachuk
tough but perhaps not strong physically: Davidson, Aurie
NOT physical or strong: Lach, Bun Cook, Westwick

Of the Plains defensive-talented forwards, only 2-4 of them can match the physicality of the Raiders. (Of course Bill Cook is physically strong but he wasn't mentioned among the Plains forwards who'll stop the Raiders forwards from owning the boards and surges toward the net)

The Raiders' contention that they have the definitive special teams advantage is downright laughable.
No time to address this at the moment. Let's just say for now that we disagree on the effectiveness of Lach and Bun Cook on the penalty kill against Raiders' physical, surging forwards. And Aurie won't always be available to pk if he is as willing to fight as the quote you provided suggests because he'll be sitting in the box himself, provoked by NY pests and physical play.

Nalyd Psycho
11-20-2007, 04:43 AM
Saying Lach and Cook were not tough is ridiculous, both were warriors.

But, ultimately this is about Lindsay vs Hasek. New York does an excellent job building around Hasek, and he's a player who can lead you to the promised land. When he's on, he gets into his opponent's head and makes them believe they can't win. If he can see shots, he can stop them. The way to beat New York is to take the fight to Hasek, crash the net, talk smack and gets some garbage goals. Get the psychological edge. And Lindsay is one of the best possible fits for that role. Stevens will have his hands full sheltering Hasek. If Lindsay fails, Portage falls. If Lindsay can break the Dominator's Mystique, New York falls.

VanIslander
11-20-2007, 05:20 AM
Saying Lach and Cook were not tough is ridiculous, both were warriors
We are talking about BUN Cook (of course Bill Cook was tough and physical).

I just haven't read the same historical accounts, though I read what has been linked around here.

Everything I've read about Lach and Bun Cook seems to suggest they were NOT physical warriors (not able to prevent a big, strong forward from surging to the net, nor knock players off the puck, nor dominate the boards, etc), though of course they have work ethic, determination and good positional play.

Nalyd Psycho
11-20-2007, 05:26 AM
We are talking about BUN Cook (of course Bill Cook was tough and physical).

I just haven't read the same historical accounts, though I read what has been linked around here.

Everything I've read about Lach and Bun Cook seems NOT a physical warrior, though of course they have work ethic, determination and good positional play.
Lach is noted as a guy who would play through any sort of injury, he wasn't big and strong, but is very tough, I've always viewed him as a more skilled Gilmour, both spark plugs who willfully bite off more than they could chew. Bun Cook from what I've gathered was a digger and what he offered the Bread line was his ability to do the dirty work in the corners. Bill did the dirty work in the crease and Bun in the corners.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-20-2007, 09:22 AM
Lach is noted as a guy who would play through any sort of injury, he wasn't big and strong, but is very tough, I've always viewed him as a more skilled Gilmour, both spark plugs who willfully bite off more than they could chew. Bun Cook from what I've gathered was a digger and what he offered the Bread line was his ability to do the dirty work in the corners. Bill did the dirty work in the crease and Bun in the corners.

Yup. I'll corroborate this with some quotes later.

VanIslander
11-20-2007, 05:33 PM
"Tough" has many meanings.

Bun Cook and Lach are on the Plains penalty kill and these forwards sure seem not to have the size nor physical strength to knock off the puck, check or significantly slow down a surging Lindros or Foligno. A small point. That's what I meant when I said they are like cornerbacks taking on running backs.

Lack is a 5'9 playmaker who is tough in that he took checks and played through injuries but whom I can't find one piece of evidence that he played the body, threw checks himself!

Bun Cook (younger brother of the tough Bill Cook) was a fancy passer and yet he's a Plains penalty killer.

Look, my point isn't that these are all that bad, but that (a) they would have trouble handling the size and physicality of rushing Raiders on the pp and; (b) Brind'amour, Gilmour and Luce are better penalty killers, RENOWNED for that aspect of their game.

Until evidence is displayed of Bun and Lach's penalty killing or checking prowess, it'll seem like they are not elite penalty killers.

My claim stands: The Raiders have a competitive advantage in this series with special teams play.

BM67
11-20-2007, 10:16 PM
For Bun Cook see http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=8959305&postcount=1095

For Elmer Lach we have http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsMember.jsp?mem=p196606&type=Player&page=bio&list=ByName#photo

and

Lach was a passer extraordinaire, an offensive for, but Dick Irvin Sr. lauded his defensive abilities: "Lach was the only player I knew who could check four ways - forecheck, backcheck, and both sides of the rink as well." - Ultimate Hockey

How much advantage does a 5'11", 177 lbs. Doug Gilmour have over a 5'10", 165 lbs. Elmer Lach?

VanIslander
11-20-2007, 10:59 PM
How much advantage does a 5'11", 177 lbs. Doug Gilmour have over a 5'10", 165 lbs. Elmer Lach?
Lach was ever the best defensive forward in the league? if there had been a Selke award he would have won it?

Raiders penalty killing forwards were brilliant (not merely good) at that, and Raiders' powerplay crease crashers (as well as those who could muscle toward the net) and pp defensemen are better.

The difference in special teams seems obvious to me. *shrug* I have said more than enough on the matter and those who read the posts can decide for themselves either way.

God Bless Canada
11-21-2007, 02:26 PM
Lach would be an exceptional penalty killer, one of the best in the draft. You don't have to be physical to be a top-notch penalty killing centre. Ron Francis was one of the best. He didn't hit. And if you want a smaller guy (for those with the hard-on for size), look at Adam Oates. 5'11". Didn't hit. But great hockey sense and anticipation. A few guys around here have compared Oates with Lach (although I think Lach was better). Lach will have no problems being one of the best penalty killers in the draft. Is Lach as physical as Gilmour? No. But I'll argue he's smarter. That counts.

Size is only an issue for those who allow it to become an issue. I watched five-foot-six Theo Fleury become one of the best players in the league for a decade, playing a fearless brand of hockey. He survived. So will Portage's players.

I could care less if Lindsay was 5'7": the guy's the second-best LW of all-time, he's as strong as an ox, and he's one of the most competitive players of all-time. For my money, he's the best player in this series, and it's by a fair margin. A better player than at least a third of those drafted ahead of him. Portage's players are as tough as nails, and they're fearless.

The question is whether they can crack the New York system. Most of the forwards are tough and physical. The Raiders' top three on defence is the best in the draft. And they're backstopped by a goalie who, when he's on, is the most unbeatable in the draft. Size is not an issue.

VanIslander
11-21-2007, 06:54 PM
Lach would be an exceptional penalty killer, one of the best in the draft
:amazed: exceptional? :amazed: one of the best of all time? ...

:help: please provide evidence of his superior penalty killing ability

this is very frustrating

... aw forget it... the bias in favour of old timers based on little evidence has now outweighed the bias against

VanIslander
11-21-2007, 06:59 PM
If the Raiders special teams won't be more effective than the Plains' special teams then New York will loose the series for sure.

You decide.

vancityluongo
11-21-2007, 07:26 PM
One small, small, minor thing I noticed: VanI, you have Parise on the right side for your PK. Might wanna switch that up. Other then that, I see a close series, with a lot of OT games.

VanIslander
11-21-2007, 07:35 PM
One small, small, minor thing I noticed: VanI, you have Parise on the right side for your PK. Might wanna switch that up.
penalty kill units listed as centre-winger-defense-defense

Brind'amour listed first as the face-off man on the second unit.

vancityluongo
11-21-2007, 07:39 PM
penalty kill units listed as centre-winger-defense-defense

Brind'amour listed first as the face-off man on the second unit.

