All-Time Draft #11, Part 3

[VanIslander]

We had Sullivan as our fourth line centre last draft, and we talked about picking him this draft. Effective agitator. Plays tough. Excellent playmaker, too, with a top three finish in assists.

Over the six years between 1955-60 he was in five all-star games despite never winning the stanley cup and has three top-10 finishes in assists, a physical leader for the back line in play with or without the puck. He was an easy decision to make once John Maclean was picked up, to provide scoring chemistry even though a defensive line first mentality on the team to help protect leads and create opportunities to go on the offensive.

 

[camperjr]

The Oilers select LW Tiger Williams and RW John McKenzie

 

[Jungosi]

Milan Novy

With the Czech League top-7 thread that popped up recently there is an good arguement for him to go higher in the next few drafts.

 

[hfboardsuser]

One of the few defensively elite LWs left with top ten finishes in goals and the original Iron Man... LW Johnny Wilson

 

[arrbez]

As for nine 40-goal seasons, you guys are right: it would be incredibly hard for players who played O6 to reach that level, and impossible for those who played pre-O6 to do it. (Bobby Hull did it eight times. Richard played in the toughest scoring part of the O6.) But look at Gartner's company. Gretzky. Lemieux. Dionne. Bossy. Look who didn't do it, guys like Kurri and Brett Hull.

Not commenting on the discussion at hand per se, but I just have a problem with arguments like this. 40 is an arbitrary cut-off, and something that has no constant value when comparing it across eras. It just looks nice because it ends with a 0. Identifying it as an important benchmark (where 39 goals simply will not do) is statistical smoke if ever there was.

Stats like Bossy's streak of 50 goal seasons, Gartner's accumulation of 40 goal seasons, etc have no inherent value. If Bossy scored 2 goals less in 1980 and 2 more in 1981, well all of a sudden he's not a 9-time 50-goal guy (although he's now a 70 goal guy). But does that really change anything? In my estimation, he'd be the same player.

Those kind of stats are fun, and I like to trot them out on occasion as well (my boy J.R. is still the last player with 3 straight 100 point seasons!). But they aren't worth anything specifically.

When looking at a non-era-specific comparison like the ATD, then it's really irrelevant. In this, he's not a consistent 35-44 goal player. He's a consistent 8th-20th place finisher in the scoring race. Mike Bossy isn't a perennial 50 goal guy, he's a perennial top-3 scorer.

It's kind of a difficult thought to hash out, but I hope I'm making sense here.

 

[God Bless Canada]

One of the few defensively elite LWs left with top ten finishes in goals and the original Iron Man... LW Johnny Wilson

Wilson was the other LW on our hit list when we looked at an LW for our two-way line with Linden and Goring. Went with Lonsberry. Thought a lot about Balon. Also thought about Wilson. Each one had his strengths - Wilson's probably the most consistent and the best defensively, Balon's probably the fastest and the best offensively, Lonsberry brings those attributes all together.

 

[seventieslord]

You know you're losing an argument when you come up with arguments like this:

"Gartner can score 33 goals and place 33rd in the league, and do it every year, and this defines his legacy..."

How so? First you say that top-20s don't do anything for you because they're not that special, then Gartner is so great because you always know you're going to get 30 goals from him, never mind that 30 goals is not good for 30th in the league in some seasons in the 80s.

Pick one. You can't have both.

You know you're losing an argument when:

- You fail to address glaring inconsistencies in your arguments after they are pointed out.

- You sweep your counterpart's best points under the rug rather than acknowledging them at all,

- You begin to use the same tactics that you accuse your counterpart of, only far more elementary and blatant, and,

- You tell your counterpart that they're losing the argument.

As I've stated many times before, the top-20 thing does absolutely nothing for me. Not just for O6 players. For pre-O6. For post-expansion. I'm impressed that Watson finished top 10 in goals twice. I'm very impressed that he had 26 goals in 60 games in 48-49, and finished tied for second. I'm impressed that he had four 20-goal seasons from 1947-48 to 1953-54. But top 20 finishes don't do anything to convince me that a player is worthy of being selected in the ATD. From the sheer perspective of this is the greatest game in the world, and the NHL is its greatest league, a top 20 finish is fantastic. Multiple top 20 finishes are even better.

Look at you! You're impressed with the fact that it was 20 goals, not the fact that it was 9th, or 12th, or 13th in the league. For christ's sake, the schedule jumped from 50 to 60 to 70 games during his career. That alone makes statements like this meaningless and without context.

For the third time, a top-20 in and of itself isn't a great accomplishment, but looking at top-20s over a career does a great job of separating the "fad" scorers from those who had real staying power.

I've pointed out the Lanny McDonald/Markus Naslund comparison. I've shown you how Dean Prentice, Pat Lafontaine, and Henri Richard have just two top-10s but numerous top-20s.

You have ignored these points. It's typical GBC ATD arguing. When someone calls you on something, shows you to be incorrect, or makes a point you should either acknowledge, address or refute, you sweep it under the rug. For example, you're being called on blowing statistical smoke when you accuse others who are merely putting accomplishments into context, of doing just that, and instead of replying to this you just get quiet for a while.

But from an ATD perspective, what impresses me the most is top 10 finishes in goals, assists and points, or doing things that are truly remarkable. What Gartner did was truly remarkable. I don't view what

....

I don't think Watson's consistency approaches that of Gartner's. Gartner's consistency got him in the HHOF on the first ballot. It earned him a place in the THN Top 100. There are very, very few players, ever, whose consistency rivals that of Gartner.

That is only correct if you get over-obsessed with that flat total he reached for 15 straight seasons. Gartner's nine top-20 goal-scoring seasons (the only seasons really worth talking about) is an achievement shared by 46 players in history, about half of which played at least 8 seasons post-expansion.

But since you don't like top-20 seasons, let's look at top-10s. Gartner has five of them - along with 72 other players in history.

It's great, but it's not THAT special. The way you talk about Gartner's consistency, you'd expect us to believe that two or three other players have done what he's done.

As for nine 40-goal seasons, you guys are right: it would be incredibly hard for players who played O6 to reach that level, and impossible for those who played pre-O6 to do it. (Bobby Hull did it eight times. Richard played in the toughest scoring part of the O6.) But look at Gartner's company. Gretzky. Lemieux. Dionne. Bossy. Look who didn't do it, guys like Kurri and Brett Hull.

You still don't get it. Watson's consistency isn't as special as Gartner's but the same verbiage applies to what he did in his time:

As for seven top-20 seasons in Watson's time, look at Watson's company. Bill Mosienko. Doug Bentley, Max Bentley. Ted Kennedy. Syl Apps. Look who didn't do it, guys like Milt Schmidt, Gaye Stewart and Sid Smith.

 

[seventieslord]

The Oilers select LW Tiger Williams and RW John McKenzie

Not a fan of Williams at this level, but I love McKenzie. He was top-10 in points twice, he won two cups, scored a ton in the playoffs, was a 2nd-all-star team member, he agitates... he's going to make your 4th line tough to play against.

One of the few defensively elite LWs left with top ten finishes in goals and the original Iron Man... LW Johnny Wilson

I almost took Wilson when I went with Watson. I really liked the ironman streak, the fact that he contributed to four winners, two top-10s in goals, and good all-around play. I was already reading up on him to get some good quotes.

I ended up with Watson because I really liked his size for the 4th line, he had the extra cup, was also good at both ends (though probably not as good defensively as Wilson, but when you have the Ramsay line you don't need that) and more consistent offensively - same two top-10s in goals, but seven top-20 seasons to Wilson's four.

Save for a last minute mind change and picking a backup goalie before rounding out the 4th line, Regina could easily have a Wilson-Adams-McKenzie line right now.

 

[seventieslord]

When looking at a non-era-specific comparison like the ATD, then it's really irrelevant. In this, he's not a consistent 35-44 goal player. He's a consistent 8th-20th place finisher in the scoring race. Mike Bossy isn't a perennial 50 goal guy, he's a perennial top-3 scorer.

It's kind of a difficult thought to hash out, but I hope I'm making sense here.

It's not difficult at all and it makes perfect sense.

We need to put the accomplishments in context, otherwise, why are we here?

 

[seventieslord]

Wilson was the other LW on our hit list when we looked at an LW for our two-way line with Linden and Goring. Went with Lonsberry. Thought a lot about Balon. Also thought about Wilson. Each one had his strengths - Wilson's probably the most consistent and the best defensively, Balon's probably the fastest and the best offensively, Lonsberry brings those attributes all together.

Well, except the offense, you mean.

 

[DoMakc]

As for nine 40-goal seasons, you guys are right: it would be incredibly hard for players who played O6 to reach that level, and impossible for those who played pre-O6 to do it. (Bobby Hull did it eight times. Richard played in the toughest scoring part of the O6.) But look at Gartner's company. Gretzky. Lemieux. Dionne. Bossy. Look who didn't do it, guys like Kurri and Brett Hull.

The only reason Brett Hull didn't had nine consecutive 40-goals seasons was lockout - he got 29 goals in 48 games, which projects as 50 goals over 82-games season

 

[raleh]

Well, except the offense, you mean.

