View Single Post
Old
10-11-2012, 09:29 AM
  #47
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 36,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
- Re: switching wings. Really not a big deal, similar responsibilities in this system anyhow. This provides a shooting advantage, one that would have been granted to him in the Soviet system. He grew up with the off-wing shot, this wouldn't be new territory at all. Seamless transition, much ado about nothing.
If that were the case, players would switch wings all the time, no big deal. Yet almost all of them (including Kozhevnikov) show clear limitations as to what positions they can play.

You want to take a guy who never demonstrably played RW and put him at RW on your first line? Be my guest.

Quote:
- I'm not sure that I agree that the 70's were the most rugged era in history. I'd guess the time around the formation of the major pro leagues where Sprague Cleghorn's and Eddie Shore's were all but eviscerating people where they stood is the most rugged and above all, dangerous. Many of my d-men grew up in that era, so I'm confident in that their truculence will rule the day.
This would make a good thread. Both of those eras were characterized by violent incidents. I'd argue that the 70s were more violent on a night-by-night basis, whereas the early era was prone to isolated incidents that were almost comically violent (ie, Cleghorn beating the tar out of Hooley Smith at a restaurant after the game, players getting in stick fights with fans, etc). Any way you want to look at it, both eras were a bit out of control.


Quote:
So we're tearing apart Kozhevnikov because he was forcefully held back by the nature of the Communist party? Using the "if you remove all of his good seasons, he'd be bad" argument? That's really not gonna look too good for your top-six when we remove the best four seasons of Ulf Nilsson, Bronco Horvath, Joe Juneau and the like...especially when you consider they all had more free-range to actually be better longer if not for their own limitations.
First of all, remove Nilsson's four best seasons and you're still left with a good career. Remove Juneau's best seasons and you have a serviceable PK specialist. Neither of them fell apart outside a 3-year peak.

Kozhevnikov and Horvath make a good comparison. Both were elbow-to-elbow with first-tier HOF'ers in their best seasons, and both fell completely off the face of the earth when they declined. I'd absolutely agree that Horvath is going to have an inconsistent series, as well he should based on his historic record; the difference is that he's on my second line, playing his natural position... not out of position on the first line.


Quote:
- Kehoe is steady and consistent in the regular season, which has long passed. Kehoe is the ghost of playoffs past...so yes, steady and consistently invisible...
As far as I know, both regular season and playoff performance are factored into the voting here. Does Kehoe get "playoff bonus points" for being a clutch scorer... no. But he was still a steady and extremely consistent regular season scorer and should get due credit for that.

The second RW in my lineup who hasn't even been mentioned, Gary Dornhoefer, is the one I'd worry about scoring the killer goals if I were you.

Quote:
- Maybe Maxwell played some top pairing minutes, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was going against top competition regularly.
See his bio. He was, by far, the #1 minute muncher on a division winner and conference champion.


Quote:
Arnie Brown, in the years he actually played with Howell or Park, sure...but I don't know the extent of that off-hand...
Brown paired with Howell when he won the Norris and Park when he was runner-up to Orr. And he even pulled down some Norris and AS votes (marginal totals, mind you) despite playing on the same pairing as Norris contenders. So clearly he was not only up against top competition, but looked pretty good to the writers.

Quote:
- With Brad Maxwell and Jocelyn Guevremont making up half of your top-four d-men, meaning they'll be playing in upwards of 45 minutes a night (you'll have to excuse the drool from Dubbie Kerr and Wayne Babych)...I'm surprised, from your glass house, you'd be throwing stones at Brian Campbell.
I'm not the one making claims that my team will "NEVER" be caught off-guard defensively while putting a Campbell type player in the #1 defensive slot.

Will Maxwell and Guevremont get caught off guard at times? Of course they will. Be honest, so will Campbell. Nobody is going to confuse any of these players with Rod Langway for crying out loud.

Quote:
I'll quote that because I couldn't bring myself to type it. Not much for coaching tactics, huh? Is all I could say to that...it's very much an issue of how they score, that's the very nature of the game. That's what the team was built for. If you gave the 2003 Minnesota Wild the blueprints of the 1984 Oilers and said, "do what they do!" you have a last place team, even if they do score a few extra goals...a goal prevented is more valuable than a goal scored anyhow. And we can prevent them. And given our unyielding affection for board play and the cycle and the ability to win faceoffs, it'll be difficult to muster the type of the puck possession that you boast of...I'm not sure how long Joe Juneau or Ulf Nilsson plan to hold off Percy Traub or Bill Brydge, but I'd wonder how long (or how far?) those players can bend before breaking, not my team as a whole...
Let me focus the point a little, maybe it will be more clear what I'm getting at.

Obviously your team is more defensively inclined, and mine is more offensively inclined. No question about that. But when the roles are reversed -- when my team is asked to play defense, and yours is asked to play offense -- my team is demonstrably deeper and more capable of playing effectively in both directions.

Take your defense corps for example. Obviously Campbell and Tallon can move the puck, and Brydge is an adequate support scorer. But Traub, Trapp and Graham are offensive non-factors. Being in the 5-10 range among WCHL defensemen among a bunch of never-drafteds and A-level guys doesn't cut it at this level. Literally half your defense is going to struggle to move the puck.

Flip the coin. I have three defensive specialists (Brown, Langlois, Butcher) so ignore them for now. Guevremont became a solid two-way defenseman in Buffalo, as noted in multiple sources in his bio. Maxwell was a poor man's Rob Blake, obviously not a shutdown specialist but a feared hitter and respectable on D. Ellett was not a great defensive player but he wasn't awful either... the word "decent" applies here.

So, take it on balance. My defense is much better rounded offensively, and respectable defensively. Yours is much stronger in their own end, but there are holes in their ability to get the puck up the ice. What happens when these teams collide? Possession time starts to tilt toward the group that is actually able to do something with the puck when they get it.

The same principle applies to the forward group. You have a strong first line but you have openly acknowledged that you don't expect the other 3 lines to do anything more than chip in the odd goal. Given the issues that have been discussed here with both Bodnar and Kozhevnikov, you NEED support scoring to win at this stage of the playoffs. But you aren't going to get that from this forward group.

My team is definitely going to produce offensively -- as noted earlier, my 2C compares to your 1RW, let alone your depth scoring -- but there are respectable defensive players up and down the lineup. This isn't a one-way team by any stretch. Every line has players capable of getting back to help secure possession, and capable of doing something productive once they get it. That's the difference in the series.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote