Thistles' first unit is the first line, which is an offensive line that works well that isn't very soft. Bill Barber occasionally played point on the power play and was effective, Robinson is a good first unit guy.
Steve Shutt is the net presence, to clean up the garbage. And Fedorov is a slick play maker with sharpshooter Conacher on the right. Denis Potvin is a top-notch offensive defenseman and perhaps the best you can get as a power play defenseman, 127 man advantage goals and 459 career points.
First unit Advantage to Australia
Decent second unit, Muller is more of a playmaker than Barber. Bodger and Drinkwater are suitable offensive defensemen.
Lewis is a weaker offensive player, but Francis-Leach is a strong duo, and Lewis can work the corners. I think Drinkwater has an edge over Leduc offensively, and Mohns is more than likely the best of the offensive defensemen.
Second units are a wash, no advantage
Penalty Kill:
Draper was a decent penalty killer, Barber was on the Flyers' penalty kill but was he very efficient, his percentages aren't flattering and they are below Draper's. Bouchard is a rock solid penalty killer, and Ludwig was also fairly strong, on the same level with Ken Morrow.
Derek Sanderson IMO is the best penalty killer of both teams, and George Armstrong was good defensively. Penalty killing was also one of Potvin's finer qualities, and Morrow was a solid killer also.
I think this one is also, close, but overall I'd give the first unit advantage to Australia.
Toews and Muller are both good two-way guys, but I don't think Toews is a spectacular penalty killer at this level yet, his PK resume is pretty underwhelming at an all-time basis. Grant and Robinson are a great second PK pairing.
Ron Francis was a strong penalty killer and Herbie Lewis was a quick two-way forward, this duo will take advantage of tired power play defensemen. Mohns and Baun are a solid physical duo.
I think these units are even
Last edited by Velociraptor: 04-11-2012 at 09:15 PM.
WHY THE GREEN AND GOLD KANGAROOS SHOULD WIN THIS SERIES
- Very strong, tight-checking defensive team that will wear down an opposition with notably weaker defensive players.
- bottom-six that will grind Thistles' top lines to dust.
- Matches up very well with Thistles, can compete defensively with every line.
- Strong two-way top 6 forwards that can play good defensive hockey, while being an offensive threat.
- Overall stronger defensive corps, with best defenseman in series.
- Playoff proven goaltender who was known to elevate game in post-season (see bio.)
- Better coach who fits the team style perfectly.
- Stronger team built for the playoffs with several players who are great playoff performers.
- Opponents have no real advantages over Roos'
If anyone would like to ask questions, I will answer every one to the best of my ability before voting!
Does Morrow have the edge over Ludwig? Ludwig had similar strengths, and played over twice as many NHL games.
Ludwig was good defensively, but I never heard anyone say he was among the best. Didn't Morrow finish 1st or 2nd in a poll in the mid-80s for best defensive defenseman?
I will add some initial comments later on, one thing I'd like to point out is that Bobby Holik cannot wait to shadow Jean Beliveau
good luck raptor - you've built a strong team.
i've been absolutely swamped lately (typical for me late in the draft) so, have only been able to lurk / read thus far. that said, i'm hoping to comment on the series over the next day or two.
Ludwig was good defensively, but I never heard anyone say he was among the best. Didn't Morrow finish 1st or 2nd in a poll in the mid-80s for best defensive defenseman?
I don't know if it's worth comparing the starting goaltenders as they are both around middle of the pack, top-tier goaltenders. We're not entirely sure Durnan's 1st AST's are legit because of the era of his career, but newspaper articles suggest he was superior to his contemporaries. I'll buy Durnan as a goaltender in similar territory with Parent. No real advantage to either team with solid starting goaltenders.
I have a quote that may be a deciding factor for why Percy LeSueur is ultimately a better backup than John Bouse Hutton.
Ottawa immediately named Bouse Hutton's successor LeSueur after playing against Smith Falls. The Silver Seven won the game, but they still wanted LeSueur over Bouse Hutton. I'm not sure what else that determines who is superior, but I think there's an edge for Australia in backup goaltending. But I think with no clear advantage with the two legitimate starters, the advantage for LeSueur doesn't account for too much.
if any at all, Australia holds the advantage in goaltending.
i agree with your initial assessment of goaltending and, believe that there is no real advantage for either team between the pipes. as you mentioned, the starters are very close to one another. personally, i believe durnan is a better option however, can easily see an argument for parent. both will provide stability and quality play in net - so, there is no real issue for either team regarding goaltending.
as for the back-ups - i think they are equal as well. the quote you provided is interesting however, leseuer replaced hutton because hutton retired in 1904, not necessarily because he was a better goaltender.
overall impression: no clear advantage for either team
I'm not 100% sure, but that wouldn't make him the #2 in my books, unless he was #2 in ice time.
