View Single Post
Old
10-24-2012, 11:06 AM
  #23
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,953
vCash: 500
4th lines

Guryshev vs. Yelle. Two completely different players in style, plus one played in the 2000s in the NHL and the other in 1950s USSR. Impossible to really compare without some sort of triangulation. I think Guryshev was a slightly less one-dimensional, less dynamic, center version of Bobrov. But opinions on Bobrov vary widely so where does that leave us? All I can say is Guryshev’s offense is better and Yelle’s defense is definitely better.

Nick Mickoski is a significantly better player than Lorne Henning, though. He was a very big for his player, strong, fast, pretty good defensively, and was a strong offensive player – four times top-15 in goals, for example. Henning deserves some credit – along with Gerry Hart, Bert Marshall, Jude Drouin, Dave Lewis, Billy Harris, JP Parise, Ed Westfall, and Glenn Resch – for being a contributor in the Isles’ quick rise to prominence yet not being able to share in the whole dynasty. The best thing you can say about him is that he has an excellent PK record. Other than that… meh. He was through being a full time NHLer at age 28; what’s up with that?

Carveth is a pretty decent offensive player with not much else for substantiated skills. Bell was a spare in the early days of the NHL, which explains his horrible offensive numbers but also calls into question just how much time he really spent demonstrating his skills as a checker (which was why he was drafted, from what I can recall). Both are players I wouldn’t take anytime soon in the upcoming AAA draft – Carveth should be a top-6 player and probably belongs in the AA. Bell is clearly a 4th line type but there’s little to no evidence he was even good at that, and I doubt I’d even take him in the AA. With both underqualified, I’m fine calling this one a draw.

Conclusion: Since Mickoski is such a better overall player than Henning, our 4th line has the advantage but it is not significant. This conclusion has quite the margin of error attached to it though, thanks to uncertainty about the first and third comparisons.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote