HFBoards

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

ATD 12 Bob Cole Quater-Finals: 4 Cairo Desert Dogs vs. 5 Syracuse Bulldogs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-27-2009, 11:39 PM
  #101
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens Fan View Post
It appears that only two players received votes for the Hart Trophy that season.

(from BM67's original post in History of Hockey, on page 5 of the Awards forum)
1931-32
HART:


1. Howie Morenz, Mtl C
2. Ching Johnson, NYR D

And again, the original All-Star voting article as it appeared in the Globe and Mail.
Yes, I see that; but as overpass aluded too, that could just be the 2nd best defenceman on Johnson's side not being as good as the 2nd best defenceman on Shore's side.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 12:09 AM
  #102
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Ken Randall- Albert Leduc vs Dave Burrows-Matthew Schneider

I think I will go Burrows vs Randall, Leduc vs Schneider on this one- think the matchups work better that way.

Burrows vs Randall

Not going to question Burrows is better defensively (although in my work searching
through quotes in the Globe and Mail, all of which are available in Randall's bio
on the front page, I think I showed Randall to be pretty good defensively). The
problem: Burrows is one-dimensional in this regard.

Let's just start off with the toughness quotes:

Quote:
Burrows wasn't a physically dominating, crease clearing blueliner-Joe Pelletier
Burrows PIM's also suggest a lack of toughness.

Now, Randall, on the other hand, is often described as one of the toughest of his era, and seems to dominate this area in comparison to Burrows.

The quotes for Randall in the toughness deaprtment:

Quote:
Among the most rough and uncut characters to grace the page of hockey history was Ken Randall.

Randall was a chunky barrell-chester pug, prone to weight fluctuation. But for a big man, he could hustle. He handled the puck well and had a good shot.

Randall was a colorful slam-bang hockeyist, the kind of bulldog every coach wants in the dressing room. Although he was not enrishned in the Hockey Hall of Fame, he was nonetheless one of the top hockey players in the new NHL.-Ultimate Hockey
Quote:
He was known in that era as being one of the toughest players on the ice, and in fact many writers took to calling him a "hooligan" or "thug" for what was often perceived as dirty play by fans and opposing players.-HHOF
There's more on his bio.

Randall's offense is a bit difficult when playign defence considering it seems uncertain which seasons and games he was playing which (unless someone has convenient to get info on that?) I didn't really focus on what
Randall ws playing game-in, game-out in that search for quotes, although from what I gathered from his early career at least he was spending his time as a defenceman mostly. His 14 points in the first NHL year would have been good for 5th in points amongst defenceman in the NHL, which I wouldn't call a stretch for him to make. But considering Burrows career high is 29 points (which I don't think was quite good enough to make the top-30 in scoring amongst defenceman in the year in question) I am quite certain Randall is the much better of the two offensively, as evident by Burrows near-non existence in this regard, as opposed to some stats showing well for Randall, as well a a lot of quotes praising Randall's offense, such as:

Quote:
"Ken" Randall played the beat game he has ever shown on local ice and his rushes were of sensational variety.-Globe and Mail
Quote:
Mummery and Randall gave a grand display, and their blocking and rushing was well nigh perfect. The latter had settle down to buisness in earnest, and if anybody stood out last night it was Randall. He completely bewildered the visitors by his sensational rushing and seemed to be able to outguess the defence with ridiculous ease.-Globe and Mail
Quote:
Randall and Noble again bore the brunt of the work for the blueshirts. The former notched three goals after clever end-to-end dashes.-Globe and Mail
Quote:
Two players stood out for the wearers of green and white, these being Randall and Noble. The former checked well and was very effective on the attack. His rushes generally led to a shot on goal.-Globe and Mail
Quote:
Ottawa did their checking on their own side of centre ice, and against the five-man defence only Randall could make any headway.-Globe and mail
Quote:
Randall played the entire sixty minutes, and his rushing was one of the bright features. -Globe and Mail
In addition to the quotes a bit above this group and the one on Randall getting by Gerad-Boucher-Clancy.

Does Burrows defensive edge make up for Randall's toughness and offensive edges? I don't think so, personally.

Albert Leduc vs Mathieu Schneider

Schneider isn't the guy I have watched much. And the info I see doesn't show much of his intangibles- so I am going to go ahead and ask what is his intangible game?

Toughness I am pretty sure he doesn't stack up to Leduc in, as shown in this quote:

Quote:
When he took his first strides on Forum ice, he did so with big skates to fill. Replacing Sprague Cleghorn on the Habs’ blue-line was no easy task, but the Valleyfield, QC native quickly cemented his role as a pillar of the team’s defense corps.

As physically punishing and imposing as his predecessor,
this hard-hitting defenceman was equally renowned for his ability to lead the rush, propelling him to a career high 10 goals in his rookie campaign in 1925-26-canadiens.com.
and this:

Quote:
Always moving at top speed, his devastating body checks made him a fan favorite at the Forum. Cracking the NHL’s top 10 most penalized players list on three occasions, the robust rearguard fittingly earned himself the nickname “Battleship”. and this:
Quote:
In the last period, "Hooley" Smith of the Maroons lost his temper, and took a swing with his stick at the silvering hari of "Pit" Lepine. He missed, and Leduc, husky Canadiens defenceman, sailed into "Hooley". A major penalty was awarded to Smith, and Leduc drew a minor. After the game was over, both jumped out of the penalty box and staged a hectic one-round fist fight at centre ice while 11,00 fans looked on and cheered.-Globe and Mail
Defensively, well I know by quotes Leduc played a pretty good defensive game. I'd like to see what you got for Schneider in that regard.

Offensively? Well, here's everything I got on Leduc in that regard:
Top 10's
Defencemen Goals- 2nd(1926), 6th(1928), 3rd(1929), 3rd(1931), 9th(1932), 9th(1933)
Defencemen Assists- 9th(1926), 9th(1928), 9th(1930), 10th(1931)
Defencemen Points- 2nd (1926), 9th(1928), 5th(1929), 9th(1930), 4th(1931)

Playoff Defencemen Goals- 2nd(1928)*, 1st(1929)*, 3rd(1930)*, 6th(1932)*
Playoff Defencemen Assists- 1st(1930), 3rd(1931), 4th(1932)*
Playoff Defencemen Points- 4th(1928)*, 3rd(1929)*, 1st(1930), 6th(1931), 6th(1932)

Platoff Assists- 3rd(1930)
Playoff Points- 6th(1930)

*All placings marked with asterisk are standings that occured due to Leduc scoring 1 goal, assist, or point. Most of his placements were accomplished with quite low scoring numbers. This is mainly a result of the era he played in, and due to many defencemen not scoring any points at all in the playoffs. between 1928-1933, Leduc tied for 2nd in defencemen playoff goals, 2nd in defencemen playoff assists, and 1st for defencemen playoff points, so he was indeed one of the best offensive playoff defencemen of his day, whether or not you care for scoring placements accomplished with small numbers.

Does Schneider compare in any aspect to Leduc? I think Leduc has got quite the advantage, but I'd like to see what you got for Schneider.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 12:18 AM
  #103
Canadiens Fan
Registered User
 
Canadiens Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post

As for the difference between Johnson and Wilson, well , Johnson had Shore, clancy, Mantha, Conacher, Horner, and Day to compete, as opposed to Wilson who had Bourque, coffey, Potvin, MacInnis, Chelios, Mark Howe, and Robinson to deal with over the course of the 80s..
Well, let's just say that Wilson will always have to buy a ticket to get into the Hall of Fame to see Johnson's plaque. Wilson may have nice offensive numbers but as a defenseman he's a notch below Johnson.

In addition, Johnson was a crucial part of two Cup winners, in addition to being in three other finals over the course of his career. Wilson's resume, whether it be All-Star votes, Hart votes, regular season and post-seaon performance is not up to Johnson's.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
As Hockey Outsider noted, those finishes aren't meaningful.
..
But as Hockey Outsider noted these are ...

Quote:
Hockey Outsider
My "revised" number would give the Chara-Johnson pair a 3-2 (rather than a 6-3) advantage in years as a Hart candidate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
I also got Goodfellow coming 4th in Hart voting in 1931..is that wrong? He was a forward at the time and aspects of a player don't always translate between forward and defenceman, but as Goodfellow's valuability to his teams did evidently translate, I think it holds value.
It would hold more value if you played him at forward. We're evaluating him in this matchup as a defenseman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm still waiting for a quote on Goodfellow's defensive attributes. Your quotes mention him as a fighter and as a "defensive superstar" but you still haven't produced examples of his defensive prowess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
And I am going to challenge you to show Chara's points amongst defenceman in the playoffs. In addition to reflecting Goodfellow's superiority, they also reflect Chara's relative inexperience in the playoffs compared to Goodfellow's.
And as I've said points are merely one facet of a defenseman's play, another facet would be Goodfellow's prowess as a defensemen in his own end which we don't yet know. Phil Housley put up a lot of points and it didn't make him a great defenseman.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Well first off, it seems like Johnson handled Morenz along the boards- where speed doesn't play as much of a factor and Johnson can play his clutch and grab game, which seems to be his bread and butter to somewhat make up for his speed issues based on this LOH quote:

Secondly, I wouldn't call it a "clear" example, as it doesn't exactly say how Johnson got the puck off of the opposing guy's stick; by pushing him off it or by using stickwrok, but at anyrate based on the LOH quote, Johnson's defensive ability does stem primarily from his body work. On the quote on Morenz too.

Blake is the primary puck winner for my line most likely, who can handle the rought stuff pretty well. But this doesn't defend your #1 defenceman against speed who you can't defend as well as I believe we have seen Chara struggle in the playoffs against a speedy Buffalo team. And is Johnson going to fare as well on the rush, where my speedsters could get around him due to sheer speed before Johnson can employ his clutch and grab game? I don't think he is going to fare well in that regard..
Well if Johnson was good enough to defend against the stars of his day at such a high level I don't see where the speed of you're forwards is going to be a problem. If he can handle Howie Morenz than I think he can handle you're forwards.

The fact that Chara won a Norris Trophy on a first place overall team suggests that he was able to excel against all team's.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess the main question for your first line versus my first defense pairing will come down to speed versus size.

Cyclone Taylor - 5'8" 165 pounds
Toe Blake - 5'10" 162 pounds
Teemu Selanne - 6'0" 196 pounds

vs.

Zdeno Chara - 6'9" 255 pounds
Ching Johnson - 5'11' 210 pounds


But also remember that my first line center is Frank Boucher who played night in and night out with Ching Johnson. Two Stanley Cups and Five appearances in the Stanley Cup Finals testify to the effectiveness of that relationship.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canadiens Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 12:26 AM
  #104
Canadiens Fan
Registered User
 
Canadiens Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever;22350288
[B
Burrows vs Randall[/B]

Not going to question Burrows is better defensively (although in my work searching
through quotes in the Globe and Mail, all of which are available in Randall's bio
on the front page, I think I showed Randall to be pretty good defensively). The
problem: Burrows is one-dimensional in this regard.

Let's just start off with the toughness quotes:
Why print off just one line of the biography about Dave Burrows?? Why not print off the whole bio that Joe Pelletier wrote, and put the toughness quote in it's proper context??

Quote:
Joe Pelletier
Most people will agree that Bobby Orr is the best defenseman ever. But how about the best pure defensive defenseman? While there are a lot of candidates, one of them would have to be the heavily underrated and under appreciated Dave Burrows.

While Orr lit up the scoreboard during the 1970s, Burrows was busy preventing goals with the Pittsburgh Penguins and later the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Burrows wasn't a physically dominating, crease clearing blueliner. Instead he relied on a greater understanding of the game to be in perfect position no matter what scenario he was faced with. He was an expert shot blocker and above all else, was known as one of the best skaters of his time. He amazed many observers with his incredible speed and agility. Some felt he could skate faster backward than most could go forward.

"I took a lot of pride in being able to move laterally and backwards with great ease. It took a lot of practice, but it was something I enjoyed doing," he said.

"In fact, I used to get a big kick out of skating backwards on two-on-one breaks or one-on-one breaks against me when I was back on defense. It was a challenge trying to break up situations like that. I enjoyed that part of the game the most."

Growing up in Toronto, Burrows idolized the legendary defensive backliner Tim Horton.

"I can remember watching Tim play on TV when I was a kid, but I never patterned my style of play after him. I just admired the way he played defense."

Needless to say, it was greatly exciting for Burrows to join the Pittsburgh Penguins in 1971-72, a team that also featured Horton.

"The biggest thrill of my career was playing defense with Tim when we were together in Pittsburgh. I was in awe of the man. In fact, the first time I was introduced to him I didn't know what to say!

"And Tim wasn't afraid to give out advice or help. He helped me out with a lot of little things in my game. He's a man I'll never forget, I owe him a lot."

Unfortunately for Burrows and defensive minded rearguards like him during the 1970s, he received virtually no recognition. Bobby Orr revolutionized the way defensemen played the game. No longer were they on the ice to stop goals, but instead to create offense.

"I guess you would have to say it was tough getting any recognition with a guy like Bobby around" said Burrows. "But that really didn't bother me because I really didn't like getting a lot of attention. I just enjoyed my game."

Burrows greatly admired Orr too.

"Sitting back and watching a guy like Orr, you knew that he deserved to get all the awards he got. He could skate so well. And he was a good defensive defenseman. With the speed he had he could come back and cover up on some of the mistakes he made. To say the least, he was adept on defense. I wouldn't mind having him on my team. He was the best I ever saw.

Burrows retired from the National Hockey League in 1981. He scored just 29 goals in 724 games, but was one of the best in the league at his role.

Canadiens Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 12:30 AM
  #105
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens Fan View Post
Why print off just one line of the biography about Dave Burrows?? Why not print off the whole bio that Joe Pelletier wrote, and put the toughness quote in it's proper context??
That quote is pretty much what's said on his toughness in that article, the rest about defence I found. I was focusing on toughness in that instance. As I said, I am not going to question Burrows defensive ability nor question whether he's better than Randall in the defensive aspect of the game; he is.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 01:27 AM
  #106
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Well, let's just say that Wilson will always have to buy a ticket to get into the Hall of Fame to see Johnson's plaque. Wilson may have nice offensive numbers but as a defenseman he's a notch below Johnson.

In addition, Johnson was a crucial part of two Cup winners, in addition to being in three other finals over the course of his career. Wilson's resume, whether it be All-Star votes, Hart votes, regular season and post-seaon performance is not up to Johnson's.
The Hall isn't everything.

Offensively, his resume is quite better than Johnson's. Speed too.

Johnson played on better teams than Wilson did. Not that Wilson was a playoff slouch, as evident by a 2nd, three 3rd's, and a 6th in playoff scoring amongst defencemen.

But hey, if you want to talk about being crucial to cup winners and cup finalists, why don't you also talk about Chara and Goodfellow in comparison in that regard? Would have anything to do with Chara only making it past the second round once and rather lacklustre playoff record on a whole? Or Goodfellow's 3 cups, 2 of which he was serving as captain?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
But as Hockey Outsider noted these are ...


It would hold more value if you played him at forward. We're evaluating him in this matchup as a defenseman.
Of course it would; I am contesting that it does still have some value seeing as it an aspect of his game that evidently translated to both phases of Goodfellow's career.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
I'm still waiting for a quote on Goodfellow's defensive attributes. Your quotes mention him as a fighter and as a "defensive superstar" but you still haven't produced examples of his defensive prowess.
Will try to address this tomorrow.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
And as I've said points are merely one facet of a defenseman's play, another facet would be Goodfellow's prowess as a defensemen in his own end which we don't yet know. Phil Housley put up a lot of points and it didn't make him a great defenseman.
Of course we don't see anything about Goodfellow being notoriously bad in the defensive regard.

But way to try and deflect the wide gap between the two in the playoff offense department to another arguement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Well if Johnson was good enough to defend against the stars of his day at such a high level I don't see where the speed of you're forwards is going to be a problem. If he can handle Howie Morenz than I think he can handle you're forwards.

The fact that Chara won a Norris Trophy on a first place overall team suggests that he was able to excel against all team's.
Morenz is one guy. My line has three. And again, boards vs rush.

Winning a Norris trophy doesn't mean excelling against everything that comes at you. It means Chara had, on a whole, a good year. It doesn't mean he won't have trouble with speedy forwards, which we have seen evidence of.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
I guess the main question for your first line versus my first defense pairing will come down to speed versus size.

Cyclone Taylor - 5'8" 165 pounds
Toe Blake - 5'10" 162 pounds
Teemu Selanne - 6'0" 196 pounds

vs.

Zdeno Chara - 6'9" 255 pounds
Ching Johnson - 5'11' 210 pounds


But also remember that my first line center is Frank Boucher who played night in and night out with Ching Johnson. Two Stanley Cups and Five appearances in the Stanley Cup Finals testify to the effectiveness of that relationship.
Ever here of size relativity? You know, how people were generally much smaller back then?

Please point me to the quotes saying "Taylor was small" or "Blake was small". Selanne is on the smallish side, but he's not a midget.

Of course those two are big; the point is with the speed differential I don't think they get to use their size games to full effectiveness. Of course my blueline has some big guys as well (Goodfellow, Pulford), they just don't have the same mobility issues.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
But also remember that my first line center is Frank Boucher who played night in and night out with Ching Johnson. Two Stanley Cups and Five appearances in the Stanley Cup Finals testify to the effectiveness of that relationship.
Now being teammates and having success on the same team automatically means guys have amazing chemistry? Why don't you point me to the quote that notes how chemistry the two were, and how the chemistry between the pair stood out somehow.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 07:24 AM
  #107
Canadiens Fan
Registered User
 
Canadiens Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
The Hall isn't everything.

Offensively, his resume is quite better than Johnson's. Speed too.

Johnson played on better teams than Wilson did. Not that Wilson was a playoff slouch, as evident by a 2nd, three 3rd's, and a 6th in playoff scoring amongst defencemen.

But hey, if you want to talk about being crucial to cup winners and cup finalists, why don't you also talk about Chara and Goodfellow in comparison in that regard? Would have anything to do with Chara only making it past the second round once and rather lacklustre playoff record on a whole? Or Goodfellow's 3 cups, 2 of which he was serving as captain?.
Now does Goodfellow have a better record playoff record than Chara ?? yes.

But, does Johnson have a better playoff record than Wilson ?? yes.

Amongst the first pairings for a playoff record I would call that a wash at best.

And that's why they're called defense pairings. Goodfellow/Wilson are a better offensive pairing but as has been demonstrated Johnson/Chara have more Hart Trophy votes, more Norris Trophy votes, more All-Star votes etc ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Of course we don't see anything about Goodfellow being notoriously bad in the defensive regard.
Which would make him average at best, and defensively worse than both Chara and Johnson.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Morenz is one guy. My line has three. And again, boards vs rush.
Albeit one guy who is faster and better than your three.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Ever here of size relativity? You know, how people were generally much smaller back then?
I guess that makes Johnson size advantage back then over Taylor and Blake pretty much equivalent to Chara's advantage over Selanne today.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Now being teammates and having success on the same team automatically means guys have amazing chemistry? Why don't you point me to the quote that notes how chemistry the two were, and how the chemistry between the pair stood out somehow.
Five Stanley Cup finals appearances and two Stanley Cup championships over the course of a decade speak to that.

Quote:
Globe and Mail, March 23rd, 1935

Canadiens, the mystery team of the playoff series, and Rangers, in and outers present an intriguing problem. Nobody knows what either would do, but the fact is admitted that hard-bitten veterans like the Cook brothers, Frank Boucher, and Ching Johnson go places when the money looms enticingly just ahead.

Canadiens Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 10:36 AM
  #108
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
I really think the percentage was much lower than your estimate for 1970. A badly coached, ill prepared & badly put together mish mash of players came from behind to beat them in 72. A Wha team in 74 had them on the run until some bad lineup decisions & the usual russian hijinks on home ice turned it around. the russians were not that good in 1970.
You could be right; that was just my best guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens Fan View Post
To coincide with the Memorial Cup the SIHR annual general meeting is being held in Brandon, Manitoba on the weekend of May 15th, 2010.

If you would like me to send you more information, just let me know.

The annual fall meeting is being held at the new Hall of Fame resource center in the fall of 2010.
Aha! I knew I heard something. Yeah, if it is in Brandon next May, I'll be there. Amanda will be 7 1/2 months pregnant but I'll be there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens Fan View Post

Goodfellow regular season points per game average = .58
Goodfellow playoff points per game average = .36

Chara regular season points per game average = .42
Chara playoff points per game average = .32
I haven't gone that far into this thread so maybe this is touched on, but I just thought I'd say that Goodfellow switched from forward to defense in the middle of his career, so his regular season and playoff PPG averages can be skewed by that. I would isolate the two to get a better picture of what happened.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 10:53 AM
  #109
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
although from what I gathered from his early career at least he was spending his time as a defenceman mostly.
randall is probably the toughest guy to figure out from that time as far as determining what seasons he played what positions.

BTW, nice quotes you got there.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 11:03 AM
  #110
Canadiens Fan
Registered User
 
Canadiens Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I haven't gone that far into this thread so maybe this is touched on, but I just thought I'd say that Goodfellow switched from forward to defense in the middle of his career, so his regular season and playoff PPG averages can be skewed by that. I would isolate the two to get a better picture of what happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever
And I'm going to challenge Chara's playoff record, and ask you if it compete with Goodfellow's playoff numbers:

As a defenseman.

Goodfellow regular season points per game average = .46
Goodfellow playoff points per game average = .27

Chara regular season points per game average = .42
Chara playoff points per game average = .32

For all the talk about Chara's ineffectiveness in the playoffs it's interesting to note that he is a higher points per game playoff scorer than Goodfellow.


Last edited by Canadiens Fan: 11-28-2009 at 11:16 AM.
Canadiens Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 05:45 PM
  #111
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Now does Goodfellow have a better record playoff record than Chara ?? yes.

But, does Johnson have a better playoff record than Wilson ?? yes.

Amongst the first pairings for a playoff record I would call that a wash at best.

And that's why they're called defense pairings. Goodfellow/Wilson are a better offensive pairing but as has been demonstrated Johnson/Chara have more Hart Trophy votes, more Norris Trophy votes, more All-Star votes etc ...
OF course you say that while not looking at the gaps between the two. I always found this an effective way to look at:

Does Wilson have a better playoff record than Chara? Yes, I'd say so. I still notice your fear of posting any of Chara's placements in defenceman scoring in the playoffs. Is it because they don't exist?

Does Goodfellow have a better playoff record than Johnson? Offensively, definetly. Goodfellow was also captaining two of the teams in his three cup victories. Goodfellow also has two extra cup final appearences outside of his cup wins. I don't see what would make Johnson's record better particularly.

Not all hart trophy votes are createrd equal here, which is an issue. Neither of your guys has the same as Goodfellow's hart trophy win. And again, if you value the 4th in hart Goodfellow has in hart trophy voting, it's different.

More Norris trophy votes? Considering two of these guys existed in an era without norris trophies, I don't know what you are talking about. Although Goodfellow has a retro norris while Johnson dowesn't, while both Chara and Wilson have norrises, so..

As I noted, the reason for the extra AST's were Goodfellow's time as a centre (in a pretty good field), and Wilson playing in one of the most competitive defenceman era's.

And again, your pairing has a weakness that my top line can very well exploit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Which would make him average at best, and defensively worse than both Chara and Johnson.
But Chara is definetly below average against speedy forwards, which I have got plenty of, and Johnson may be qestionable in that regard as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Albeit one guy who is faster and better than your three.

What evidence is there that Morenz is faster than Taylor? And again, it was a quote about a play along the boards, where speed isn't as much of an advantage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
I guess that makes Johnson size advantage back then over Taylor and Blake pretty much equivalent to Chara's advantage over Selanne today.
Well I believe Taylor was born about 14 years before Johnson.

And it's not about size; it's how you use it. Or if you can use it in Johnson and Chara's size.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Five Stanley Cup finals appearances and two Stanley Cup championships over the course of a decade speak to that.
No it doesn't. Your logic is that if two guys play on the same team, they have chemistry. If one guy plays on a first line, and one guy plays on a fourth line on a third line on a dyansty, if you toss them on the same line it's not going to mean chemistry points. And considering Johnson game was the defensive side of things, I don't think he really contributed much to Boucher's offense.

All the quote does is name some of the best guys/veterans of the team. Just because they are named in the same sentence, does not mean they got great chemistry.

Quote:
As a defenseman.

Goodfellow regular season points per game average = .46
Goodfellow playoff points per game average = .27

Chara regular season points per game average = .42
Chara playoff points per game average = .32

For all the talk about Chara's ineffectiveness in the playoffs it's interesting to note that he is a higher points per game playoff scorer than Goodfellow.
And I agains challenge you to show what were the average drop offs in scoring rates for defenceman from regular season to playoffs for defenceman in these era's. Or even the average PPG of these guys era's for defencweman in the regular and playoff season. These numbers mean nothing without proper context.

And I also, again, challenge you to post Chara's scoring finishes in the playoffs amongst defernceman.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 11-28-2009 at 05:59 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 06:10 PM
  #112
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,081
vCash: 500
How to cancel personnal bias : picking Dunderdale after picking Hunter. Or the other way around.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 06:30 PM
  #113
Canadiens Fan
Registered User
 
Canadiens Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
And I agains challenge you to show what were the average drop offs in scoring rates for defenceman from regular season to playoffs for defenceman in these era's. Or even the average PPG of these guys era's for defencweman in the regular and playoff season. These numbers mean nothing without proper context.
Fine, here's the proper context behind Goodfellow's playoff accomplishments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Playoff Goals- 2nd (1934), 8th (1937)
Playoff Assists- 4th (1934)
Playoff Points- 3rd (1934), 10th (1937)

Playoff Defenceman Goals- 6th (1936), 2nd (1937)
Playoff Defenceman Assists- 2nd (1937), 2nd (1940), 9th (1941)
Playoff Defenceman Points- 9th (1936), 1st (1937), 5th (1940)
Now here's the truth behind your "stats".

First off let's eliminate the 1934 placings because he was a forward which is a nice trick when trying to evaluate playoff points as a defenseman.

Playoff Goals- 8th (1937)
The Truth
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1937 had 2 goals in the playoffs.

Playoff Points- 10th (1937)
The Truth
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1937 had 4 points in the playoffs.

Playoff Defenceman Goals- 6th (1936), 2nd (1937)
The Truth
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1936 had 1 goal in the playoffs.
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1937 had 2 goals in the playoffs.

Playoff Defenceman Assists- 2nd (1937), 2nd (1940), 9th (1941)
The Truth
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1937 had 2 assists in the playoffs.
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1940 had 2 assists in the playoffs.
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1941 had 1 assist in the playoffs.

Playoff Defenceman Points- 9th (1936), 1st (1937), 5th (1940)
The Truth
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1936 had 1 point in the playoffs.
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1937 had 4 points in the playoffs.
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1940 had 2 points in the playoffs.

These are some pretty high totals.

I'm supposed to be impressed that he finished ninth in 1936 playoff points for all defensemen with ONE WHOLE POINT IN SEVEN GAMES.

To paraphrase Hockey Outsider, these point totals are so little it renders their placement in a top ten meaningless.

Now I notice that you don't list his playoff scoring for the 1936 playoffs when in six playoff games he didn't register a point, obviously just missing the top ten.

Say what you want about Chara but he's never been held pointless in the playoffs.

So once you take away the smoke and mirrors you're left with the great equalizer - playoff points per game played.

Again.

Goodfellow regular season points per game average = .46
Goodfellow playoff points per game average = .27

Chara regular season points per game average = .42
Chara playoff points per game average = .32

The numbers unlike your scoring placements don't lie.

Canadiens Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 07:04 PM
  #114
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens Fan View Post
Fine, here's the proper context behind Goodfellow's playoff accomplishments.



Now here's the truth behind your "stats".

First off let's eliminate the 1934 placings because he was a forward which is a nice trick when trying to evaluate playoff points as a defenseman.

Playoff Goals- 8th (1937)
The Truth
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1937 had 2 goals in the playoffs.

Playoff Points- 10th (1937)
The Truth
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1937 had 4 points in the playoffs.

Playoff Defenceman Goals- 6th (1936), 2nd (1937)
The Truth
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1936 had 1 goal in the playoffs.
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1937 had 2 goals in the playoffs.

Playoff Defenceman Assists- 2nd (1937), 2nd (1940), 9th (1941)
The Truth
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1937 had 2 assists in the playoffs.
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1940 had 2 assists in the playoffs.
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1941 had 1 assist in the playoffs.

Playoff Defenceman Points- 9th (1936), 1st (1937), 5th (1940)
The Truth
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1936 had 1 point in the playoffs.
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1937 had 4 points in the playoffs.
Ebbie Goodfellow in 1940 had 2 points in the playoffs.

These are some pretty high totals.

I'm supposed to be impressed that he finished ninth in 1936 playoff points for all defensemen with ONE WHOLE POINT IN SEVEN GAMES.

To paraphrase Hockey Outsider, these point totals are so little it renders their placement in a top ten meaningless.

Now I notice that you don't list his playoff scoring for the 1936 playoffs when in six playoff games he didn't register a point, obviously just missing the top ten.

Say what you want about Chara but he's never been held pointless in the playoffs.

So once you take away the smoke and mirrors you're left with the great equalizer - playoff points per game played.

Again.

Goodfellow regular season points per game average = .46
Goodfellow playoff points per game average = .27

Chara regular season points per game average = .42
Chara playoff points per game average = .32

The numbers unlike your scoring placements don't lie.
Oh yes, this old arguement.

Well let me again note, those PPG numbers are meaningless until you are prepared to put them into context. If goodfellow's era had a much bigger drop off in playoff scoring they do lie. (which appears like it could be the case based on the numbers you needed to place high in those years)

I was posting all of his playoff accomplishments. Do those scoring finishes as a forward have the same value playing defence? Know, but as again it was a part of his game that translated, I think it does have some value.

It was the era Goodfellow played in. As evident, if he could get those placements with those totals, the defenceman were scoring very little in the playoffs simply due to era. Is the ATD not about relativity?

In the 2001-02 playoff, Chara scored an incredible 1 point in 10 games. Nice try trying to make Chara seem like he never had playoffs as bad offensively as that one for Goodfellow.

But, like I did with Leduc, I'll try and play these rules somewhat.

From the period of 1936,-1941, Goodfellow placed about 6th in playoff defenceman point scoring (I believe I included the multi-position guys- point out who I didn't feature if I did not). Guys that came ahead were Hollet, Pratt, Clapper, Shore, Horner I believe.

From the period of 2002-2009, Chara placed about 17th in defenceman playoff points scoring. Guys that came ahead, from closest to farthest? Craig Rivet, Bryan MCCabe, Chris Chelios, Mattias Ohlund, Brad STuart, Dan Boyle, Niklas Kronwall, Rob Blake, Brian Campbell, Sergei Zubov, Wade Redden, Sergei Gonchar, Scott Niedermayer, Brian Rafalski, Chris Pronger, Niklas Lidstrom.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 07:16 PM
  #115
Canadiens Fan
Registered User
 
Canadiens Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post

From the period of 1936,-1941, Goodfellow placed about 6th in playoff defenceman point scoring (I believe I included the multi-position guys- point out who I didn't feature if I did not). Guys that came ahead were Hollet, Pratt, Clapper, Shore, Horner I believe.

From the period of 2002-2009, Chara placed about 17th in defenceman playoff points scoring. Guys that came ahead, from closest to farthest? Craig Rivet, Bryan MCCabe, Chris Chelios, Mattias Ohlund, Brad STuart, Dan Boyle, Niklas Kronwall, Rob Blake, Brian Campbell, Sergei Zubov, Wade Redden, Sergei Gonchar, Scott Niedermayer, Brian Rafalski, Chris Pronger, Niklas Lidstrom.
So then to use your argument and to put Goodfellow's accomplishment in a modern day context.

Goodfellow placed 6th in playoff scoring for defensemen in a 6 team league.

Chara placed 17th in playoff scoring for defenseman in a 32 team league.

That would mean that the modern equivalent of Goodfellow's playoff scoring performance would place him 32nd in a 32 team league or 15 spots behind Chara.

Canadiens Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 07:20 PM
  #116
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens Fan View Post
So then to use your argument and to put Goodfellow's accomplishment in a modern day context.

Goodfellow placed 6th in playoff scoring for defensemen in a 6 team league.

Chara placed 17th in playoff scoring for defenseman in a 32 team league.

That would mean that the modern equivalent of Goodfellow's playoff scoring performance would place him 32nd in a 32 team league or 15 spots behind Chara.
You seriously think there were 26 defenceman not in the league at the time better than Goodfellow offensively in the playoffs? That's a joke. A big one. Goodfellow was beating the MCCabes, Rivets, Ohlunds, Stuarts of his time (if those guys were even good enough to make the league in Goodfellows time)

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 07:23 PM
  #117
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Gaye Stewart-Pit Martin-Jimmy Peters vs Al Secord-Dale Hunter-Mike Keane

Two lines that will be seeing a lot of eachother. With Martin and Peters however, it has the defensive ability to play against your third line sometimes and I think wouldn't fare too badly against your 2nd line on the very unlikely chance they face eachother. More than your 4th is suited to play my 2nd anyway, but that's getting ahead of myself.

Stewart vs Keane

I like the Stewart on Keane matchup. Stewart is going to be scoring more no doubt; Keane nebver finish top-10 in any offensive category except short handed goals once. Stewart on the other hand has a 1st, 4th, and 7th, and 10th in top-10 goals,
6th in assists and 2nd and 4th in top-10 points. Neither is, too my knowledge, particularly known for defensive work (although Keane did spend time on the PK, it seems). Stewart has some grit, but Keane likely has an edge in that rwegard. Still, Keane's offense is nowhere near STewart's, which likely makes up any edge Keane has in the intagible department and will see the fast Stewart win this matchup.

Pit Martin vs Dale Hunter

Aaa yes, the ATD's staple 4th line C vs the one of the ATD's more underappreciated 4th line C (I feel). Much like the previous matchup, no contest offensively.
Martin's numbers:

Goals- 18th(1967), 16th(1970)
Assists- 8th(1972), 4th(1973), 13th(1974)
Points- 19th(1970), 14th(1972), 11th(1973), 15th(1974)

Playoff Top 15's
Goals- 13th(1972), 2nd(1973)
Assists- 10th(1968), 9th(1971), 15th(1973)
Points- 14th(1968), 7th(1973)

I don't believe Hunter ever finishes top-20 or anything despite the high career numbers, correct me if I'm wrong. Martin;s intangible quotes:

Quote:
Although only 5'8" and 165 pounds, the rugged two-way forward proved that he could leave his mark in the NHL by playing hard every shift of every game.-LOH
Quote:
The powerful and agile skater was traded from the Red Wings to the Boston Bruins midway through the 1965-66 season, where he spent a season and a half. He then moved to the Chicago Blackhawks in 1967 where he played another 11 years. He eventually won over Chicago fans with is speedy attack and insistent digging for loose pucks in the corners.-Joe Pelletier
Quote:
As much as his playmaking, he was known for his heart. In 1969, when the Blackhawks missed the playoffs, he called out his team, saying that only three players on the team “wear their uniforms with any desire to win.”-wayne Scanalan
I'll give Hunter the edge in the intangible area, but Martin is evidently no slouch in that area, also described with defensive ability, rugged play, heart, and leadership.
IS the intangible edge for Hunter as great as the offensive edge for Pit Martin? I don't feel that to be the case.

Jimmy Peters vs Al Secord

Offensively, unsure. Secord has a 6th in goals vs an 8th for Peers, both their only top-10. I'd have to see what the rest of Secor'd finishes in the top-20 werel ike
to make a call. Interesinyl though, in that season with the 6th in goals, Secord didn't seem to be playing his game. A quote from AL Secord on his bio by Joe Pelletier:

Quote:
"Steve Larmer came to our line. Me and Denis Savard were very fortunate to have Steve Larmer. We were a solid line. I didn't have that much penalty minutes, because our coach asked me not to fight so often. Actually, even though I scored well, I felt like I didn't play the way I was supposed to play. I was also told not to hit guys so often. I needed to play physical, and I didn't. It's big part of my game, to be on the other guys skin. When I hit a guy and the crowd starts chanting, it brings energy to me and to my team-mates. And I was missing that element. It felt strange."
As far as toughness goes, Secord likely gets the win, although Peters was known as a "scrappy winger" and a "Fighting Irishman( a fight in the making, perhaps?)
But as far as defense goes, Peters definelty gets an edge. Secod isn't known for defense; Peters was a part of lines that shutdown the Kraut and pony lines.
I don't think he will have much of a problem keeping Secord off the board, and as Peters seems to be able to handle the rought stuff somewhat, it should outweigh
any impeding Secord does with his toughness, likely givign Peters the better of the matchup.

As far as just going Lw LW, RW RW, well Stewart's offense will still give him the edge over Secord. Peters seems to have the offensive and defensive edge over Keane as well, as I have not seen much of Kean'es defense (which likely doesn't compare to Peter's anyway) and Peters does have a top-10 finish Keane lacks (as well as a couple other top-20's. (Although if Keane has a bunch of top-20s I am unaware of, please say so and perhaps he will have an edge.)

Overall though, my line definetly has much greater offensive ability and with some solid intangibles as well and the best defensive player on either line (Peters) I think my line has the edge.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 11-28-2009 at 07:35 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 07:58 PM
  #118
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Special Teams:


PP1: Toe Blake-Cyclone Taylor-Teemu Selanne-Ebbie Goodfellow-Doug Wilson
PP2: Smokey Harris-Cooney Weiland-Theo Fleury-Albert LEduc-Gus Mortson

PK1: Jack Walker-Edgar Laprade-Harvey Pulford-Gus Mortson
PK2: Cooney Weiland-Theo Fleury-Albert Leduc-Doug Wilson

vs


PP 1: Sweeney Shriner - Frank Boucher - Gordie Howe - Lloyd Cook - Mathieu Schneider
PP 2: Zdeno Chara - Frank Frederickson - Mike Gartner - Kevin Hatcher - Mathieu Schneider


PK 1: Frank Boucher - Gordie Howe - Zdeno Chara - Dave Burrows
PK 2: Frank Frederickson - Mike Keane - Ching Johnson - Dave Burrows

First off, a couple of notable oddities on my opponents PP units- using Chara as a forward? I assume you want him to be the big body in front, which could work in theory, but as I do not believe he has ever done this in real life (correct me if I am wrong) which may mean a lack of say, tipping in the puck skills, I am skepitcal.

You are also double-shifting the great Matthieu Schneider on your PP (which I think speaks volumes on your offense from the blueline). He won't compare to any of my guys, I feel.

Just a note: Albert Leduc is playing the second PP and not Ozolinsh. I think Hedberg just forgot to switch the two in the first post.

So you're giving your top line first PK time (Boucher and Howe at least) AND first PP time AND want to be them to play against my top line as much as possible? Sounds like your guys are going to get quite tired playing all that time. Which is going to play a factor in how well your top unit performs in all those areas, tired as they will be.

I have the best defensive forward (Walker, who's defense I made a case for earlier) And the best defensiveman defensively (Pulford, also explained earlier) on my PK. I also think Laprade is definetly a better PKer (and it is well noted how great he was in that regard ion LOH) than Howe who, although competent defensively, was not really his game too my knowledge. Mortson I think is comparable to Chara and although he is not as big, he is definetly going as tough, if not more so, and physically punishing.

Then you put a guy who we don't have much defensive evidence for on the second unit (please share if you have)., but there aren't really any better options there for you so I see why. As I explaiend in the matchup earlier, Weiland is the better of the two defensively. Fleury, a guy who recieved selke consideration and is a super pest, also has an edge on Keane likely.

I'll give your bleuline the edge on the second PK unit.

As for PP units, well I see a huge gap betweern our first PP defense pair. Cook is decent, but no Goodfellow or Wilson for that matter. Top lines I have looked at; but considering who has the better first PK unit, and who has the less tired guys, I think my first PP will get the victory.

Second PP is the same story on the blueline; Leduc and Mortson are, as evident in the arguements and bios, likely the better offensively. Chara is questionable to play forward on the PP, a role which he hasn't played, and I think Harris will have the advantage in powerplay effectiveness as he is playing is natural role. Fredrickson has an edge over Weiland, but Fleury has an edge over Gartner overall, particularly in the playoffs.

All factors considered, I think my special teams are going to have a fair edge in this series.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 11-28-2009 at 08:15 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 08:19 PM
  #119
Canadiens Fan
Registered User
 
Canadiens Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
First off, a couple of notable oddities on my opponents PP units- using Chara as a forward? I assume you want him to be the big body in front, which could work in theory, but as I do not believe he has ever done this in real life (correct me if I am wrong) which may mean a lack of say, topping in the puck skills, I am skepitcal.

You are also double-shifting the great Matthieu Schneider on your PP (which I think speaks volumes on your offense from the blueline). He won't compare to any of my guys, I feel..
Wow, you must not have watched Chara in Ottawa and Boston where both teams have used him quite frequently as a big body up front on the powerplay. Plus during Bowman's tenure in Montreal he would quite often put Savard and Lapointe in front of the net for a big body presence on his power play.

This is from a game earlier this month between Montreal and Boston. Note Chara's position on the tying goal in the dying seconds. (About 4:30 into the clip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpT349n5a_k

From the Lineup Assasination thread for this ATD..

Quote:
overpass
IMO, Schneider's a better option than Chara on the point for the first PP unit. You also have the option of putting Chara at forward and having him be an immovable object in front of the net, as Ottawa used to do. With a second unit full of shooters, you might have a match there. The first unit is pretty loaded already.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
So you're giving your top line first PK time (Boucher and Howe at least) AND first PP time AND want to be them to play against my top line all the time? Sounds like your guys are going to get quite tired playing all that time. Which is going to play a factor in how well your top unit performs in all those areas, tired as they will be.
From the same assasination thread

Quote:
overpass Syracuse's top PK forward pair of Gartner and Hunter actually weren't regular PKers for most of their careers. I think Boucher-Howe is the best option. Howe at least can certainly handle the extra minutes.
Quote:
jareklajkosz If it comes down to that, I'd rather see Boucher - Howe as PK1. Those pairs are going to be fairly top-heavy, so might as well play your best guys for nearly the entire PK. They can handle it, especially Chara.

Canadiens Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 08:27 PM
  #120
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Wow, you must not have watched Chara in Ottawa and Boston where both teams have used him quite frequently as a big body up front on the powerplay. Plus during Bowman's tenure in Montreal he would quite often put Savard and Lapointe in front of the net for a big body presence on his power play.

This is from a game earlier this month between Montreal and Boston. Note Chara's position on the tying goal in the dying seconds. (About 4:30 into the clip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpT349n5a_k

From the Lineup Assasination thread for this ATD..
Very well; I will retract that skepitcism.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
From the same assasination thread
I'm won't question whether they can play the PK, and they are likely your two best defensive forwards (although I wouldn't call them ideal to be your best two defensive forwards). But first PP, first PK, and playing against the first line as much as possible, you may be looking at 30 minutes a night. I don't think they played that long, and although they are certainly more capable of handling it than most players, over a seven game series they are going to get fatigued.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 08:57 PM
  #121
Canadiens Fan
Registered User
 
Canadiens Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post

I'm won't question whether they can play the PK, and they are likely your two best defensive forwards (although I wouldn't call them ideal to be your best two defensive forwards). But first PP, first PK, and playing against the first line as much as possible, you may be looking at 30 minutes a night. I don't think they played that long, and although they are certainly more capable of handling it than most players, over a seven game series they are going to get fatigued.
I don't think anybody has ever questioned Howe's stamina.

Canadiens Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 09:10 PM
  #122
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens Fan View Post
I don't think anybody has ever questioned Howe's stamina.
He played for a very long time. He maintained his stamina for a long time. I think there's a difference between game to game, minute to minute stamina vs year to year stamina.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 09:11 PM
  #123
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,562
vCash: 500
For me, both Chara and Johnson are legitimate top pairing defensemen. Individually, they are good, but they both have the same weaknesses. Any line with good speed is going embarrass them. The Desert Dogs don't just have good speed; they have scary speed.

You might even be better to split those two up....

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 09:39 PM
  #124
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
I have made and defended most of my arguements at this point. This conclusion is based on those arguements, and what positions I have taken from these debates.. You can read these arguements and defences and come up with your own; but here's mine. Most points I am going to make has likely been countered previously by CanadiensFan, and those counters have also been countered. I suggest reading those and seeing who you feel got the better of each point. This is a summary of my thoughts and arguements, really, and I am not particularly interested in redebating most of the points, but I will always defend what I say.

Conclusion:

I have evaluated every aspect of our teams, from top to bottom. As far as top units go, despite my opponents having Howe, my advantages at C and LW, as well as better personnel, and depth of personnel, to face off against these top lines, cause my top line to score the more in this series. (Plus, I feel, better goaltending in who most consider a top-6 goalie in Hall, who I defended much).

As for second line, I feel the better intangible and defensive ability will give my line an edge. I think I showed my second line wingers to perhaps be the better offensively, and although Fredrickson is better than Weiland offensively, I think the ability of him to score goals on the line is questionable.

My opponents definetly have better offense on the third line, but my third line definetly has better defense, and aren't slouches for third liners in offense. I count on my third liners defensive ability to make these two lines going head to head fairly even. In addition, with two superb defensive players in Walker and Laprade, my 2nd line is much more sutiable to go up agains opposing top 6's, and I am glad to have perhaps the 3rd best defensive LW of all-time spend some time on Howe.

Fourth lines are an arguement I made recently; and although my oppoents fourth line may have an intangible edge, my line is no slouch in that regard, and is much better offensively and has the best defensive player on either line (Peters)

I've got the better #1 in this series in Goodfellow, I feel. Goodfellow and Wilson are definetly better offensively, and the defensive and tough game of Chara-Johnson is questionable to work against my top line with their foot speed.

My opponents second pairing is not likely to fair well against my top line, or any of my my lines for that matter, either; with Cook being questionmark defensively and toughness and Hatcher being just plain poor defensively as well as inconsitent in the toughness area. Pulford and Mortson however, have no souch problems; both are superb defensively (particularly Pulford, the best defensive defenceman of his era), both are very tough and physically punishing, and Mortson provies some good rushing and goalscoring ability so offense is not sacrificed.

I have iced two very tough, well-rounded defenceman on my third pairing. I am quite confident that Leduc and Randall are the much, much tougher pairing. Burrows, although the best defensive guy of the bunch, is one-dimentional, and Leduc and randall are actually pretty good defensively from game accounts. Leduc was also one of the best playoff scoring defenceman of his era; and both Randall and Leduc's rushing and offensive ability is well praised. I have yet to hear much for Schneider, but I am doubting he is going to be better than these two very well-rounded defenceman.

Coaching is a wash.

And finally, goal, where I again feel Glenn hall has the advantage.

In conclusion, the my better group of defenceman, as well as my much better defense from my forwards which is a gap, I feel, wider than the offensive potential edge my opponent had (mainly due to Howe), as well as better goaltending will make this series a win for me.

------------------------------

And I'll take a moment to applaud Canadiens Fan for building a great team and putting up a great fight and debate. I am bias, but I think we put together the best debate of the first round.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2009, 09:46 PM
  #125
Canadiens Fan
Registered User
 
Canadiens Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
And I'll take a moment to applaud Canadiens Fan for building a great team and putting up a great fight and debate. I am bias, but I think we put together the best debate of the first round.
I would also like to extend my congratulations to Leafs Forever for building a great team and debating it's attributes so well.

I could reinforce some of my disagreements with my adversary over the qualities of our two teams but I will let the five pages of intense debate stand on it's own. Needless to say both owners are proud of their team's and feel that they have the superior squad.

I also wish to thank Leafs Forever for keeping this debate a hockey one, a lively one, and I will second my opponent's belief that this was the best debate of the first round.

May the best man and the best team win.

Canadiens Fan 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 09:50 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.