Ah okay, gotcha.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-21-2007, 09:36 PM
Lach was ever the best defensive forward in the league? if there had been a Selke award he would have won it?

Raiders penalty killing forwards were brilliant (not merely good) at that, and Raiders' powerplay crease crashers (as well as those who could muscle toward the net) and pp defensemen are better.

The difference in special teams seems obvious to me. *shrug* I have said more than enough on the matter and those who read the posts can decide for themselves either way.

I don't need to reiterate word-for-word what BM67 posted, but suffice it to say, when a hard-ass coach like Dick Irvin values a 2-time Art Ross winner like Lach more for his defense than his offense, he must be pretty spectacular in his own end.

From the '51 playoffs:

Canadiens were sparked by Richard, while Elmer Lach checked hard and Ken Mosdell, Floyd Curry, rookie Eddie Mazur, Paul Meger, Paul Masnick, Doug Harvey, Butch Bouchard, Tom Johnson, Bud MacPherson, Billy Reay and last but far from least, Gerry McNeil, were outstanding in a cause that was not to be theirs.

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/hockey/kids/024003-119.01-e.php?hockey_id_nbr=123

Why mention that about Lach and not about the likes of great checkers like Mosdell, Harvey, and Johnson if he hadn't been especially good at it?

From Golden Ice: The Greatest Teams In Hockey History, describing a playoff match-up from '46:

Elmer Lach, who was regarded as the number-two center in the league after Bill Cowley, took care of the ratings by crashing the Bruin, Cowley, to the ice with a heavy body check. Cowley left the rink with a compound fracture of the wrist.

From the same series:

"In a violent rush," commented Kerr N. Petrie in the New York Herald Tribune, "Elmer Lach smashed through the Rangers' defense and forced the opening. Blake salvaged the puck and will remember the game it won for many years to come."

And now a word from an opponent who should know plenty about Lach, courtesy of a nice little uncut interview on the Hockey's Greatest Era: 1942-67 DVD:

Elmer was a very good hockey player to play against because you didn't have to worry too much about any dirty deals or anything like that. Except once in awhile, at the beginning you'd face off and he'd have a saying, "Hi there, how are you?" and I'd say "Hi Elmer, how are you?", the puck would drop and *BINGO* I'd get nailed and I'd say "Ohhh Elmer, is that how it's gonna be?" (laughs)...but he was a sound hockey player, very sound, both defensively and offensively...we always played against each other too.

- Milt Schmidt

So you want the voters to believe that Lach couldn't hang with the Raiders, who outside of Lindros don't have near as much "surging power" on offense as you make them out to have (your forwards are generally more scrappy than juggernautish, as are mine outside of Bill Cook), but he could level a player as tough as Schmidt?

Really, the man lined up regularly against Milt, and earned his high praise for his defensive ability. Doug Gilmour isn't going to scare or overpower him, not by a long shot.

Finally, I have to take issue with your contention that your PP crease crashers and defensemen are any better than mine. Provided we're giving each era equal emphasis (which to me is expected in an All-Time Draft), I don't suffer at all in comparison.

Bill Cook > Eric Lindros. He is. Deal. Cook wasn't as physically dominant as Lindros (though still a very powerful PF), but he was a more prolific scorer, better leader, and a better clutch player.

Lindsay > Ciccarelli. This isn't even close in any respect, nor should it require explanation.

Aurie = Andreychuk. And really, everywhere else but on the PP, Aurie's better. As I showed in my earlier quote, Aurie always set up shop in front of the oppostion's net, and could handle defensemen 40-50 pounds heavier. Considering his scoring was more impressive than Andreychuk's and they both took up the same office, I'd say this is a wash.

Your offense isn't intimidating. In fact, I'd say that you spent so many of your higher picks on shoring up the defensive aspect of your team that you neglected filling out your wings adequately. In all honesty, I can say that my 3rd line wingers are better than your 1st line wingers, and your centers aren't of a high enough caliber to compensate.

As for PP defensemen, I have Didier Pitre on the point, the 3rd highest scorer in NHA history (behind only Lalonde and Malone in goals and points), owner of a renowned and fearsome shot; Eddie Gerard, a puck distributor extraordinaire and the NHA's all-time assist leader; Sprague Cleghorn, the 2nd highest scoring defenseman of his era; and Eddie Ivanov, a defenseman so effective on offense that he could allow Tarasov to experiment with his system and subsequently become the only defenseman in Olympic history to win "Top Forward" honours.

Scoring from the back end is not going to be a problem. My only downfall would be if the voters chose to give greater weight to different eras, as is often the case with Original 6 players.

pappyline
11-21-2007, 09:39 PM
I love that Schmidt quote on Lach.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-21-2007, 09:43 PM
I love that Schmidt quote on Lach.

Haha, me too. Milt Schmidt's one helluva storyteller.

I picked up the DVD for just $6.99 (you should be able to find it at any music store that sells DVDs), and besides the documentary itself, there are 45 minute uncut interviews with Schmidt, Lach, Beliveau and Lindsay as extras. Great bang for my buck.

MXD
11-21-2007, 09:47 PM
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/hockey/kids/024003-119.01-e.php?hockey_id_nbr=123

Why mention that about Lach and not about the likes of great checkers like Mosdell, Harvey, and Johnson if he hadn't been especially good at it?



You have a point there, but I can somewhat answer for part of the question : Tom Johnson wasn't exactly good at this point of his career ; from legendsofhockey.

Johnson stepped into a starting role with the Habs in 1950-1951 and impressed them with his eagerness and durability in playing all 70 regular-season games. He was, however, vulnerable to common rookie mistakes such as hasty decision-making and taking unwise penalties.

As evidenced by his MUCH higher PIM's for that year.

That doesn't explain why they give a precision about Lach, but it can explain why Johnson didn't get any. This was the twilight of Lach's career, so maybe checking was the thing he could do with the most effectiveness. This said... considering the rather good season he had that year, and the excellent one he had thereafter, we can safely assume it wasn't the case.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-21-2007, 09:50 PM
You have a point there, but I can somewhat answer for part of the question : Tom Johnson wasn't exactly good at this point of his career ; from legendsofhockey.

Ahh, very interesting. Johnson's the type I'd have just assumed to be sturdy and reliable throughout his career.

Thanks for the insight.

pappyline
11-21-2007, 09:56 PM
Haha, me too. Milt Schmidt's one helluva storyteller.

I picked up the DVD for just $6.99 (you should be able to find it at any music store that sells DVDs), and besides the documentary itself, there are 45 minute uncut interviews with Schmidt, Lach, Beliveau and Lindsay as extras. Great bang for my buck.
I already have it. I live in the Boston area at present & I don't think they realize what an incredible resource Milt is. Somebody needs to sit down withh Milt & a recorder & write a book.

They did do neat interview show here a few year's ago with Orr, Park & Bourque who all crossed paths on the B's defense. Too bad Eddie Shore was not available.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-21-2007, 10:01 PM
I already have it. I live in the Boston area at present & I don't think they realize what an incredible resource Milt is. Somebody needs to sit down withh Milt & a recorder & write a book.

Absolutely. Too bad there isn't much demand for this type of thing among the general public. It'd be nice if there were some sort of special archival society to preserve recollections like his for posterity. Like legendsofhockey, but a little more thorough.

They did do neat interview show here a few year's ago with Orr, Park & Bourque who all crossed paths on the B's defense. Too bad Eddie Shore was not available.

Sounds compelling. I don't suppose you have it online?

pappyline
11-21-2007, 10:23 PM
Absolutely. Too bad there isn't much demand for this type of thing among the general public. It'd be nice if there were some sort of special archival society to preserve recollections like his for posterity. Like legendsofhockey, but a little more thorough.



Sounds compelling. I don't suppose you have it online?
Nope. wish I did. AS I remember, the theme that came through was that their coaches gave them free rein to go on the attack.

God Bless Canada
11-21-2007, 10:30 PM
:amazed: exceptional? :amazed: one of the best of all time? ...

:help: please provide evidence of his superior penalty killing ability

this is very frustrating

... aw forget it... the bias in favour of old timers based on little evidence has now outweighed the bias against
I would say that the statements posted by pappy and BM, especially the testimony from one of the true all-time greats (Milt Schmidt, who knew a thing or two about great all-round play) is pretty good for evidence. He was a stellar two-way player with great hockey sense. THN had him in their top 100. When underrated players are discussed in the History of Hockey section, Lach's name is one of the first that comes up.

I don't think there's any bias towards old-time players. In fact, I still say there's a bias towards current or recent players, because those are the ones we've seen. It's diminishing, but it's still there.

VanIslander
11-21-2007, 11:55 PM
Raiders g.m. VanIslander is quoted by unnamed sources to have given up any hope of winning the cup and quits before his board can fire him, but not before he fires coach Shero for delivering an average regular season for a coach expected to win nearly 80% of the games. A scrub assistant coach takes over the team.

"This is not my year," the outgoing g.m. has stated. "Perhaps I should just go back to the minors where I belong."

shawnmullin
11-22-2007, 12:37 AM
Geez you'd think the voting was over :P

EagleBelfour
11-22-2007, 06:56 AM
Raiders g.m. VanIslander is quoted by unnamed sources to have given up any hope of winning the cup and quits before his board can fire him, but not before he fires coach Shero for delivering an average regular season for a coach expected to win nearly 80% of the games. A scrub assistant coach takes over the team.

"This is not my year," the outgoing g.m. has stated. "Perhaps I should just go back to the minors where I belong."

So who's your coach now? In my opinion Reggie Dunlop is the obvious choice there. The guy knows a thing or two on motivation.

vancityluongo
11-22-2007, 07:36 PM
So who's your coach now? In my opinion Reggie Dunlop is the obvious choice there. The guy knows a thing or two on motivation.

I think Valeri Bure should be his coach. :p:

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-22-2007, 09:11 PM
Raiders g.m. VanIslander is quoted by unnamed sources to have given up any hope of winning the cup and quits before his board can fire him, but not before he fires coach Shero for delivering an average regular season for a coach expected to win nearly 80% of the games. A scrub assistant coach takes over the team.

"This is not my year," the outgoing g.m. has stated. "Perhaps I should just go back to the minors where I belong."

Oh man...I haven't even started with the case for my team strategy, defense, or goaltender yet - all of which seem to have been overlooked or grossly underestimated so far.

At least wait for the games to start before giving up. ;)

Sturminator
11-23-2007, 04:10 AM
Lach would be an exceptional penalty killer, one of the best in the draft. You don't have to be physical to be a top-notch penalty killing centre. Ron Francis was one of the best. He didn't hit. And if you want a smaller guy (for those with the hard-on for size), look at Adam Oates. 5'11". Didn't hit. But great hockey sense and anticipation. A few guys around here have compared Oates with Lach (although I think Lach was better). Lach will have no problems being one of the best penalty killers in the draft. Is Lach as physical as Gilmour? No. But I'll argue he's smarter. That counts.

Size is only an issue for those who allow it to become an issue. I watched five-foot-six Theo Fleury become one of the best players in the league for a decade, playing a fearless brand of hockey. He survived. So will Portage's players.

I agree with you on the size issue vis-a-vis the effectiveness of checking/penalty killing forwards and I do believe that Elmer Lach was an excellent two-way player. I'm not entirely convinced that he's one of the top penalty killers of all-time, however, not because of a lack of skill on his part, but simply because there are a lot of really great ones out there. Bryan Trottier is arguably the best 2-way center of all time and I'm not sure I'd consider him one of the top penalty killing centers simply because there are so many defensive specialists out there.

Lach on both the 1st unit powerplay and 2nd unit PK may be a small issue in terms of icetime as we go deeper into the playoffs. For defensemen, I don't see double duty on special teams as much of an issue (it is inevitable, to begin with), but forwards seeing that much ice can wear down over time.

I could care less if Lindsay was 5'7": the guy's the second-best LW of all-time, he's as strong as an ox, and he's one of the most competitive players of all-time. For my money, he's the best player in this series, and it's by a fair margin. A better player than at least a third of those drafted ahead of him. Portage's players are as tough as nails, and they're fearless.

I honestly think Dominik Hasek is the best player in the series, and by a fair margin. I like Lindsay a lot and definitely think he's the best skater, but there are very few players in history who can by themselves change the game the way Hasek can.

The question is whether they can crack the New York system. Most of the forwards are tough and physical. The Raiders' top three on defence is the best in the draft. And they're backstopped by a goalie who, when he's on, is the most unbeatable in the draft. Size is not an issue.

I agree that Portage's size is not really an issue, though injuries may be. The Raiders have some serious hitters in that lineup and Elmer Lach (who will lead all Portage forwards in icetime) was a guy who got banged up a lot. Lach was a warrior, but the injuries did take their toll. Honestly, I wonder if he's not getting a bit overrated as a scorer here, as well.

After the war, Lach only really had three good scoring seasons - 47-48 (his Art Ross year), 51-52 (3rd in league scoring) and 45-46 (7th in league scoring - though this is still a somewhat tainted year as many returning veterans like Milt Schmidt didn't play the whole season and/or took a while to adjust to playing NHL hockey again). Other than that, Lach doesn't appear in the top-10 league scorers other than in the three war years. To make matters worse, Lach's playoff scoring after the war is quite underwhelming besides his big year in the 45-46 (which is, as I said, only sort of a postwar season). From what I know of Elmer's career, he suffered serious injuries in 46-47 and 48-49, the second of which took a couple of years to fully heal.

Seriously, Elmer Lach is obviously a great player, but he is not a man without certain question marks. As 1st line centers go, at the very least I would take Richard, Lalonde, Bentley, Beliveau, Lemieux, Trottier, Esposito, Sakic, Mikita, Messier, Taylor, Yzerman, Apps, Gretzky, Morenz, Fedorov and Malone before him. An argument can also be made, in my opinion, that Boucher, Keon, Ratelle (underrated), Cowley and Abel are all on about the same level. The presence of a number of great 2nd line centers (Schmidt, Kennedy, Stastny, et al) also throws things off a bit when looking at 1st liners.

I've got Lach somewhere around the 21st - 22nd greatest center in NHL history, no higher. I'm not trying to pick on the guy, but I also don't want to see him grossly overrated. The fact that Lach's career benefitted considerably from the war (and that he was curiously one of the few young guys who didn't serve) seems to be something few people deem it necessary to mention. Lach won his Hart trophy in 44-45, arguably the single most tainted year in NHL history (it's up there with 29-30); he was 27 years old.

Elmer Lach is a serviceable #1 center, but let's not make him out to be more than he is. Lach between Lindsay and Cook is a frightening line. Lach between Lindsay and Pitre is in the bottom half of ATD first lines, in my opinion. Portage will need to generate a decent amount of secondary scoring because the top line isn't that great and New York's #1 shutdown units (plus Hasek) are that great. Of course, the Plains do have the resources to generate secondary scoring - including 2/3rds of the Bread line, a fantastic 3rd line and solid puck-moving defensemen on the 2nd and 3rd pairings.

I think this will be a very, very close series that may well come down to coaching (both coaches are outstanding) and the play of depth players on both sides. I like both of these teams a lot, and still haven't decided which squad I think will win the 7th game in New York.

MXD
11-23-2007, 09:33 AM
A bit more time on my hand to have some quick thoughts...

- I don't know if this point was brought so far... Anyways, PLP has a wonderful 2-way corps of forwards, but they'll need some secondary scoring for sure as the 1st line is nothing special, even with Lindsay on it : while Lach will be very good a preventing the Raiders from scoring at times, he will really need some help from the 2nd line, which features the best 2nd liner at RW in this draft (Bill Cook) and... not exactly the best C when it comes to playoffs (Crosby). This said, Cook can create offense on his own, so the need of a great center for Cook is somewhat diminished. And let's not forget Aurie and Tonelli either, and while they could use a better C in the offensive side of the game(but both could be 2nd liners, either) , it's a line that could score a few goals here and there in this round, even if it might be really ugly goals in the end.

- I'd consider Oates a better playmaker than Lach by a significant margin : this said, Lach was a much more complete player than Oates. PLP squad is better off with Lach, as there would be a huge hole in the middle with Oates/Crosby.

- Disagree with the "so-so defense" argument in PLP. When facing a team with Lindros on, Cleghorne and Stewart are two guys I'd really like to have in my lineup (and to a lesser extent, Pat Egan as well, in spite of what I said when DD drafted him). I'm a bit perplex with Ivanov being paired with Stewart, but it's not like the guy can't play, either.

- I already expressed my views on Cheevers. Chabot will have to see some rubber in this round.

- I know there are some big fans of Joe Watson here, but I just don't think he brings excellent value on a 3rd pairing. Not bad value - just what we would expect from a 6th D-Men. This said - I like the value Gusev brings on the 3rd pairing.

- Let's see how Ogrodnick will fare against the physical play of Bill Cook and Larry Aurie... and their superior skills as well.

- I love the Raiders 4th line. Extremely cohesive unit.

- Everything has been said about Hasek. The best player in this round. This said, pray for no ankle injuries, as Peeters might be the worst player of the whole draft when it comes to playoff goaltending (well, after Bob Froese). The columnists in New York don't want Hasek injured for sure.

- My hypothesis about this round is a bit weird, but there is it : If you think Lorne Chabot cannot backstop PLP to AT LEAST one win, go for Raiders. He WILL see some action in this round - something like 2 games if it goes in 7. Cheevers gives clutch goaltending, but he needs a backup to bring his A-game.

John Flyers Fan
11-23-2007, 11:34 AM
I think New York probably has the worst group of wingers in the ATD, but he has an absolute stud goalie, three big time defenseman .. and is strong up the middle.

I think at times if New York is struggling to score that should look to move one of Gilmour or Brind'amour to LW .. as both have played wing at times in the past.

Spitfire11
11-23-2007, 12:28 PM
... aw forget it... the bias in favour of old timers based on little evidence has now outweighed the bias against

You're right it has....especially for pre-NHL guys, but Lach is the "real deal". He's been underrated for a long time and it's nice to see him get some respect in this match-up.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-23-2007, 03:23 PM
I agree with you on the size issue vis-a-vis the effectiveness of checking/penalty killing forwards and I do believe that Elmer Lach was an excellent two-way player. I'm not entirely convinced that he's one of the top penalty killers of all-time, however, not because of a lack of skill on his part, but simply because there are a lot of really great ones out there. Bryan Trottier is arguably the best 2-way center of all time and I'm not sure I'd consider him one of the top penalty killing centers simply because there are so many defensive specialists out there.

Not to diminish my team, but I agree with you here. I don't think Lach is one of the very best PKing forwards, but he can more than hold his own, even in an ATD. Elite centers may pose some problems, but I don't surmise Gilmour or Brind'Amour will (Tkaczuk will be out against Lindros at every opportunity, given the size mismatch).

Our advantage here is being a dangerous shorthanded threat, and being teamed with Aurie, also a stellar two-way player, the Raiders will have to be wary of odd-man rushes.

Lach on both the 1st unit powerplay and 2nd unit PK may be a small issue in terms of icetime as we go deeper into the playoffs. For defensemen, I don't see double duty on special teams as much of an issue (it is inevitable, to begin with), but forwards seeing that much ice can wear down over time.

Having a very capable offensive 4th line comes into play here. They'll be given a regular rotation, and lighten the load of the top 6. This is a team that was built on getting offensive contributions from every line.

Also, he's on the 2nd unit, and so probably won't get as much time as the 1st, especially if Lindros is the focal point of their attack.

I honestly think Dominik Hasek is the best player in the series, and by a fair margin. I like Lindsay a lot and definitely think he's the best skater, but there are very few players in history who can by themselves change the game the way Hasek can.

Hasek was a monster when on his game. But as Nalyd pointed out, Hasek can be taken out of his comfort zone when he's crashed and trash talked, which is absolutely Lindsay's forte.

Also, I'm not so sure why everyone is giving Hasek such a huge playoff advantage over Cheevers. During the regular season, naturally, I can see the Dominator getting the easy vote. But playoffs?

Cheevers was the consummate playoff goaltender. Won two Cups and went to two Finals (where he only lost to arguably the greatest team of all-time), with a record of 53-34 and a 2.69 GAA - and this on a very offensively-oriented team, and despite his mantra of not caring how many goals were scored against him as long as his team scored one more. A goaltender Tretiak called the best he had ever seen, if memory serves.

Hasek won one Cup, and went to one Finals (losing to a team considerably less talented than the late-70s Habs), with a record of 53-39 and a GAA of 2.02 - and this on teams that focused intently on responsible play, during the dead puck era.

To me, the playoffs are a completely different story, and Cheevers isn't outclassed by anyone there. The winning percentage speaks for itself.

I agree that Portage's size is not really an issue, though injuries may be. The Raiders have some serious hitters in that lineup and Elmer Lach (who will lead all Portage forwards in icetime) was a guy who got banged up a lot. Lach was a warrior, but the injuries did take their toll. Honestly, I wonder if he's not getting a bit overrated as a scorer here, as well.

Lach is no more injury-prone than Lindros, and probably less so. The numbers bear that out; Lach played 5 complete seasons...Lindros never played one complete season.

The Plains have as many nasty defensemen for Lindros to be worried about as the Raiders do for Lach. The main difference between them, as I see it, is that Lindros will milk his injuries for all they're worth and then blame his team doctors, while Lach will just do whatever he can to get back and play:

In the last game of the 1948-49 season against Detroit, an opponent's elbow broke Lach's jaw. Lach first tried to downplay the injury because he desperately wanted to be ready for the upcoming semifinal series with the Red Wings in the playoffs. The fact that he could barely open his mouth to speak was an obvious sign of the severity of his injury, but that didn't stop him from trying to get a plastic helmet/mask device approved by NHL president Clarence Campbell. His bid failed, but his reputation as one of the game's toughest competitors was intact.

http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsMember.jsp?mem=p196606&type=Player&page=bio&list=#photo

Incidentally, the player who wrecked Lach's jaw was none other than Black Jack. So the Big E has that to look forward to.

Seriously, Elmer Lach is obviously a great player, but he is not a man without certain question marks. As 1st line centers go, at the very least I would take Richard, Lalonde, Bentley, Beliveau, Lemieux, Trottier, Esposito, Sakic, Mikita, Messier, Taylor, Yzerman, Apps, Gretzky, Morenz, Fedorov and Malone before him. An argument can also be made, in my opinion, that Boucher, Keon, Ratelle (underrated), Cowley and Abel are all on about the same level. The presence of a number of great 2nd line centers (Schmidt, Kennedy, Stastny, et al) also throws things off a bit when looking at 1st liners.

I've got Lach somewhere around the 21st - 22nd greatest center in NHL history, no higher. I'm not trying to pick on the guy, but I also don't want to see him grossly overrated. The fact that Lach's career benefitted considerably from the war (and that he was curiously one of the few young guys who didn't serve) seems to be something few people deem it necessary to mention. Lach won his Hart trophy in 44-45, arguably the single most tainted year in NHL history (it's up there with 29-30); he was 27 years old.

I generally agree with your ranking of Lach all-time (around #20), but let's not diminish Lach's war years too much. He still put up better numbers in '44-'45 than Cowley, who was considered the best point-producer in the league, war or not, and his teammate Richard. His Art Ross after the war in '47-'48, when all the best players were playing in the NHL, should put that business to rest.

Elmer Lach is a serviceable #1 center, but let's not make him out to be more than he is. Lach between Lindsay and Cook is a frightening line. Lach between Lindsay and Pitre is in the bottom half of ATD first lines, in my opinion. Portage will need to generate a decent amount of secondary scoring because the top line isn't that great and New York's #1 shutdown units (plus Hasek) are that great. Of course, the Plains do have the resources to generate secondary scoring - including 2/3rds of the Bread line, a fantastic 3rd line and solid puck-moving defensemen on the 2nd and 3rd pairings.

Exactly - my team is based on a balanced attack.

I don't know if you're giving Pitre his due, though. His NHA numbers are third only to Malone and Lalonde's (and he outscored them both in '15-'16, in the regular season and playoffs, when leading the Habs to their first Cup), and if you have them in the top 20 centers, it's hard to believe that you'd have such a low regard for Cannonball.

NHA All-Time

Malone: GP 124 G 179 A 26 PTS 205

Lalonde: GP 108 G 163 A 19 PTS 182

Pitre: GP 127 G 156 A 21 PTS 177

He's a big man with a big shot, and an extremely fast skater with a great touch around the net - and the dominant RW of the '10s.

He's no Bill Cook, but he's still a legit first line winger in this draft, IMO.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-23-2007, 04:12 PM
- Disagree with the "so-so defense" argument in PLP. When facing a team with Lindros on, Cleghorne and Stewart are two guys I'd really like to have in my lineup (and to a lesser extent, Pat Egan as well, in spite of what I said when DD drafted him).

I'm not sure what's prompted the quotes about my defense either. Unfamiliarity, maybe? I think my defense can hang with any in the draft, again provided that we're giving equal weight to each era.

I'm convinced that I have the best defenseman in this series. I love Stevens, but the fact is that Cleghorn was widely considered the best defenseman in the world at the time, and put it all together at both ends of the rink during his prime as few others ever have, something Stevens never did. Even in his offensive prime, SS wasn't as prolific as Cleghorn. What's more, I essentially have a Stevens on my second pairing in Stewart.

And Lapointe? Great defenseman all-around. But was he better than Eddie Gerard?

The same Eddie Gerard who is the all-time NHA assists leader?

The same Eddie Gerard who as a defenseman captained the Senators dynasty to three Cups, a feat only matched by Potvin and Stevens?

The same Eddie Gerard whose previous partnership with Cleghorn was called an "an impenetrable defensive wall in (their) own zone"?

The same Eddie Gerard who was deemed worthy of the HHOF's very first induction class?

The same Eddie Gerard who, when Harry Cameron went down to injury in '21-'22 and the St.Pats were allowed to choose any defenseman in the league to replace him, was chosen over the likes of Buck Boucher and Sprague Cleghorn? And who played so well during that reserve duty that Lester Patrick (the opposing coach) refused to allow him to continue the next game?

I'd give Gerard the edge over Lapointe. An unpopular opinion, but I doubt Lapointe was ever as highly regarded in his day as Gerard was in his.

I'm a bit perplex with Ivanov being paired with Stewart, but it's not like the guy can't play, either.

Check out my 2nd line. Given Foster Hewitt's likening of the Bread Line's puck control to the '70s Soviets, I thought I might use them in conjunction with Stewart and Ivanov fairly regularly as a 5 man unit. Lots of room for creativity. Ivanov was teamed with the physical defensive stalwart Ragulin to form what has been referred to as one of the best Russian defense pairings ever. Since Ragulin's strong play allowed Ivanov more freedom in the o-zone, I figured Stewart's defensive acumen and mobility would allow him to do the same.

My first line will be more of a conventional North-South configuration. Lindsay the physical player creating havoc on the boards while making his standard offensive contributions, Lach the speedy two-way puck-distributor, and Pitre the flashy goal-scorer. Seemed to work for the Punch Line; I mean, Pitre's no Richard, but Blake's no Lindsay either.

Nalyd Psycho
11-23-2007, 04:53 PM
You're right it has....especially for pre-NHL guys, but Lach is the "real deal". He's been underrated for a long time and it's nice to see him get some respect in this match-up.

What? Sturminator and I have been told guys like Tommy Phillips and Bruce Stuart can't score at a 3rd/4th line level in the ATD despite being among the best in the world during their day.

MXD
11-23-2007, 04:55 PM
What? Sturminator and I have been told guys like Tommy Phillips and Bruce Stuart can't score at a 3rd/4th line level in the ATD despite being among the best in the world during their day.

I never said Tom Phillipps wouldn't score : I only said he would brings too much PIM's to be used effectively on a checking line (if you were referring to my comments).

I realize now that my last entry is as far as possible from NY-PLP matchup. This thread has so much replies, it should be renamed "ATD - Gossip Circle"

Sturminator
11-23-2007, 05:04 PM
I don't have a low regard for Pitre. I think he's an above-average 2-way 2nd line talent who you got for a nice price - not on the same level as Malone or Lalonde, but at least in the ballpark. "2nd line talent" doesn't mean that he can't hold a fork for you on a 1st line, only that he's not a guy who's going to carry a first line anywhere by himself. As a complementary player on a 1st line, however, Pitre is fine.

The problem is that Lindsay and Cook are both high-end 1st liners (Lindsay on the extreme high end), and their presence together could have made up for Lach being a low-end 1st line center. Substituting Pitre for Cook, however, means that Lindsay is really the only high-end 1st line player on the line. Lach is on the lower end of 1st liners at his position and Pitre is a fringe guy as 1st liners go. It adds up to a below median first line. It is not, however, a knock on Didier Pitre; he's just playing a bit above his role. As a second liner, I think he's quite underrated and again, was a nice value where you drafted him.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-23-2007, 05:12 PM
I don't have a low regard for Pitre. I think he's an above-average 2-way 2nd line talent who you got for a nice price - not on the same level as Malone or Lalonde, but at least in the ballpark. "2nd line talent" doesn't mean that he can't hold a fork for you on a 1st line, only that he's not a guy who's going to carry a first line anywhere by himself. As a complementary player on a 1st line, however, Pitre is fine.

The problem is that Lindsay and Cook are both high-end 1st liners (Lindsay on the extreme high end), and their presence together could have made up for Lach being a low-end 1st line center. Substituting Pitre for Cook, however, means that Lindsay is really the only high-end 1st line player on the line. Lach is on the lower end of 1st liners at his position and Pitre is a fringe guy as 1st liners go. It adds up to a below median first line. It is not, however, a knock on Didier Pitre; he's just playing a bit above his role. As a second liner, I think he's quite underrated and again, was a nice value where you drafted him.

I can swallow "below the median first line" (just below ;)), as long as voters don't disregard that my 2nd line makes up for it offensively, to say nothing of my bottom 6.

I'd have liked to keep Bill Cook on that 1st line, but with Pitre being available where he was and Bun Cook still on the board, I had to reevaluate. Regardless, the Lindsay-Lach-Cook combination should still see plenty of action on the PP.

Nalyd Psycho
11-23-2007, 05:18 PM
I never said Tom Phillipps wouldn't score : I only said he would brings too much PIM's to be used effectively on a checking line (if you were referring to my comments).

I realize now that my last entry is as far as possible from NY-PLP matchup. This thread has so much replies, it should be renamed "ATD - Gossip Circle"

It wasn't just you, your criticism is a legitimate one, if that situation becomes a problem, Holik is capable of stepping up.

Sturminator
11-24-2007, 01:20 AM
You're right, MXD, this thread is a bit like a sewing circle. At any rate, what Nalyd said. Once his PIMs are adjusted for third line icetime, I don't think Tommy Phillips' penalties will make him too much of a liability on a checkingline, but if it becomes an issue in the playoffs, Holik can step into that role and Phillips then makes the Adams - Dillon line even more of a force, both physically and offensively. We'll address that once Oakland has a 2nd round matchup.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-24-2007, 01:26 AM
You're right, MXD, this thread is a bit like a sewing circle. At any rate, what Nalyd said. Once his PIMs are adjusted for third line icetime, I don't think Tommy Phillips' penalties will make him too much of a liability on a checkingline, but if it becomes an issue in the playoffs, Holik can step into that role and Phillips then makes the Adams - Dillon line even more of a force, both physically and offensively. We'll address that once Oakland has a 2nd round matchup.

It's really only a sewing circle if it keeps getting fed.

Sturminator
11-24-2007, 02:13 AM
Greg Johnson told me that Brandi from the Sens board likes a good, hard forecheck.

Sturminator
11-24-2007, 04:55 AM
Oh, I should also mention, doc, that I think it pretty much goes without saying that Lindros is injury-prone. Lach's struggles are a bit less well-known, and I thought were worth pointing out considering New York's physicality.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-24-2007, 09:20 AM
Oh, I should also mention, doc, that I think it pretty much goes without saying that Lindros is injury-prone. Lach's struggles are a bit less well-known, and I thought were worth pointing out considering New York's physicality.

Ahh, fair enough.

I only wanted to make sure that people weren't being too swayed by the Raiders media machine and their boasts of being an unstoppable force of invincible übermensch. :sarcasm:

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-26-2007, 04:39 PM
Hey guys...when researching Jack Stewart over the course of this ATD, I found out he had played for my hometown Terriers, and I decided to take a look over at local Portage Centennial Arena to see if I could find him in an old team photo.

Well, I couldn't find any shots of him with his junior team, but I did unearth this little gem. Apparently, Stewart attended my alma mater and current place of employment, and played for the high school team too!

So here's a look at a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Blackjack in his awkward teen years (bottom row, far right). I'm also going to check in the PCI archives a bit over the next few days to see if I can't dig up anything else of note. Hope you like it.

Portage Collegiate Institute Hockey Team
PORTAGE HOCKEY CLUB
Winners of the W.E. Garland Trophy (1935 - 1936) Manitoba High School League


Back Row---L. McDougall, Asst. Manager; W.C. Byas, Manager; F. Kennedy, Trainer; Ade Johnson, Coach; G. Jones, President Portage Hockey Club; G. Dewar, Executive; J.R. Hamilton, Principal; Keith Stewart, Secretary Portage Hockey Club.
Second Row---J. McCullough, R. Wing; A. Smart, L. Wing; B. Osbourne, L. Wing; L. McDougall, Centre; J. Collier, R. Wing; M. Pecket, L. Wing; G. Crewson, Defence.
Bottom Row---A. Winchuk, Defence; L. Kennedy, Utility Goalkeeper; Fred Bowman, L. Wing (Capt.); Ross King, Goal; J. Stewart, Defence.
Bottom Row---Craig Stewart, Mascot.
Missing From Picture---M. Pecket, Centre; J.R. Colwill; W.C. Lowry, Executive Portage Hockey Club.

raleh
11-26-2007, 10:18 PM
Hasek shines in low scoring affair.

Ted Lindsay and Bill Cook each had shot totals in the double digits, but couldn’t get one past Vezina trophy candidate Dominik Hasek. Portage sent wave after wave of attack into the New York zone, but were stymied every time by Hasek who made 42 saves in the 1-0 shutout. After two scoreless periods Bill and Bun Cook were buzzing around the Raider net on the cycle. Bill slipped the puck through Charlie Huddy’s legs and threaded a cross ice pass to Crosby parked at the edge of the left circle. Crosby’s one time pass intended for Eddie Gerard at the point was intercepted by Doug Gilmour who was off to the races. With Sprague Cleghorn slashing his ankles the whole way, Gilmour backhanded the puck through Cheevers’ legs for the only goal of the game.

Raiders lead series 1-0

raleh
11-26-2007, 10:51 PM
Hasek Dominates again

“He’s better in warm-up than most of us would be in game seven of the Stanley cup final” said a disgusted Gerry Cheevers who made 23 saves on 24 shots and lost for the second game in a row. The game wasn’t as one sided as the series opener, but Portage did have a 33-24 edge in shots. “It’s pretty easy to stop the pucks you can see, and those guys are letting me see everything out there” said Hasek after the game. Gadsby and Stevens were phenomenal in their own end, ensuring that there were no second chances. The game winner was again scored by Doug Gilmour who took a pin point pass from Gadsby and picked the top corner from just inside the Portage blue line. Ted Lindsay was again the spark plug for Portage, recording 7 shots on goal and bloodying Rod Brind’Amour’s face with a high stick late in the third period when emotions started to boil over. “Well, what do you expect?” snarled Lindsay after being penalized for four minutes “it’s so ******* big, how can you not hit it?” The teams will now travel to Portage to play the next two games. “We have to find a way to score” said coach Toe Blake “simple as that”.

Raiders lead series 2-0

raleh
11-26-2007, 11:02 PM
Portage climbs within one

With so much fire power, it seemed to be only a matter of time before the floodgates opened for Portage. On home ice, Portage exploded for 4 goals in the second period to pull within one in the best of seven series. At the end of a scoreless first period Ted Lindsay was nailed at the blue line by New York’s Scott Stevens. As Stevens was skating away he was slashed in the back of the leg by Sprague Cleghorn. The two were exchanging words between the benches for a few seconds before the linesman stepped between them. At that moment Ted Lindsay came from seemingly nowhere and got about 4 solid punches in before Stevens was able to get his arms up. Stevens seemed stunned after the bout and the whole New York team came out flat for the second period. Once again Lindsay took matters into his own hands, scoring twice and assisting on a Bill Cook goal. John Tonelli got the fourth goal as he tipped in Cleghorn’s shot as Lindros was serving a roughing penalty. Lindros got one back in the third period, but it was too little too late as Portage won 4-1.

Raiders lead series 2-1

shawnmullin
11-26-2007, 11:19 PM
So far this is very much how I would see this series going.

I can just picture Portage as the Ottawa Senators against the Toronto Maple Leafs in the late 90s early 2000s in those first two games... WHY WON'T WE SCORE!!

This better go 7.

raleh
11-26-2007, 11:23 PM
All tied up

In a close checking affair, Portage’s power play proved to be the difference in the pivotal game four. Midway through the first period Vladimir Martinec was slapped with a controversial tripping penalty. On the ensuing power play, Elmer Lach, Bill Cook, and Ted Lindsay held the puck in the Raider zone for a minute and twenty seconds before Lindsay beat Hasek high on the blocker side off of a brilliant feed from Lach. Lach took the puck at the top of the right circle and walked in a few feet before finding Lindsay who had snuck in behind Stevens. Bill Cook made it 2-0 early in the third on a 5 on 3 power play. Cook was the beneficiary of another Lach feed, this time from behind the net. Lach hit Cook in the high slot who one timed it past Hasek for his second goal in as many games. Gerry Cheevers recorded his first shutout of the playoffs, making 18 saves along the way. The teams will now head back to New York to play game 5.

Series tied 2-2.

raleh
11-26-2007, 11:37 PM
Stewart's Heroics power la Prairie Plains

It was as emotional a game as we’ve seen in these ATD playoffs so far. General Manager VanIslander was called out by the press for his comments regarding this series. After giving up two power play goals in game 4, Van’s words were scrawled all over the local papers: “If the Raiders special teams won't be more effective than the Plains' special teams then New York will lose the series for sure”. The Raiders came out eager to defend the boss with the tone being set early by the big first line centre Eric Lindros. 4 minutes into the first period Lindros raced into the Portage zone on the fore check. Jack Stewart grabbed the puck in the corner and turned to skate with it behind his own net. Just as he turned he was demolished by Lindros. Play was whistled down because the glass was shattered. Stewart was taken off the ice on a stretcher and looked to be unconscious. The hit was deemed clean by ref Kerry Fraser, and play resumed once the glass was replaced. The game turned into a brawl from there as Lindsay and Stevens dropped the gloves for a rematch of their game three battle. Lindsay again came out on top, much to the dismay of Raider fans. The score was knotted at 0 as Hasek and Cheevers made save after save until late in the third period. In an incredible display of courage Jack Stewart was back on the ice after receiving 20 stitches on his head and face. He jumped over the boards and immediately fished the puck out of his own corner. He then threw a pass up and sent John Tonelli in on a breakaway, exposing a pinching Charlie Huddy. Tonelli fired a laser high-glove side on Hasek for what would prove to be the game winner. Bill Cook added an empty netter that was assisted by Gerry Cheevers.

Portage leads series 3-2

raleh
11-26-2007, 11:56 PM
Seventh Heaven

In a press conference before the game Eric Lindros and Scott Stevens spoke to the media about the controversy circling GM VanIslander. “Maybe it’s better that we’re on the road for this game” joked Lindros “the fans here are nicer to us then at home”. Stevens went on to say that the team stands behind VanIslander and that a loss in this series would reflect on the play of the team and not the GM’s selections. The two were also the sparkplugs for the team on the ice. On the first shift of the game Lindros delivered a crushing body check on Walt Tkaczuk, who limped off the ice in a great deal of pain. The very next shift saw Stevens catch Sidney Crosby admiring a pass to Bun Cook. Stevens laid Crosby out and play was whistled down as the young star skated to the bench shaking his head. “Welcome to the All Time League, kid” Stevens said as he skated past the Portage bench. The Raiders were rejuvenated by the two early hits and got some jump back into their step. Gilmour notched two goals and Dino Ciccarelli got another as the Raiders took a 3-0 lead into the third period. Ted Lindsay and Bill Cook answered for Portage in the third, but Hasek shut the door, making 18 saves in the final 20 minutes. Hasek has now stopped over 30 shots in all 6 games and looks every bit as good as his high draft spot would indicate.

Series tied 3-3.

raleh
11-27-2007, 12:08 AM
Do or die for Portage and New York

In front of a sold out home crowd, the Raiders entered game 7 trying to eliminate an opponent they once lead 2-0. The deciding game had a bit of everything. Lindsay and Stevens were yapping at each other all game, although both seemed wary to drop the gloves in such an important game. Cheevers was his usual brilliant self in a do or die situation. The teams played a highly entertaining, yet scoreless first period before
Ted Lindsay converted an Elmer Lach pass into 1-0 lead halfway through the second period. With the momentum on their side, Portage began to dominate the game playing the majority of the second and third periods in the New York zone. The defensive prowess of Stevens and Lapointe allowed Hasek to see all the rubber he faced however, and he stopped everything except for the lone Lindsay tally. As time was winding down it seemed as if that goal might be enough, but with 7 minutes to play Crosby coughed the puck up to Gilmour who raced up ice and fed Dave Andreychuk in the slot for the tying goal. With all roads leading to overtime New York fans started taunting Cheevers, some going as far as to throw moldy cheese on the ice. With less than a minute to play however Lindsay chipped the puck past a pinching Gadsby and raced in alone on Hasek. He cut right and fired a backhand that looked to have Hasek completely beaten. Hasek however, rolled from shoulder to shoulder at one point literally standing on his head and got the knob of his stick on the puck. It deflected out onto the stick of Gadsby, who raced up ice with it. As he stepped across the Portage blue line he fired a cross ice pass to a streaking Gilmour who buried the one timer with under 15 seconds to play. New York wins a thrilling game 7 by a score of 2-1 and moves on to the second round.

Raiders win series 4-3
Three stars: Dominik Hasek, Ted Lindsay, Bill Cook

shawnmullin
11-27-2007, 12:25 AM
Terrific job raleh.

was Shero fired or not? I'm still confused about that one.

God Bless Canada
11-27-2007, 12:30 AM
Congrats to VanI on winning a series that lived up to the hype and delivered. Looking forward to our Round 2 match-up.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-27-2007, 02:09 AM
Thanks for the terrific write-up, raleh.

Can't say I'm not disappointed, as I genuinely think I had the better-built team, but the voice of the ATD has spoken.

Congrats, VanI.

VanIslander
11-27-2007, 04:23 AM
** stunned silence **

VanIslander
11-27-2007, 04:53 AM
Raiders g.m. VanIslander is quoted by unnamed sources to have given up any hope of winning the cup and quits before his board can fire him, but not before he fires coach Shero
Unnamed sources were hasty in their rumours. How can the g.m. quit out of fear of the board of directors firing him when the g.m. OWNS the franchise? ;) The board members would be replaced in a heart beat.

No, instead VanIslander was in emergency family therapy sessions as the Vanny family copes with planning its first Christmas without mom, an emotionally trying experience, but one worked out with the support of family and friends (coach Shero must be a family friend lol).

Anyways, the g.m. is back in the office and the coach is back with the boys, and all is well. A major line shake-up is expected however, as anything goes next round.

VanIslander
11-27-2007, 05:05 AM
doctordark, i was very impressed with your participation in this all-time draft and look forward to what you put together in the future.

...The very next shift saw Stevens catch Sidney Crosby admiring a pass to Bun Cook. Stevens laid Crosby out and play was whistled down as the young star skated to the bench shaking his head. “Welcome to the All Time League, kid” Stevens said as he skated past the Portage bench.
The turning point of the series. :D

pappyline
11-27-2007, 09:32 AM
Thanks for the terrific write-up, raleh.

Can't say I'm not disappointed, as I genuinely think I had the better-built team, but the voice of the ATD has spoken.

Congrats, VanI.
Its tough to get out of that first round. Believe me I know, this is my 4th draft and I have been knocked out in the first round every time so far (always in 7 games). Hopefully I will be a little luckier in draft 8.

I thought this series was a toss up. Your team was interesting with a lot of daring picks. Better luck next time & congrats to Van who put a lot of effort into compiling his team and it paid off,

MXD
11-27-2007, 11:27 AM
I'm definitely stunned by that one. I think I had Portage in 5, seriously.

EagleBelfour
11-27-2007, 12:47 PM
I'm definitely stunned by that one. I think I had Portage in 5, seriously.

I had the Raiders in 7, in the closest serie in the ATD.

To be honest, I believe VanI selected the most intimidating first 4 picks in the last 2 ATD.

Scott Stevens - Guy Lapointe
Bill Gadsby - XXX
XXX - XXX

Dominik Hasek

I also believe the Parise-Lindros-Cicarelli isn't as bad after analysing it. Definitely better than the sum of his part.

I already said though that I was very impressed with the Portage team, but I think he had a tough break playing against the Raiders. IMO, the rookie of the year award is all yours.

VanIslander
11-27-2007, 06:17 PM
To be honest, I believe VanI selected the most intimidating first 4 picks in the last 2 ATD.

Scott Stevens - Guy Lapointe
Bill Gadsby - XXX
XXX - XXX

Dominik Hasek

I also believe the Parise-Lindros-Cicarelli isn't as bad after analysing it.
I wasn't planning to draft a third top-end defenseman but when the 4th round came around and there was Guy Lapointe! I hadda. :)

btw, if someone had drafted Shero before I did then I was prepared to trade Lapointe to get the team's coach!! Nobody won "the Lapointe Sweepstakes" as I would have called it.

vancityluongo
11-27-2007, 07:08 PM
Congrats to both teams. Portage and doctordark shouldn't be mad at all. Helluva rookie campaign, and I can see you guys winning the draft in the next little while. I did have VanI in 7, and I believe I had them 2nd in the division as well...definitely a solid team, and easily deserving of the second round.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-27-2007, 10:55 PM
I've got one question for those who voted for VanI in this series:

Had I picked Marty Barry instead of Crosby, would it have changed anything?

Nalyd Psycho
11-28-2007, 01:52 AM
I've got one question for those who voted for VanI in this series:

Had I picked Marty Barry instead of Crosby, would it have changed anything?

Yes, but.

Thing is, if I voted at a different time of day that may have changed my vote, I hummed and hawed over this one for a long time.

VanIslander
11-28-2007, 02:44 AM
Had I picked Marty Barry instead of Crosby, would it have changed anything?
You waited until after 250 picks went by before selecting your second line centre. Marty Barry went an entire round later than that!

Goaltender, top defensive pairing and top two centres usually are among the top eight rounds of drafting for an all-time team. Waiting until the end of the 9th round to select a second line centre is a bit long.

That said, it was a long series and could have gone either way. If you recall reading, I lost in the first round before on a matter of a tie vote that went down to a tiebreaker between three star selection votes!

doctordark, your team is well respected even though youh ave such a hard on for Crosby that if his career ended today, after two pro seasons, the teenager would go down in history as one of the greatest to be counted on when it mattered most. Let's hope a career hampering injury or cancer or something doesn't turn him into another non-HHOFer could've been.

This draft is about honouring history and as such isn't looking forward to what Crosby will achieve, what accomplishments he will make in the playoffs, what a legacy he will leave behind.

I'd personally love to see someone ice an all-time youth-laden FOURTH line of Ovechkin-Crosby-Hossa, instead of throwing them and Kovy and Heatley up onto one of the top two lines, getting heavy minutes in an all-time context. They haven't EARNED it yet. There are two seasons every year, the regular season and the real season, the playoffs! ... well, not entirely, but many hockey players talk about it like that sometimes, and it sure feels like that come April/May.

Anyways... if you believe Crosby should be on one of the top lines then play him there and to hell with what others think! They'll come around, eventually, in a few years. I don't like trying to make picks which are tailored to what other g.m.s like just to get their votes (no one would draft Andreychuk or Dino as 90% of comments about them are abuse). This is first and foremost about the history of hockey, and choose accordingly.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper
11-28-2007, 08:30 AM
You waited until after 250 picks went by before selecting your second line centre. Marty Barry went an entire round later than that!

Goaltender, top defensive pairing and top two centres usually are among the top eight rounds of drafting for an all-time team. Waiting until the end of the 9th round to select a second line centre is a bit long.

That said, it was a long series and could have gone either way. If you recall reading, I lost in the first round before on a matter of a tie vote that went down to a tiebreaker between three star selection votes!

doctordark, your team is well respected even though youh ave such a hard on for Crosby that if his career ended today, after two pro seasons, the teenager would go down in history as one of the greatest to be counted on when it mattered most. Let's hope a career hampering injury or cancer or something doesn't turn him into another non-HHOFer could've been.

This draft is about honouring history and as such isn't looking forward to what Crosby will achieve, what accomplishments he will make in the playoffs, what a legacy he will leave behind.

I'd personally love to see someone ice an all-time youth-laden FOURTH line of Ovechkin-Crosby-Hossa, instead of throwing them and Kovy and Heatley up onto one of the top two lines, getting heavy minutes in an all-time context. They haven't EARNED it yet. There are two seasons every year, the regular season and the real season, the playoffs! ... well, not entirely, but many hockey players talk about it like that sometimes, and it sure feels like that come April/May.

Anyways... if you believe Crosby should be on one of the top lines then play him there and to hell with what others think! They'll come around, eventually, in a few years. I don't like trying to make picks which are tailored to what other g.m.s like just to get their votes (no one would draft Andreychuk or Dino as 90% of comments about them are abuse). This is first and foremost about the history of hockey, and choose accordingly.

I've already made my case for Crosby many times over, and it addresses everything you touch on here.

Don't sweat it. You have every right to feel as validated in victory as I feel disillusioned in defeat. ;). Simply picking brains after a loss, as I think every good GM should.

EagleBelfour
11-28-2007, 08:48 AM
Yes, but.

Thing is, if I voted at a different time of day that may have changed my vote, I hummed and hawed over this one for a long time.

Exactly my thought.