Pittsburgh's top two lines should get almost every draw in the offensive zone and I expect the Soviet line to be busy in this series. Our bottom two lines are capable of lining up in their own end and Koivu particularly should thrive under Vigneault.
Turco should also be helpful in this series keeping Hartley's more blue-collar squad honest in their dump-ins. Turco's too good at moving the puck up ice to just toss the puck at. If his puckhandling is a factor in this series it will greatly benefit Pittsburgh's skilled forwards.
Let's take a look at the three mostly amateur forwards in our top sixes. I say mostly amateur because the Manitoba leagues became pro during Breen's career. Iain informed me that Breen started playing hockey at age 16 and was forced to retire at 25 because he couldn't get his amateur status re-instated. (Further reason the quote about his checking should be seriously doubted)
Bob McDougall:
36GP 49 G
1, 3, 3, 7 AHAC Goal-scoring finishes
x5 Stanley Cup Chamionships (can't find stats)
Tony Gingras:
37GP 25 G, 26 A, 51 PTS in Manitoba Leagues
16GP 7 G in Stanley Cup challenge games
Billy Breen:
55 GP 133 G, 26 A, 159 PTS in Manitoba Leagues
5 scoring titles
3GP 3 G in Stanley Cup challenge games
5GP 20 G, 1 A, 21 PTS came in 1906-07 season when the Vics and Winnipegs didn't want to turn pro and played in a weaker league. Iain said the second place scorer had 10 goals and I don't think we should use these numbers to artificially drag his scoring up. Breen joined the pro ranks for the next two seasons recording 41 points in 13GP so he could obviously play still.
Here are the numbers for the first 5 seasons of Breen's career when he played in a two team Manitoba league against only the Vics.
21GP, 40G, 8A, 48 PTS
3 scoring titles
After taking all of that in, I think you certainly have to conclude Breen was better than Gingras. He was scoring 2 goals a game as a teenager against Gingras's Stanley Cup challenging Vics while Gingras was his hitting just under 1.5PPG with Dan Bain leading the way.
That leaves a comparison between Breen and MacDougall. MacDougall played out east against stronger competition but he won one goal scoring title and had four top 10 goal-scoring finishes. Breen on the other hand won 4 scoring titles out West despite not playing on a perennial Stanley Cup challenging club like MacDougall. Breen's clubs were led by him whereas MacDougall's Montreal Vics had ATDers Mike Grant and Graham Drinkwater helping out offensively. I think on the basis of different levels of dominance and team quality we should recognize Breen as the best pre-NHA/PCHA forward in this series.
Last edited by Bring Back Scuderi: 09-09-2012 at 01:44 PM.
Playoff Numbers: 47GP - 11G, 11 A, 22 PTS
x1 Stanley Cup (1933)
Goals: 1 ('29), T3 ('37), T4 ('35)
Assists: T2 ('30), T6 ('33)
Points: 1 ('29), T6 ('37), T8 ('30), T8 ('35)
Romnes is clearly the best offensive player here. He's a playmaker as well which is always nice. He has the best playoff resume as well with two strong runs that resulted in a Stanley Cup for his team.
Blair's best season is much better than Keeling's, whose top 5 goalscoring finish saw him collect only 4 assists, but Keeling was consistently better than Blair outside of their peak years. Keeling's playoff record is also stronger than Blair's. Both have attributes besides scoring they bring to their lines, but I think Keeling's the weakest player in Pittsburgh's top six and Blair, Yaroslav's top center, isn't particularly stronger.
Danny Briere
Goals: T8 ('11), T19 ('02), T28 ('04), T28 ('08)
Assists: 6 ('07)
Points: 10 ('07), T26 ('11), T26 ('08), T27 ('04)
Adjusted Stats: 344 G, 440 A, 786 PTS in 813 GP
VS #2 (cutoff at 50): 83, 75, 68, 67, 56
Playoff Numbers: 25 GP - 7G, 5A, 12 PTS
Goals: T10 ('82)
48 WHA GP - 33G, 30 A, 63 PTS
x1 Avco Cup
Briere has the strongest offensive NHL record here between the post-expansion guys. He has the strongest single season of the group and the best playoff resume.
Cloutier and Kamensky had two solid scoring seasons throughout their injury-riddled NHL careers. Both rely on non-NHL accomplishments with their resumes, but Kamensky did realize some of his potential in the post-season. Cloutier managed one good playoff run, but he went scoreless in his 9 other playoff games.
Lever played the most games in the NHL and provided an all-around game that none of the other post-expansion guys can match. That said, his offense is on the Keeling and Blair level which makes him one of the weaker top sixers offensively. He didn't fare any better in the playoffs offensively either.
1st Lines
Lokomotiv's top line seems to have 3 parts that fit together well. I see Romnes as the best member of the line and he was a fine playmaker. MacDougall is your goal-scorer and the gritty Blair should help get him the puck.
Pittsburgh's top line brings great chemistry as well re-uniting a longtime Soviet troika. All three are involved with constant passing and great skating that troubles any defense.
Khomutov, the weakest member of the line, is still noticeably better than Blair. Khomutov isn't physically imposing but that's all Blair has on him outside of one big year.
Comparing Kamensky and MacDougall certainly isn't easy but I think Kamensky was an elite scorer for longer. He also provides value with his big body driving the net that MacDougall lacks. MacDougall scored prolifically for a few seasons in the AHAC (4 top 10s). Kamensky scored prolifically one year in a competitive Soviet League (Top 5 finish), a few years in a watered down Soviet League (1 Top 5 finish; 2-time all-star and 1 Soviet MVP), two WCs (Two top 5 finishes, 1 time AST and Best Forward), and the '87 Canada Cup (7th behind Gretzky, Lemieux, Makarov, Krutov, Bykov, Bourque). He did pretty good during two playoff runs in the NHL as well. I think after you look at the entire resumes, despite the major differences in era and career arches you have to conclude Kamensky was better.
That leaves Bykov and Romnes who I see as our two best forwards. Romnes is an excellent playmaker and had two good playoff runs that resulted in Stanley Cup victories. Overall, Romnes is the best NHL forward in the series but I don't see him as a match for Bykov.
Bykov was a consistent performer in the Soviet League during the 80s playing behind the Green Unit on CSKA Moscow. He excelled internationally with one of the best careers in the MLD and was a member of the '89 WC AST. Bykov finished second in scoring to Khomutov as captain of the '92 Unified Team that won Gold. This was significant as they were leading the way on the squad, no longer playing behind the Green Unit. Rather than moving to the NHL from there, Bykov and Khomotuv went to Switzerland where they won many scoring titles.
Overall, Pittsburgh's top line is better here. Romnes and MacDougall make a great duo but Blair is a let down offensively speaking. Pittsburgh's line doesn't have such a player and I think they achieved more throughout their careers. All three finished in the top 5 scoring in a very competitive 80's Soviet League; Bykov regularly finished in the top 10. They all finished in the top 7 scoring at 87's Canada Cup despite being Russia's second line. Each received one WC AST award, with Kamensky also being recognized by the directorate as the best forward. Kamensky also produced in the NHL and fared especially well in the playoffs.
Last edited by Bring Back Scuderi: 09-09-2012 at 11:42 PM.
Let's take a look at the three mostly amateur forwards in our top sixes. I say mostly amateur because the Manitoba leagues became pro during Breen's career. Iain informed me that Breen started playing hockey at age 16 and was forced to retire at 25 because he couldn't get his amateur status re-instated. (Further reason the quote about his checking should be seriously doubted)
Bob McDougall:
36GP 49 G
1, 3, 3, 7 AHAC Goal-scoring finishes
x5 Stanley Cup Chamionships (can't find stats)
Tony Gingras:
37GP 25 G, 26 A, 51 PTS in Manitoba Leagues
16GP 7 G in Stanley Cup challenge games
Billy Breen:
55 GP 133 G, 26 A, 159 PTS in Manitoba Leagues
5 scoring titles
3GP 3 G in Stanley Cup challenge games
5GP 20 G, 1 A, 21 PTS came in 1906-07 season when the Vics and Winnipegs didn't want to turn pro and played in a weaker league. Iain said the second place scorer had 10 goals and I don't think we should use these numbers to artificially drag his scoring up. Breen joined the pro ranks for the next two seasons recording 41 points in 13GP so he could obviously play still.
Here are the numbers for the first 5 seasons of Breen's career when he played in a two team Manitoba league against only the Vics.
21GP, 40G, 8A, 48 PTS
3 scoring titles
After taking all of that in, I think you certainly have to conclude Breen was better than Gingras. He was scoring 2 goals a game as a teenager against Gingras's Stanley Cup challenging Vics while Gingras was his hitting just under 1.5PPG with Dan Bain leading the way.
That leaves a comparison between Breen and MacDougall. MacDougall played out east against stronger competition but he won one goal scoring title and had four top 10 goal-scoring finishes. Breen on the other hand won 4 scoring titles out West despite not playing on a perennial Stanley Cup challenging club like MacDougall. Breen's clubs were led by him whereas MacDougall's Montreal Vics had ATDers Mike Grant and Graham Drinkwater helping out offensively. I think on the basis of different levels of dominance and team quality we should recognize Breen as the best pre-NHA/PCHA forward in this series.
I don't think it is very easy at all to compare Breen and MacDougall offensively.
I would probably refer to something like Iain Fyffe's system as a guide.
It is obvious, however, the Breen was a superior player to Gingras. His 2.76 PPG in the sample you chose is exactly double that of Gingras' 1.38.
It should be noted that Gingras has some value as a playmaker and physical presence though.
I had to fact check this because I thought it was a clear mistake.
But wow! 4 assists. I thought for sure if you're 3rd in goals in an era where there aren't that many assists, you have to be top-20 in points, if not top-10. Apparently not.
Quote:
Lever played the most games in the NHL and provided an all-around game that none of the other post-expansion guys can match. That said, his offense is on the Keeling and Blair level which makes him one of the weaker top sixers offensively. He didn't fare any better in the playoffs offensively either.
You are right. I like Lever a lot; I think he's almost a carbon copy of my Bob MacMillan. I thought he was a good pick when he was made but I didn't realize he was destined for 2nd line duty. He's "OK" as a role player/glue guy up there, but why have two glue guys? Briere is sort of on an island offensively on this line.
The offensive advantage that I think we hold on the first line is great, but I do see one advantage where I think we're going to be able to take advantage, and that is on the backend of each team.
Our top 6 is filled with fantastic skaters (even Keeling was noted as a strong skater), and the Yaroslavl defense isn't exactly filled with a lot of mobile defensemen. McNamara was certainly not noted for his speed; Goheen was a big guy who could make long rushes but as far as I know wasn't noted particularly for his skating skill and more for his size and strength; Juzda in his LOH profile was noted as not having strong skating ability; Bob Rouse was noted in his Pelletier profile as not a strong skater; I have no idea on Holden's skating ability to be fair. Only Romishevsky is a guy noted for good skating ability in his top 6. I think Pittsburgh's top 6 forward group is going to skate circles around the defense of Yaroslavl.
Along with this, the combination of Bykov and Khomutov were known for being able to get each other puck absolutely instinctively. With a defense that is well known for going out of position to make big hits, I look for this duo to have a big series against Yaroslavl's defenders.
Our defense is much better suited to defend Yaroslavl than vice versa. We will send out Jarrett and Young as often as possible against the top line of Yaroslavl, as that is truly the only line that is worrisome on their behalf because of the lack of offense provided by their second line wingers. I would go as far as to say that other than Romnes and McDougall, Pittsburgh has the 5 of the 7 most gifted offensive players in this series (I'd possibly include Briere in that due to the fact that we are now in the playoffs, but his regular season resume does leave something to be desired on this level as a second line center).
Finally, where does the offense come from on the backend of Yaroslavl? Goheen was known as a puck rusher, but how much forward did he play (honest question, I don't know the answer). Romishevsky was known as a guy who was good offensively early in his career, but became more defensively focused as his career developed, with his mid-to-latein his career barely producing any offense at all. This is a series concern for the PP of Yaroslavl in my opinion.
Finally, where does the offense come from on the backend of Yaroslavl? Goheen was known as a puck rusher, but how much forward did he play (honest question, I don't know the answer).
The most recent info I have suggests he was mainly a forward and we've been mistaken in making him a defenseman all along.
The most recent info I have suggests he was mainly a forward and we've been mistaken in making him a defenseman all along.
Very interesting. Yeah like I said I didn't know, but that certainly doesn't help the cause for Yaroslavl of A. defending our high powered offense, and B. getting offense from the backend.
I'm going to have to search my old posts to figure it out, but I know that whatever I read or discovered made me quite sure.
I did a brief search and found a couple of places where you called him a forward and one where you called him a LW, but couldn't where you listed your original source
I did a brief search and found a couple of places where you called him a forward and one where you called him a LW, but couldn't where you listed your original source
same here. But I have a few ideas of where I would have gotten that from so I'll search a few books when I am home again.
1. A plethora of Stanley Cup playoff heroes (just read the linked bios);
2. A leadership advantage, from Habs cup captain McNamara to WHA cup captain Ruskowski, Isles captain Flatley, multifranchise captain Lever, captains Konowalchuk, Briere, Goheen, not to mention career alternate captains like Acton, Blair, MacKay, Rouse;
3. A face-off advantage: every Lokomotiv left winger is also a center and center Acton is an all-time great face-off specialist;
4. A goaltending advantage;
5. A coaching advantage.
6. If Lokomotiv scores first, it has the Bottom-6 and defensive defensemen to shutdown the opposition.
7. Goheen, Romishevsky and Holden were each known for their rushes end to end, giving each Lokomotiv pair a potent transition game.
8. The opposition's top center Bykov is known to be easily intimidated and the knock on him is he couldn't handle the sort of rough play typical of the NHL; Lokomotiv can exploit that, especially huge aggressive Blair and Carpenter.
This is legitimately the first time I've been involved in a series where the voters flat out got it wrong. I legitimately am amazed by you guys this time.
Good series, VI. The good ole 4-5 upset, well played sir.
I am disappoint son too with the result. Definitely thought the team Vecens and I came up with was talented enough to move on. I was just tapping into the European posters for Khomutov info too!
