View Single Post
12-01-2009, 09:17 PM
Leafs Forever
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,800
vCash: 500
When did I say Randy Carlyle was the Jets best player?
gave you plenty on Carlyle. I told you that Winnipeg wanted him out there against the opposition's best players. He was the best player on a team that, in a couple years, was one of the best in the game, and probably would have been to the Stanley Cup final on a couple times if not for the overwhelming strength of the other teams in the division.

I said he was the guy (the defenceman) they used against the opposition's best. Even in the 1992 playoffs, when he was really slowed by the back injury, he was the guy they wanted out there against Bure. That doesn't mean he's their best player. Just their best defenceman. Their best all-round defenceman.
Again, I want evidence. Which I notice you have yet to show. Surely someone else would have noticed this suppose all-around ability and written about, right?

This tendancy of guys deliberately misquoting others really has to stop. It's disrespectful. Is that the best you've got? That tells me you know you shouldn't beat us, and the only way you will is if guys buy into your statistical smoke. Mortson had 13th and 15th place finishes? How many points did he get that year? 15? And how many defencemen played more than two-thirds of the games? 30? 35?
I didn't deliberately misquote or disrespect you.

I reached down there because you are spewing stuff about somehow being the 25th best defenceman offensively in a season, which isn't really an ATD calibre, somehow equates to being a top-5 offensive offenceman back then. And then you guys want me to reach down lower and lower. Why don't you tell me how to evaluate these guys offensively then? How should I show a guy is better offensively? I've shown the quotes, I've shown the stats, what have you shown outside of you perceptions?

As you've noted, only the best would be allowed to play a regular shift in the original six. And again, how many guys are there really that would push Mortson down if playing?

I'm a big Mortson fan. Tremendous player. But you're not helping his cause for those who aren't as familiar with him.

As I said before, top five in scoring for defencemen in the Original 6 is fine. But when you get into the top 10, it's a completely different story. I know some of you guys really like your relativity, but it only goes so far (in many cases, not very far), and in some cases, like the one you're arguing here, it's an abysmal failure.
See above. Again, how many guys do you think were there outside the league that would displace Mortson offensively? Why don't you go out and find the many that woud. You know, show some more proof. Like I've been asking for a lot of things and you try to sidestep. And then ignore.

Of course Hawerchuk was the Jets best player. (I did need another player evaluation blunder from dreakmur, though). Hawerchuk was one of the best players in the league from the moment he arrived in Winnipeg to the moment he left Winnipeg. An incredible player who did great things even though he didn't have a winger at his level.
Good to hear you admit that at least.

And you're right, Carlyle did play much of his career outside of Winnipeg. He played in Pittsburgh. Where he won a Norris Trophy. Pittsburgh was dreadful while Carlyle was there. Never has there been a worse team to have a Norris winner. (LA in 1997-98 might be close, though).
And there's never been a worse norris winner. He led the league in defenceman scoring that year; it's evident he likely one on the strength of that. Unless you can provide more than "I saw, therefore he is" to prove his all-around ability.

Both teams have excellent, well-built defences, but I see one very substantial edge: at the No. 1 defenceman spot. And that's huge.

Potvin's a superstar. He can carry a team while playing 30 minutes a night. He's the one guy, on either team, who can truly dominate every aspect of the game. Every skill area, every facet, every zone, every area of the ice. A rare breed in that he was, at once, a guy who was an elite offensive and defensive defenceman. And he did it all while playing a strong, physical brand of hockey, and bringing great leadership.

That's huge. Against the skill that the Dogs have, Potvin's the counterpunch. He's the biggest difference-maker in the series, the unquestionable best player. When we were looking at the No. 11 pick, it was Potvin or Mikita. Mikita was hard to pass up. But Potvin and Bentley, or Mikita and Gadsby to start a team? I'd go with Potvin and Bentley.
Potvin is one player. He was great, but he isn't that Gretzky, Orr, Howe (who I beat!), or a gamechanging goalie that could definetly win a game for you. Potvin is the only elite defensive guy you really have to go against my top line; and his partner has the questionable speed issues.

Cairo doesn't have a true No. 1, or even an elite No. 2, someone like a Boucher or a Pronovost. I really like Goodfellow, but he's a very good No. 2. Not a great No. 2. He's not Butch Bouchard, or Carl Brewer, or Marcel Pronovost.
Woh, woh, woh, woh there. You're telling me Goodfellow is worse than Bouchard, Brewer, AND Pronovost? Goodfellow is aboslutely an elite no.2. It's occasionally crossed my mind he might be in that top.32 range

Why don't you tell me this; how many hart trophies did those guys win? Oh wait, they didn't. How much time did they spend as a disadvantage to building a defenceman record to be an aboslutely star centre? Oh wait, they didn't. And yet Goodfellow managed to accomplish a similar amount, perhaps more, than they did in a shorter time span.

It's not a debate I feel like getting into (and due to the lack of stuff you provided in this one, not one you feel like getting into either)- because it's a side one, and it's besides the point. But make no mistake about where Goodfellow ranks. Read the bio folks.

And either way, Potvin is an advantage, yes. One of the only two you have; #1 D and #2 C.

One of the reasons why I've felt that Blake and Fleury will have troubles in the battles along the boards and in front of the net is the size of our defence. Carlyle's the smallest defenceman we have at 5'10, but he's got the naturally stocky, Ray Bourque-like build at 200 pounds. Our defencemen really specialize in the trenches - it's a trait I want in my blue-liners. Guys with good skill and mobility (Ragulin's the only one lacking in speed, but he did survive playing the international game thanks to his size and outstanding anticipation) who can take care of the front of the net and win the battles. I've always viewed winning battles along the boards and in the corners as an art form - maybe the most underrated aspect of the game. (Thank God the league hasn't bastardized it by trying to create a stat for it).
And we've plenty of good mobilty, tough, all-around guys on our blueline as well with great skill. They can win those battles in front of the net. My blueline features four guys who were the one of the toughest guys in their respective times, Goodfellow who is also a hard-nosed guy and Wilson who can also win the net battles and along the boards. We are not lacking at all in this area. I think my blueline is actually tougher than yours on a whole. I've explained Desjardins who didn't really play that tough game, you have yet to show any proof of Carlyle's type of game in that regard, and I'll get to bottom pairings soon.

I don't think the Cairo second line will work. It's not a personnel thing; Fleury's good enough to be a first line winger in a 32-team ATD, I have no qualms with Weiland as a second liner. (And I don't have time on national junior A trade deadline No. 1 night to debate Harris's place). But Fleury's going to have a really hard time winning battles. As I said in previous posts, when we had Fleury in ATD 11, we made sure we drafted a big power winger to play puck-winner on that line, because I didn't think Fleury could be the primary puck-winner on a line. And there isn't a guy who can play in front of the net. I don't think they'll generate the chances that their skill level indicates they should, and the chances they do generate, Smith will see.
You shouldn't have to debate Harris's place. His speed and skill aboslutely belong there- his offensive record compares well to guys people don't question on scoring line. He's less out of place than Sutter is.

And you had Blake in another draft and took someone to win pucks there, but really that wasn't necsssary either. Fleury can play puckwinner kind of role. You don't necessarily need a guy to play in front of the net to score; speed and skill can take care of that.

There have been questions about Sutter's place on the second line. I, for one, haven't questioned Sutter's standing as a second line winger since ATD 7. He's just so friggin' good as a complimentary two-way winger. Such a great player along the boards, and great as an in-tight scorer. I think he's the best of the six Sutter's. And he set the mould for the Sutter's. Lach can win the battles, but that's not what we want him to do. We want to let him focus on being a brilliant two-way player. Let Sutter worry about the corner battles, with Lach there to offer support when necessary.
Except he provides next to nothing offensively. Where do you think he ranks amongst LW's in that regard?

You had Lach; he can win the battles and play well- you didn't need Sutter for that. And, as noted previously, it gives Lach a rather lack of offensive support on the wings- something which he had tons of in his hey-day. If I were to play Walker who can easily take St.Louis, you really want Sutter to be the guy Lach passes too? Glenn Hall isn't ging to be worried about shooters like Sutter.

Here's my view on the series:

1st Line:
Cairo gets a very big edge here. They have one of the most dangerous lines of the draft, and Medicine Hat has a pretty weak one.

2nd Line:
Medicine Hat gets the edge here. They have one of the best 2nd line centers with solid 2-way wingers, and Cairo has a pretty mediocre line.
My wingers are better, I think I showed. By a fair margin. Lach does push his line better- the question is how he can fair being a one-man show sometimes.

3rd Line
Despite the fact I don't really like Wharram on a checking line, the Laprade and Walker combination is gold. Walker is one of the best defensive players ever, and he belongs in the Gainey/Ramsey debate. Medicine Hat just has a few decent 2-way players, but nobody who's going to shut people down.
I'd take Wharram on the line over Prystai at least; who we still know very little about defensively. Again, Roberts and Sutter aren't big threats to worry about.

Otherwise, agreed.

1st Defense:
Based only on Potvin, Medicine Hat has the better unit. I'm not a big Rugalin fan - he's so slow, and he's got Cyclone Taylor and Teemu Selanne coming at him. I'd be heading up his side every single time!
Agreed, and it is something my top line will exploit. As good as Potvin is, he is one man. MEdicine Hat doesn't really have anyone else elite defensively (and with the tools necessary) to go up against my top line. And that's a weakness.

2nd Defense:
Cairo has a much stronger pair. Pulford was a dominant defenseman in his time, and Mortson, Desjardins, and Carlyle were good, but not close to dominant.
Mortson's first AST says different, and I think he is better than Desjardins and Carlyle (and that I showed. Much tougher than either, better defensively than Carlyle, and I believe better offensively- but at this point, I'll let voters decide. At least I made an effort to show my guys better- and I think, made a fair arguement.)

Billy Smith is better in the play-offs than regular season, and Glenn Hall is probably a little worse. Doesn't matter. Hall is so much better than Smith that this remains a mismatch.
Agreed. Despite Billy Smith's upping of game, even if Hall downgrades slightly in the playoffs (and, as evident by cup, conn smythe, and apparent good play in Detroit- which did show that the possibility for it happening in Chicago as well), the gap between an 11 team AST and 1 team AST is so massive in the regular season Hall's edge is still signifigant.

I think Toe Blake is over-rated a little bit, so I'd call the coaching a wash.
A wash? You don't think Blake is the 2nd best all-time? I'd suggest taking a glance through the bio. The guy was an amazing coach; and he definetly had a big role in that dynasty.

Last edited by Leafs Forever: 12-01-2009 at 10:03 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote