View Single Post
11-27-2009, 07:04 PM
Leafs Forever
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,800
vCash: 500
I'll touch up one fourth lines a bit later..but for now

Ebbie Goodfellow-Doug Wilson vs. Zdeno Chara-Cling Johnson

I didn't think I'd get to say this, but I will take great pleasure in doing so: I have the best #1 in this series. And by quite a margin too, I think.

As far as Chara and Goodfellow comparison; Chara's Hart record (Goodfellow's 1,3,4 is likely better than anything Chara's got) is likely not near as good. Goodfellow came in an easier era to win the Hart, but still. Goodfellow didn't win that many AST's, but that likely comes from spending the start of his career as a highscoring centre.

And I'm going to challenge Chara's playoff record, and ask you if it compete with Goodfellow's playoff numbers:

Playoff Goals- 2nd (1934), 8th (1937)
Playoff Assists- 4th (1934)
Playoff Points- 3rd (1934), 10th (1937)

Playoff Defenceman Goals- 6th (1936), 2nd (1937)
Playoff Defenceman Assists- 2nd (1937), 2nd (1940), 9th (1941)
Playoff Defenceman Points- 9th (1936), 1st (1937), 5th (1940)

Not to mention Goodfellow's 3 cups.

Goodfellow was a hard-nosed guy who was also know as a "big defensive star". I think he can go up against Chara in intangibles as well; and particularly with playoff records, Goodfellow as an edge. In addition, Goodfellow is a lot more suited to take on your team, as he doesn't have mobility issues and your team isn't as fast, as to Chara with mine, who has shown he has trouble with speedy teams before.

Johnson vs Wilson

Johnson doesn't compare to Wilson offensively- Johnson was winning his AST's by his intangible work, as evident by never finishing top-5 in defenceman scoring, sometime well-out in defenceman scoring, his AST years. Wilson has a 2nd, 3rd, and two 6th's in defenceman points (In the playoffs he has a 2nd, three 3rd's, and a 6th in defenceman playoff points), and numerous other top 10's besides.

I will give the edge in to Johnson in the intangible department. Speed and suitability to play opposing offences goes to Wilson; Johnson being described as "slow footed" likely doesn't have the speed to lkeep up with my top line and play the game he wants.

Considering ther other First team AST in Johnson's years was Shore, he likely would not have ever won a norris. Now, Wilson didn't face anyone quite as good as Shore, but he did beat out Bourque in his Norris year.

Overall these pairings- Considering your guys don't have near the offense mine do, my top-pairing transition game is likely the better of the two, and my lines are going to get more offense from the blueline to back them up. As your top pairing is dealing with their weakness- great team speed- I don't think they are going to be as effective as mine will on the other side of the puck easier, giving my top pairing a fair edge.

Harvey Pulford-Gus Mortson vs Lloyd Cook-Kevin Hatcher

This one, much like the the nature of my second pairing, is destruction.

Not the easiest comparison considering Pulford is the opposite of both of your defenemen, but I suppose I'll just go for modern vs modern and non NHLer vs non NHLer.

Mortson destroys Hatcher as far as toughness and defensive play is concerned. Again, I present the Hatcher critiscm from Joe Pelletier:

Regardless, he was never reputed to be as good in his own zone as he was in the other team's. He seemed susceptible to making boneheaded, risky plays, overhandling the puck and hurting his team defensively. He did not always maximize his size, taking nights off. Outside of the 1992-93 season he just never really could put it all together and be one of the game's truly dominant defenders.
Physically he could dominate. He was imposing at 6'4" and 225lbs, and he enjoyed banging bodies, sometimes with a mean streak. Other times, especially as his career advanced, he seemed quite disinterested in the physical game, which for someone of his size is extremely frustrating for coaches and fans alike. He lost a few fights early in his career and seemed to back down over time. Perhaps this was simply because his coaches wanted him on the ice, not by the ice box.
He could be guilty of getting out of position to make a big hit. Since he didn't have the lateral mobility to recover he could get burned by such bad reads. He was usually a safe defender when it came to clearing the puck, usually breaking a man with a good pass. He could be guilty of overhandling the puck, and when he did cough up the puck in his own zone, he usually did so royally.
Despite these impressive scoring stats, he was never truly among the game's elite defensemen in the 1990s, but rather firmly just a notch below.
I showed the Mortson quotes earlier- all available in his bio.

Mortson didn't have trouble being amongst the game's elite defenceman, making the first AST. I'm also going to question if Hatcher had a better offensive record than the 5, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10 in scoring amongst defenceman Mortson had.

As far as Pulford vs Cook, well, Pulford pretty much destroys Cook in terms of phsicality, toughness, and defensive ability (Cook is a ? in those aspects), while Cook destroys Pulford in offence. I believe Ultimate hockey both rewarded them with 3 retro norrises, for what they are worth. I can say with confidence Pulford is the 2nd best defenceman of the day; Cook I believe, is less than that, although he played in a somewhat more competitive time in that regard. In terms of them in a matchup alone, it really depends on whom you find more dominant in their aspect of the game given all the facts (All pulford info can be found in his bio, linked in the first page).

A big difference though, is chemistry and suitability. I paired Pulford with another very tough defenceman to make a fearsome pairing, who seemed to be pretty good defensively and can also handle the offensive load of the pairing. You paired Cook up, a questionmark defensively, with a guy who is jsut plain bad defensively, and seemed to be inconsistent in the toughness area. My pairing will be able to go up against any of the lines with it's tremendous defensive ability, and will rough them up with their great toughness. With Mortson there, the pairing is not going to be problematic in the transition, and offense from the blueline portion either.

Your pairing, on the other hand, is a big liability defensively. I aludded to this earlier; with home-ice, if I get the chance to play my top line against this pairing, I likely take this. And this pairing is going to likely get burned against my top line. It's a rather one-dimensional pairign that is going to be a liability. With the signifigant edge in Mortson vs Hatcher, as well as chemistry and suitability to play against opposing teams forward corps, I think my second pairing has a big edge.

Bottom pairings also to come.

Last edited by Leafs Forever: 11-27-2009 at 08:26 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote