HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

Foster Hewitt Divisional Semifinals: Inglewood vs. Cincinatti

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-16-2012, 06:13 PM
  #1
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,207
vCash: 500
Foster Hewitt Divisional Semifinals: Inglewood vs. Cincinatti



Cecil Hart

Harry Watson - Wayne Gretzky (C) - Jari Kurri
Baldy Northcott - Pat Lafontaine - Alexander Mogilny
Ross Lonsberry - Rod Brind'Amour (A) - Ron Ellis
Murray Murdoch - Bernie Nicholls - Bill Ezinicki

Brian Leetch - Moose Johnson (A)
George Boucher (A) - Jimmy Watson
Lloyd Cook - Kimmo Timonen

Tiny Thompson
Rogie Vachon


Spare: Pavol Demitra (LW/RW/C), Mike Richards (C), Robyn Regehr (D), Pavel Kubina (D)

(tentative) Special Teams:

PP1: Leetch - Nicholls - Gretzky - Kurri - Watson
PP2: Boucher - Timonen - Lafontaine - Mogilny - Northcott

PK1: Johnson - Watson - Brind'Amour - Northcott
PK2: Leetch - Cook - Gretzky - Kurri

Vs

The Cincinnati Fireworks

Head Coach: Pete Green

Syd Howe - Stan Mikita - Lanny McDonald (A)
Dean Prentice - Rick MacLeish - Andy Bathgate
Bob Pulford - Dave Poulin (C) - Mario Tremblay
Red Hamill - Art Chapman - Rick Vaive

Al MacInnis (A)
- Jacques Laperriere
Carol Vadnais - Herb Gardiner
Barclay Plager (A) - Ed Jovanovski

George Hainsworth
Mike Vernon



Spares: Clint Smith C/LW, Haken Loob RW, Tomas Jonsson D

Powerplay:
Syd Howe - Stan Mikita - Lanny McDonald
Al Macinnis - Andy Bathgate

Rick MacLeish - Art Chapman - Rick Vaive
Carol Vadnais - Ron Greschner

Penalty Kill:
Bob Pulford - Dave Poulin
Jacques Laperierre - Herb Gardiner

Stan Mikita - Dean Prentice
Al MacInnis - Barclay Plager

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 11:27 AM
  #2
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,507
vCash: 500
Again, I am leaving for Europe this weekend and will have zero internet access.

I'm not sure if there is any point in defending my team unless somebody wants to take over on Saturday. Either way Inglewood was the match up I was looking to get.

My team matches up against Inglewoods very nicely.



My LW-C pairings of Howe-Mikita and Pulford-Poulin match up very nicely against Inglewoods top line C-RW pairings of Gretzky-Kurri and Lafontaine-Mogilny.

I realize Gretzky-Kurri is a great pairing, but let's keep this into perspective, having Watson as their wing is a negative any way you slice it. Watson as best is a 2nd line glue guy.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 11:29 AM
  #3
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,507
vCash: 500
I am interested in hearing how Inglewood will match up against my top 2 lines.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 11:33 AM
  #4
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,507
vCash: 500
I know this may stir up some controversy, but is there really anything seperating Mogilny and Macleish offensively in a seven game series?

Sure on a per game basis Lafontaine would have the edge, but we do not give credit for per game performences we evaluate a players entire career. I'm pretty confused with the amount of love that the Lafontaine-Mogilny duo is getting.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 11:33 AM
  #5
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Wow.. arrbez really looked to the ghetto for his LW's this year.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 11:37 AM
  #6
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
I know this may stir up some controversy, but is there really anything seperating Mogilny and Macleish offensively in a seven game series?

Sure on a per game basis Lafontaine would have the edge, but we do not give credit for per game performences we evaluate a players entire career. I'm pretty confused with the amount of love that the Lafontaine-Mogilny duo is getting.
A good part of that is likely the real life chemistry that those two shared. They both had, by far, their best offensive seasons as linemates. To be honest, Mogilny didn't do much outside of that one year, so I definitely think MacLeish is a better offensive player, especially, ESPECIALLY in the playoffs..

Inglewood should get some mileage out of the chemistry factor with Mogilny and Lafontaine, but I don't think there's any reason to think that either player is better offensively than MacLeish once playoffs are taken into account. That isn't a sleight on either of them, either.. neither of them have particularly outstanding playoff records, but they aren't playoff no-shows either.. it's just that MacLeish is a hell of a playoff performer.

EDIT: Actually, Lafontaine likely holds a good longevity edge on MacLeish. Obviously, you can't just ignore the regular season numbers these guys put up once the playoffs come around, and Lafontaine was better for a lot longer than MacLeish in that regard. MacLeish's superior playoff record does a lot to bridge the gap, but I don't know if it's enough to completely overcome it.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 11:37 AM
  #7
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,207
vCash: 500
Lafontaine and Mogilny were magic together, but it WAS basically just one season out of each one's career

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 11:39 AM
  #8
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Wow.. arrbez really looked to the ghetto for his LW's this year.
I think Baldy Northcott is one of the better second line glue guys in the draft, but I agree that the overall offense coming from Inglewood's left wings is below average.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 11:45 AM
  #9
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think Baldy Northcott is one of the better second line glue guys in the draft, but I agree that the overall offense coming from Inglewood's left wings is below average.
When you have Gretzky and Kurri together, you can probably afford to have a weaker LW on that line. I think Watson is a nice fit there. I would probably put Northcott there, however, to balance the offense a bit more. Gretzky was actually quite a fantastic goalscorer, and it pains me to see time and again, GMs not taking advantage of that by putting some playmaking on his wing.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 11:49 AM
  #10
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
A good part of that is likely the real life chemistry that those two shared. They both had, by far, their best offensive seasons as linemates. To be honest, Mogilny didn't do much outside of that one year, so I definitely think MacLeish is a better offensive player, especially, ESPECIALLY in the playoffs..

Inglewood should get some mileage out of the chemistry factor with Mogilny and Lafontaine, but I don't think there's any reason to think that either player is better offensively than MacLeish once playoffs are taken into account. That isn't a sleight on either of them, either.. neither of them have particularly outstanding playoff records, but they aren't playoff no-shows either.. it's just that MacLeish is a hell of a playoff performer.

But it was for one year? Does Kevin Stevens get mileage like that if pairied with Lemieux? He had huge seasons with Lemieux but it was only what 2 or 3 seasons, a very small sample size.


Quote:
EDIT: Actually, Lafontaine likely holds a good longevity edge on MacLeish. Obviously, you can't just ignore the regular season numbers these guys put up once the playoffs come around, and Lafontaine was better for a lot longer than MacLeish in that regard. MacLeish's superior playoff record does a lot to bridge the gap, but I don't know if it's enough to completely overcome it.

Are you basing this "longevity" on per game factored over all of his seasons? With all of Lafontaines (and Mogilnys to a smaller extent) injury history are we suppose to base our view of them playing in all 7 games?

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 12:01 PM
  #11
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
But it was for one year? Does Kevin Stevens get mileage like that if pairied with Lemieux? He had huge seasons with Lemieux but it was only what 2 or 3 seasons, a very small sample size.





Are you basing this "longevity" on per game factored over all of his seasons? With all of Lafontaines (and Mogilnys to a smaller extent) injury history are we suppose to base our view of them playing in all 7 games?
IF you are using the approach that a player will be missing time during a series due to injury, then you absolutely MUST use per-game numbers. Otherwise, you are double punishing the player for getting injured. Being injured means he didn't play those games to get more points and thus boost his legacy some more. Otherwise, if we are to believe that Lafontaine would have sustained his per-game production over the games he didn't play, he'd likely go higher in the ATD. My approach is to assume the player will play in every game, and take his legacy at face value (ie.. I don't do per-game stuff).

The problem with doing things per-game, is that if you do it for one player, it erodes the integrity of his per-game finishes unless you do it for EVERYBODY. Hockey-reference helps a lot with this, since you can sort by points per game, but why go through that trouble? Unless you really think your player looks better using per-game numbers.. but, in my opinion, if you do it for one player, you MUST do it for every player, otherwise, you're just cherry picking guys who look better with per-game numbers.

Suffice it to say, Lafontaine had some pretty good seasons outside of his big year. He had 1 other 100 point season, 3 other 90 point seasons, and 2 other 80 point seasons. In the regular season, MacLeish really only had 2 great seasons, as far as I can tell. He had 4 other 70+ point seasons. It'd be interesting to see where these other seasons rank for these players on the leaderboards. My guess is that Lafontaine comes out ahead.. but who knows.

As far as how much stock people put into the Lafontaine-Mogilny chemistry.. it WAS only one season, but good lord it was a dominant one. It's unfortunate that this season happened when it did, a decade earlier or later and it likely becomes one of the most dominant performances in NHL history (but the same can be said for many guys of this era). It's really sad that Lafontaine couldn't stay healthy the following two seasons, or both these players would be going way higher in the draft most likely. Personally? I really don't have an answer. I don't think such a situation has ever really happened in the NHL, ever, other than with these guys. Punch Broadbent comes to mind, but.. that's about it.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 12:06 PM
  #12
Jafar
Keep it logical
 
Jafar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,693
vCash: 50
I'm not sure I'm buying that Lafontaine-Mogilny thing as far as ATD goes.Sure they were great together , but for such a short period of time that I can't simply think they'll play like they did when they were together.If I was to think like that , I would basically overglorify their career to the fullest.I do give them a couple more points because of it though.

Jafar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 12:08 PM
  #13
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
IF you are using the approach that a player will be missing time during a series due to injury, then you absolutely MUST use per-game numbers. Otherwise, you are double punishing the player for getting injured. Being injured means he didn't play those games to get more points and thus boost his legacy some more. Otherwise, if we are to believe that Lafontaine would have sustained his per-game production over the games he didn't play, he'd likely go higher in the ATD. My approach is to assume the player will play in every game, and take his legacy at face value (ie.. I don't do per-game stuff).

The problem with doing things per-game, is that if you do it for one player, it erodes the integrity of his per-game finishes unless you do it for EVERYBODY. Hockey-reference helps a lot with this, since you can sort by points per game, but why go through that trouble? Unless you really think your player looks better using per-game numbers.. but, in my opinion, if you do it for one player, you MUST do it for every player, otherwise, you're just cherry picking guys who look better with per-game numbers.

Suffice it to say, Lafontaine had some pretty good seasons outside of his big year. He had 1 other 100 point season, 3 other 90 point seasons, and 2 other 80 point seasons. In the regular season, MacLeish really only had 2 great seasons, as far as I can tell. He had 4 other 70+ point seasons. It'd be interesting to see where these other seasons rank for these players on the leaderboards. My guess is that Lafontaine comes out ahead.. but who knows.

As far as how much stock people put into the Lafontaine-Mogilny chemistry.. it WAS only one season, but good lord it was a dominant one. It's unfortunate that this season happened when it did, a decade earlier or later and it likely becomes one of the most dominant performances in NHL history (but the same can be said for many guys of this era). It's really sad that Lafontaine couldn't stay healthy the following two seasons, or both these players would be going way higher in the draft most likely. Personally? I really don't have an answer. I don't think such a situation has ever really happened in the NHL, ever, other than with these guys. Punch Broadbent comes to mind, but.. that's about it.

I've already given you one in Stevens-Lemieux in 1991-92. They were one and two in points for the league.

Lemieux 131
Stevens 123
Gretzky 121


Massive drop to 4th: Hull 109

Why do Lafontaine and Mogilny get bonus points for this "magical season" and yet Stevens and Lemieux (Who had a better one season together) gets dismissed.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 12:13 PM
  #14
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
I'm not sure I'm buying that Lafontaine-Mogilny thing as far as ATD goes.Sure they were great together , but for such a short period of time that I can't simply think they'll play like they did when they were together.If I was to think like that , I would basically overglorify their career to the fullest.I do give them a couple more points because of it though.
If you assume that Lafontaine-Mogilny would produce like they did together over an entire ATD season + playoff, then these guys become top-10 picks.

The rest of their careers cannot be ignored.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
I've already given you one in Stevens-Lemieux in 1991-92. They were one and two in points for the league.

Lemieux 131
Stevens 123
Gretzky 121


Massive drop to 4th: Hull 109

Why do Lafontaine and Mogilny get bonus points for this "magical season" and yet Stevens and Lemieux (Who had a better one season together) gets dismissed.
You're the only one talking about Stevens-Lemieux.. nobody else is. I don't know why you're even bringing it up, since neither of them are in this series. All I said is that people were likely giving bonus points for the Lafontaine-Mogilny thing because of what they did together.. that's all. I didn't say I agree with it. Although honestly, I think there should be some chemistry factor at work there.. I don't think it should be anything major, but I think you have to take it into account. Just like I take the chemistry factor into account with Denneny-Nighbor and, yes, I would do the same for Stevens-Lemieux.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 12:29 PM
  #15
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Suffice it to say, Lafontaine had some pretty good seasons outside of his big year. He had 1 other 100 point season, 3 other 90 point seasons, and 2 other 80 point seasons. In the regular season, MacLeish really only had 2 great seasons, as far as I can tell. He had 4 other 70+ point seasons. It'd be interesting to see where these other seasons rank for these players on the leaderboards. My guess is that Lafontaine comes out ahead.. but who knows.

.
Lafontaine: 2nd,8th,15th,16th,18th,22nd,22nd,36th,50th
MacLeish: 4th,4th,15th,20th,32nd,37th,54th,58th

Sure Lafontaine as a slight to moderate edge, but now factor in the playoffs...

MacLeish was a downright clutch performer who led two cup winners in points and led the 77-78 Flyers in Playoffs points by a massive margin.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 12:38 PM
  #16
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
I've already given you one in Stevens-Lemieux in 1991-92. They were one and two in points for the league.

Lemieux 131
Stevens 123
Gretzky 121


Massive drop to 4th: Hull 109

Why do Lafontaine and Mogilny get bonus points for this "magical season" and yet Stevens and Lemieux (Who had a better one season together) gets dismissed.
Just looking at how their careers went, I don't think this is too difficult to answer.

- Lemieux was easily the best of the four. He was a dominant scorer no matter who he played with, whether it was Stevens, Rob Brown or Bob Errey. Stevens did not make him any better.

- Lafontaine was the next best of the four. He and Mogilny had that "magical season" and never topped it, but his career results showed he was capable of similar levels of performance at many different times in his career. Mogilny didn't "make" him.

- Mogilny wasn't as good as Lafontaine and benefitted from his presence for that one season but proved to be a 70-100 point player on many other occasions without lafontaine.

- Stevens clearly benefitted from having Lemieux on his line. The correllation between his stats and the help from Lemieux, is quite clear. 1992 and 1993 seasons, he had a mostly healthy Lemieux and topped 100 points. 1991 and 1994 he played with Lemieux when he was healthy, which wasn't very often, so he managed in the 80 point range. Other than that, he had 318 points in 559 games. Not quite Gerard Gallant, but obviously the connection is there.

I am just finding it hard to see how we give Lemieux a chemistry bonus, when he had chemistry with everyone, and made almost everyone he played with an offensive star. You can give a chemistry bonus to Stevens, sure, but that is a bonus from being an MLD-caliber player to an ATD-caliber player IMO.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 12:46 PM
  #17
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Lafontaine: 2nd,8th,15th,16th,18th,22nd,22nd,36th,50th
MacLeish: 4th,4th,15th,20th,32nd,37th,54th,58th

Sure Lafontaine as a slight to moderate edge, but now factor in the playoffs...

MacLeish was a downright clutch performer who led two cup winners in points and led the 77-78 Flyers in Playoffs points by a massive margin.
Yeah, MacLeish is probably at least Lafontaine's equal offensively. To be honest, I find MacLeish grossly underrated.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 12:52 PM
  #18
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Just looking at how their careers went, I don't think this is too difficult to answer.

- Lemieux was easily the best of the four. He was a dominant scorer no matter who he played with, whether it was Stevens, Rob Brown or Bob Errey. Stevens did not make him any better.

- Lafontaine was the next best of the four. He and Mogilny had that "magical season" and never topped it, but his career results showed he was capable of similar levels of performance at many different times in his career. Mogilny didn't "make" him.

- Mogilny wasn't as good as Lafontaine and benefitted from his presence for that one season but proved to be a 70-100 point player on many other occasions without lafontaine.

- Stevens clearly benefitted from having Lemieux on his line. The correllation between his stats and the help from Lemieux, is quite clear. 1992 and 1993 seasons, he had a mostly healthy Lemieux and topped 100 points. 1991 and 1994 he played with Lemieux when he was healthy, which wasn't very often, so he managed in the 80 point range. Other than that, he had 318 points in 559 games. Not quite Gerard Gallant, but obviously the connection is there.

I am just finding it hard to see how we give Lemieux a chemistry bonus, when he had chemistry with everyone, and made almost everyone he played with an offensive star. You can give a chemistry bonus to Stevens, sure, but that is a bonus from being an MLD-caliber player to an ATD-caliber player IMO.

All of this is just complete nonsense. If you want to hand out "chemistry bonus points" you should start off with Prentice and Bathgate on the top of your list.

I've just shown Jarek the comparison between MacLeish and Lafontaine and how I believe both MacLeish is underrated and Lafontaine is highly overrated (in an ATD sense)

Would you like me to do a comparison between Mogilny and Bathgate?

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 12:54 PM
  #19
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,207
vCash: 500
The only chemistry boost I give Lafontaine and Mogilny is that I assume compatible skill sets. Lafontaine wasnt much of a playmaker for most of his career but proved he could take that role when playing with Mogilny. I don't think playing together makes either better than his "on paper" resume

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 12:56 PM
  #20
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
All of this is just complete nonsense. If you want to hand out "chemistry bonus points" you should start off with Prentice and Bathgate on the top of your list.

I've just shown Jarek the comparison between MacLeish and Lafontaine and how I believe both MacLeish is underrated and Lafontaine is highly overrated (in an ATD sense)

Would you like me to do a comparison between Mogilny and Bathgate?
I think it's pretty clear, though, mark, that Stevens was largely a product of Lemieux. In fact, unless it was WITH Lemieux, I really wouldn't be comfortable with having Stevens in a prominent role on an ATD team. Lafontaine and Mogilny's relationship was very beneficial for both players, as they seemed to be able to get the most out of each other, even if it was only for one season.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 12:57 PM
  #21
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The only chemistry boost I give Lafontaine and Mogilny is that I assume compatible skill sets. Lafontaine wasnt much of a playmaker for most of his career but proved he could take that role when playing with Mogilny. I don't think playing together makes either better than his "on paper" resume
I give a slight boost.. like, Mogilny might score 3-5 more goals in an ATD season, and Lafontaine might get 6-10 more assists. Something like that.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 01:08 PM
  #22
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,507
vCash: 500
Anyways, my whole point is that I believe my advantage for my 2nd line is larger then the advantage Inglewood has for their first line.

Again, I know Gretzky-Kurri is a great combo, but having Watson on that line really brings it back down to earth. If I were to pick any first line centre to go head to head against Gretzky there aren't too many i'd take ahead of Stan Mikita.

I'd be comfortable with either my first or 3rd line playing against Inglewoods top line.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 01:12 PM
  #23
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Anyways, my whole point is that I believe my advantage for my 2nd line is larger then the advantage Inglewood has for their first line.

Again, I know Gretzky-Kurri is a great combo, but having Watson on that line really brings it back down to earth. If I were to pick any first line centre to go head to head against Gretzky there aren't too many i'd take ahead of Stan Mikita.

I'd be comfortable with either my first or 3rd line playing against Inglewoods top line.
Wow, I don't know about that, man. Gretzky is going to outscore any center he's up against, it doesn't matter who it is. The best anyone has ever done in holding Gretzky back was to the tune of a measly over point per game finish for him in the playoffs. Stan Mikita is good defensively, but he's no Bobby Clarke.

I also don't really think that Watson really brings the line down as much as you think, since Gretzky is going to have the puck on his stick probably around 90% of the time he's on the ice, regardless of who his linemates are. He's also a hell of a goal scorer, like I said, so it isn't like he can't create his own chances.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 01:40 PM
  #24
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Wow, I don't know about that, man. Gretzky is going to outscore any center he's up against, it doesn't matter who it is. The best anyone has ever done in holding Gretzky back was to the tune of a measly over point per game finish for him in the playoffs. Stan Mikita is good defensively, but he's no Bobby Clarke.
.
Show me where I said Mikita was going to outscore Gretzky?

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 02:04 PM
  #25
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
All of this is just complete nonsense. If you want to hand out "chemistry bonus points" you should start off with Prentice and Bathgate on the top of your list.

I've just shown Jarek the comparison between MacLeish and Lafontaine and how I believe both MacLeish is underrated and Lafontaine is highly overrated (in an ATD sense)

Would you like me to do a comparison between Mogilny and Bathgate?
you wanted to know why I wouldn't give Lemieux/Stevens a chemistry bonus, I answered.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:18 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.