As for ES ice time, since his result is so similar to Lorimer's for 2nd place, he could have been potvin's partner in 1981. 1980 is too small a sample to say for sure. In 1982 he appeared to be "top pairing", leading in ES TOI by a hair. In 1983 it looks like he definitely took a backseat to Jonsson at ES.
Ludwig was good defensively, but I never heard anyone say he was among the best. Didn't Morrow finish 1st or 2nd in a poll in the mid-80s for best defensive defenseman?
Morrow was 3rd in the 1984 coaches' poll for best defensive defenceman (behind Langway and Ramsey.)
But nik jr recently posted a players' poll from 1990 where Ludwig placed 4th in the best defensive defenceman voting (behind Ramsey, McCrimmon, and Lowe.)
Joe Pelletier wrote in his Ludwig bio that Ludwig had trouble adapting to Al Arbour's defensive system where the defender had to pressure the shooter. His slow feet hurt him there. He preferred Montreal's system where he could protect the middle of the ice, block shots, and clear rebounds. So an Al Arbour team would prefer Morrow to Ludwig, at the very least.
i agree with your initial assessment of goaltending and, believe that there is no real advantage for either team between the pipes. as you mentioned, the starters are very close to one another. personally, i believe durnan is a better option however, can easily see an argument for parent. both will provide stability and quality play in net - so, there is no real issue for either team regarding goaltending.
as for the back-ups - i think they are equal as well. the quote you provided is interesting however, leseuer replaced hutton because hutton retired in 1904, not necessarily because he was a better goaltender.
overall impression: no clear advantage for either team
That's fair, I was under the impression he was shown the door in favor of LeSueur, did not know that he had retired. Even if so it's not an advantage worth talking about because our goaltending is in similar territory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass
Morrow was 3rd in the 1984 coaches' poll for best defensive defenceman (behind Langway and Ramsey.)
But nik jr recently posted a players' poll from 1990 where Ludwig placed 4th in the best defensive defenceman voting (behind Ramsey, McCrimmon, and Lowe.)
Joe Pelletier wrote in his Ludwig bio that Ludwig had trouble adapting to Al Arbour's defensive system where the defender had to pressure the shooter. His slow feet hurt him there. He preferred Montreal's system where he could protect the middle of the ice, block shots, and clear rebounds. So an Al Arbour team would prefer Morrow to Ludwig, at the very least.
That's some pretty good incentive for Morrow, as Langway was in a class of his own defensively and Ramsey was also a legitimate defensive defenseman. Morrow also has proven success in a defensive system, which is what Hitchcock conveniently runs.
When I look at what Hitchcock has managed to do lately:
- the only coach to ever get Columbus to the playoffs, or really even close
- The incredible turnaround he orchestrated in St. Louis
it is hard not to conclude that he is the best coach of this generation. And if he is, then he should probably be considered for the top-10. We've been pretty hesitant to rise anyone to that level in recent years, but the top-10 coaches aren't going to stay the same forever, are they? The top-10 forwards, defensemen and goalies sure didn't.
When I look at what Hitchcock has managed to do lately:
- the only coach to ever get Columbus to the playoffs, or really even close
- The incredible turnaround he orchestrated in St. Louis
it is hard not to conclude that he is the best coach of this generation. And if he is, then he should probably be considered for the top-10. We've been pretty hesitant to rise anyone to that level in recent years, but the top-10 coaches aren't going to stay the same forever, are they? The top-10 forwards, defensemen and goalies sure didn't.
I agree Hitchcock should rise, but what makes him better than Pat Burns?
When I look at what Hitchcock has managed to do lately:
- the only coach to ever get Columbus to the playoffs, or really even close
- The incredible turnaround he orchestrated in St. Louis
it is hard not to conclude that he is the best coach of this generation. And if he is, then he should probably be considered for the top-10. We've been pretty hesitant to rise anyone to that level in recent years, but the top-10 coaches aren't going to stay the same forever, are they? The top-10 forwards, defensemen and goalies sure didn't.
Seeing as what he can do with teams who don't usually make it past April, it's pretty impressive how his style can shape a team into an instant contender, I think he's definitely worth a rise in the draft. I would also say he could be the coach of his generation, and the only thing missing is a Jack Adams.
Lets see St. Louis win a playoff round before calling them a contender...
A contender is a team that has a chance to go far in the playoffs, I think a team that is third in the league and has by far the best goals against average in the league can be qualified as a contender.
A contender is a team that has a chance to go far in the playoffs, I think a team that is third in the league and has by far the best goals against average in the league can be qualified as a contender.
Maybe it's just because they didn't play well against Vancouver. But they look like a real paper seed.
Maybe it's just because they didn't play well against Vancouver. But they look like a real paper seed.
I watched the better half of the game last night, and at times they were sloppy, but you could tell they were defensively all there and also got several great chances but Niemi was solid.
I watched the better half of the game last night, and at times they were sloppy, but you could tell they were defensively all there and also got several great chances but Niemi was solid.
The Blues got caught on a bad change on the PK on San Jose's first goal. Other than that, they looked pretty well disciplined. We shall see. San Jose appears to be fully healthy now, they have an extremely efficient powerplay, and the trades to strengthen the bottom lines have worked. This will not be easy for the Blues.
I agree Hitchcock should rise, but what makes him better than Pat Burns?
Well, let me start by saying it's really hard to quantify coaching ability, particularly in a modern NHL where the same coach can't justify his dominance by winning the cup or getting to the finals seemingly every season, and in the end I'm just going with my gut.
The whole "three Jack Adams to one*" thing aside, I can't think of a reason to take Burns over Hitch. Hitchcock's coaching seems to be more of a central piece of the success of his teams than it was for Burns. When you watch a Hitchcock team, they just seem to have his "identity" through it. He has slightly superior regular season and playoff numbers. The idea of facing a Ken Hitchcock team would scare me. I would fear being outcoached. Burns didn't strike me as a guy who would outcoach or outstrategize you so completely. Thinking back to who was more prominent in their time, Hitch just stands out, and this incredible turnaround just puts the stamp on that for me.
* everyone knows he wins the Adams this year, right?
Well, let me start by saying it's really hard to quantify coaching ability, particularly in a modern NHL where the same coach can't justify his dominance by winning the cup or getting to the finals seemingly every season, and in the end I'm just going with my gut.
The whole "three Jack Adams to one*" thing aside, I can't think of a reason to take Burns over Hitch. Hitchcock's coaching seems to be more of a central piece of the success of his teams than it was for Burns. When you watch a Hitchcock team, they just seem to have his "identity" through it. He has slightly superior regular season and playoff numbers. The idea of facing a Ken Hitchcock team would scare me. I would fear being outcoached. Burns didn't strike me as a guy who would outcoach or outstrategize you so completely. Thinking back to who was more prominent in their time, Hitch just stands out, and this incredible turnaround just puts the stamp on that for me.
* everyone knows he wins the Adams this year, right?
Hitchcock is to hockey what cancer is to the human body.
Either way , I think Burns is more capable of handling differant type of team without bulldozing his way through it.Hitchcock can destroy players and is only capable of winning one way with his disgusting tactics.
You also realize the fact you saw the sudden change in St-louis is what is ''opening your eyes'' about Hitchcock , well Burns won three jack adams the very first year he was with the team everytime.How about that for impact? He also won his cup the 1sdt year with NJ which isn't one of his jack adam years.So basically , everytime Burns entered an organization , he either won the jack adams or the stanley cup right away.
Hitchcock is to hockey what cancer is to the human body.
Either way , I think Burns is more capable of handling differant type of team without bulldozing his way through it.Hitchcock can destroy players and is only capable of winning one way with his disgusting tactics.
You also realize the fact you saw the sudden change in St-louis is what is ''opening your eyes'' about Hitchcock , well Burns won three jack adams the very first year he was with the team everytime.How about that for impact? He also won his cup the 1sdt year with NJ which isn't one of his jack adam years.So basically , everytime Burns entered an organization , he either won the jack adams or the stanley cup right away.
The problem with both of them is that the stability of message, discipline and adherence to fundamentals that makes them so successful when taking over a team (especially one in turmoil) wears thin really quickly.
Hitchcock and Burns are both great for a few years and then the players get sick of the repetition imo.
Both great coaches to be sure, though.
Last edited by BraveCanadian: 04-13-2012 at 06:31 PM.
