View Single Post
09-24-2012, 11:43 PM
MLD Glue Guy
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,372
vCash: 500
I really appreciate the amount of time and thought you've put into this series.

For more points:
But he was a cup! And he was, like, the 12th or 13th-most important player too!
I forgot about his time with the Penguins

Now, other people may see things differently, but typically you see 5-6 years being thrown around as an appropriate time frame for a “prime” where we get a true sense of what a player is capable of. Given the circumstances, you, different people and I may draw the line differently but I think it’s safe to say that most would draw that line beyond two years.
This may sound a bit callous, but I think when a player dies, evaluating that player is a bit different than someone who stopped playing hockey for other reasons.

Basically if there was a player who was similar to Davidson at his best, but did it for a dozen years I would consider him infinitely more suited to be a physical presence on a line.
I think if Davidson had done it for a dozen years, he'd be in the bottom 6 on an ATD team, not in the MLD

Basically, I think Campbell is a superior offensive player and therefore overall player, but I am not 100% convinced that he’s better for a bottom-six role. This one could go either way.
That's pretty much how I feel. I picked him because I though it would be a disaster if he slipped out of the MLD (while I may not have found much on him, I think it's important to keep him on people's radar in case someone can make a breakthrough - although he's totally deserving based upon what we know now)

Overall conclusion: Offensively it appears they’re even. A 35% edge to Regina on the right side, a 10% edge to Connecticut on the left, and Campbell probably makes up the remainder at center. As far as playing the bottom six roles, Cotton and Jackson are better established than McDonald and Campbell, making their unit more effective overall. Hedberg – your thoughts?
I think it's fair to say your line has better "bottom six" traits. I think calling Blachford his era’s Peplinski is a diminishing the opinion of the times of Blachford, who is occasionally referred to as a star, something Peplinski never was. However, since stats were less important than the appearance of a player's performance during the time, it's possible a sportswriter from the 1900s would declare Peplinski a star if he witnessed him.


Ugh, what a mess. I don’t see any players here that make great comparisons with eachother, with the exception of Gibbs and Brewer (Brewer is Gibbs-lite) and Brewer is not even in the starting lineup. Connecticut has no young, active players for me to compare to Doughty or Seabrook. I have no one who qualifies as a stay at home, zero offense, elite shutdown player like Willie Mitchell. Connecticut has no PCHA-era guy like Fraser, and Regina has no pre-Stanley Cup era guy like Cameron. Regina also has no European to compare to Eldebrink and no offensive specialist to compare to Olausson (preferring instead to go with two-way guys)
I tried working on a defensive analysis, but failed so I'm glad you came to a similar conclusion that they're radically different.

Jonsson was the #1 defenseman on four terrible Isles teams, then, In the 2002, 03, and 04 seasons, the Isles began to emerge into a playoff team but could only do so with Jonsson in a lesser role.
I'm pretty sure the infusion of quality (relative) forwards from 02-04 had much more to do with the Islanders becoming a playoff team than Jonsson being relegated to #2 status. When only one forward crack the 50 point mark (compared to 5 in 01-02), Lidstrom wouldn't make the playoffs.

Seabrook is well on his way to a “Mitchell + offense” career but right now Mitchell has two seasons worth of games on him (can you believe it’s just 2 seasons worth?!? Wow!) played at a slightly higher defensive level, edge Mitchell.
I think the key difference in their defence is Seabrook almost always plays with a Norris calibre partner while Mitchell's partner is usually no better than average (Bieksa, Voynov, etc).

Also, coaching hasn't been addressed, but I don't really see it a significant mismatch (although I doubt Emile Francis could skate very well on stilts).

Hedberg is offline   Reply With Quote