The problem with both of them is that the stability of message, discipline and adherence to fundamentals that makes them so successful when taking over a team (especially one in turmoil) wears thin really quickly.
Hitchcock and Burns are both great for a few years and then the players get sick of the repetition imo.
Both great coaches to be sure, though.
Oh I agree , but at the same time I think Burns is less likely to leave some negative mark on the franchise after he is gone.Columbus might have made the playoff instead of being in the bottom of the league with Hitchcock , but how many potential did he destroyed along the way that might result in less positive in the long run?
Well, let me start by saying it's really hard to quantify coaching ability, particularly in a modern NHL where the same coach can't justify his dominance by winning the cup or getting to the finals seemingly every season, and in the end I'm just going with my gut.
The whole "three Jack Adams to one*" thing aside, I can't think of a reason to take Burns over Hitch. Hitchcock's coaching seems to be more of a central piece of the success of his teams than it was for Burns. When you watch a Hitchcock team, they just seem to have his "identity" through it. He has slightly superior regular season and playoff numbers. The idea of facing a Ken Hitchcock team would scare me. I would fear being outcoached. Burns didn't strike me as a guy who would outcoach or outstrategize you so completely. Thinking back to who was more prominent in their time, Hitch just stands out, and this incredible turnaround just puts the stamp on that for me.
* everyone knows he wins the Adams this year, right?
Hearing this makes me doubt that you clearly remember Burns' time in Montreal or Toronto. Yes, I realize you are a Leafs fan, but you were what, twelve when Burns took over in Toronto? Yeah, Burns' system wasn't obvious in New Jersey because he inherited an already disciplined defensive team, but he made a major impact in both Montreal and Toronto, and did so immediately. I didn't pay too much attention to his time in Boston.
Burns and Hitchcock may look similar on the surface, but they are in fact pretty different. Hitchcock's system is explicitly defensive. It focuses on denying the opponent time and space at even strength and on the PK, and features a very tight defensive zone structure. His teams always improve defensively after he comes in. It has happened in Dallas, Philadelphia, Columbus and now St. Louis. In Philly and St. Louis, they also got notably worse offensively under Hitchcock. Dallas is hard to judge because Hitchcock split his first season about 50-50 with Gainey, and the Blue Jackets improved slightly on offense, although they still sucked. Hitchcock never seems to worry much about matchups, either. He seems to believe in building two-way lines and letting them play. Basically, Hitchcock's reputation is correct; he is a defensive coach, and a very good one.
Burns is a different animal. His system revolved more around controlling the neutral zone than on an explicitly defensive scheme. What he hated most in all the world was turnovers at the bluelines, and his teams were trained to transition from defense to offense (and back) in an instant. Burns' teams never had quite the defensive structure that Hitchcock has achieved, but they were a good deal more dangerous in the counterattack. Burns has the reputation of a defensive coach, but his system was not only defensive; it existed somewhere in that grey area between offense and defense. Interestingly, every one of Burns' teams improved both offensively and defensively in his first season. Ok, Montreal was the best defensive team in the league before Burns came, but they gave up 20 fewer goals in his first season. Burns' teams were also more violent than Hitchcock's. Burns encouraged physical confrontation, and engaged in it, himself, whenever anyone pissed him off. Burns was more of a matchup coach. He liked his offensive lines to be two-way units, as well, but focused more on specific shutdown matchups when he felt like he had the personnel for it. People may remember his handling of Stevens and Madden in New Jersey.
Ultimately, their results have been quite similar. I would have a hard saying that one is clearly better than the other in an all-time sense. Hitchcock may well pass Burns, but he hasn't done so yet. Which coach is better in the ATD comes down to a question of style, I think. If you want an explicitly defensive team, Hitchcock is your man. If you want more of a two-way team that will seek to dominate the neutral zone and create turnovers, Burns is the better choice. In the context of their respective ATD teams this season, I think both are good fits.
For Burns:
• Multiple good runs in the playoffs with different teams. Hitchcock hasn't done anything in the playoffs outside of a few years in Dallas
• Never had a period of irrelevance in the league. Hitchcock had some years in Philly that were nothing to write home about and his time in Columbus has was mixed IMO
For Hitchcock:
• In Dallas, he had a sustained level of success that Burns never really had. Burns tended to wear out his welcome after a few years with his disciplinarian act (is Burns the closest modern coach to Punch Imlach?)