He could bring it in flashes, though, however brief. He was third in team playoff scoring on a cup winning team in '74 behind only Clarke and MacLeish. No we're not expecting to be an offensive juggernaut; he's playing on the third line with Goring and Linden so he's probably the least offensively capable player on a line not being counted on for huge offensive output. BUT all three of them have proven that they can score at or a few points below a point per game clip for a playoff run (for Goring and Linden, multiple playoff runs), and that's really what matters.

I realize that LOH is pretty cookie cutter and everything they write is all warm and fuzzy, but I really do like this quote from his bio "During the club's Stanley Cup success in 1974 and 1975, he was considered to have been the great, unsung hero of their championship days. It has been said that although Bobby Clarke led the team, Lonsberry typified it."

 

[seventieslord]

The only reason Brett Hull didn't had nine consecutive 40-goals seasons was lockout - he got 29 goals in 48 games, which projects as 50 goals over 82-games season

That's an adjusted stat. Hull didn't get 40 that season. End of story.

 

[seventieslord]

He could bring it in flashes, though, however brief. He was third in team playoff scoring on a cup winning team in '74 behind only Clarke and MacLeish. No we're not expecting to be an offensive juggernaut; he's playing on the third line with Goring and Linden so he's probably the least offensively capable player on a line not being counted on for huge offensive output. BUT all three of them have proven that they can score at or a few points below a point per game clip for a playoff run (for Goring and Linden, multiple playoff runs), and that's really what matters.

I realize that LOH is pretty cookie cutter and everything they write is all warm and fuzzy, but I really do like this quote from his bio "During the club's Stanley Cup success in 1974 and 1975, he was considered to have been the great, unsung hero of their championship days. It has been said that although Bobby Clarke led the team, Lonsberry typified it."

Agree. He's a good 3rd/4th-line type. And I can certainly appreciate what he did offensively in that real-life context. In this context though, I don't see him bringing much offense, which is fine because not everybody wants or needs offense from their 3rd/4th line. He's just not in Wilson/Balon's league in that regard, and I think that's what GBC was implying so I felt the need to address it.

 

[pitseleh]

If by some chance my pick comes up before Midnight EST, just skip me.

 

[God Bless Canada]

paper's time is up. Sather is on the clock, and will be PM'ed.

 

[God Bless Canada]

How so? First you say that top-20s don't do anything for you because they're not that special, then Gartner is so great because you always know you're going to get 30 goals from him, never mind that 30 goals is not good for 30th in the league in some seasons in the 80s.

Pick one. You can't have both.

You know you're losing an argument when:

- You fail to address glaring inconsistencies in your arguments after they are pointed out.

- You sweep your counterpart's best points under the rug rather than acknowledging them at all,

- You begin to use the same tactics that you accuse your counterpart of, only far more elementary and blatant, and,

- You tell your counterpart that they're losing the argument.



Look at you! You're impressed with the fact that it was 20 goals, not the fact that it was 9th, or 12th, or 13th in the league. For christ's sake, the schedule jumped from 50 to 60 to 70 games during his career. That alone makes statements like this meaningless and without context.

For the third time, a top-20 in and of itself isn't a great accomplishment, but looking at top-20s over a career does a great job of separating the "fad" scorers from those who had real staying power.

I've pointed out the Lanny McDonald/Markus Naslund comparison. I've shown you how Dean Prentice, Pat Lafontaine, and Henri Richard have just two top-10s but numerous top-20s.

You have ignored these points. It's typical GBC ATD arguing. When someone calls you on something, shows you to be incorrect, or makes a point you should either acknowledge, address or refute, you sweep it under the rug. For example, you're being called on blowing statistical smoke when you accuse others who are merely putting accomplishments into context, of doing just that, and instead of replying to this you just get quiet for a while.



....



That is only correct if you get over-obsessed with that flat total he reached for 15 straight seasons. Gartner's nine top-20 goal-scoring seasons (the only seasons really worth talking about) is an achievement shared by 46 players in history, about half of which played at least 8 seasons post-expansion.

But since you don't like top-20 seasons, let's look at top-10s. Gartner has five of them - along with 72 other players in history.

It's great, but it's not THAT special. The way you talk about Gartner's consistency, you'd expect us to believe that two or three other players have done what he's done.



You still don't get it. Watson's consistency isn't as special as Gartner's but the same verbiage applies to what he did in his time:

As for seven top-20 seasons in Watson's time, look at Watson's company. Bill Mosienko. Doug Bentley, Max Bentley. Ted Kennedy. Syl Apps. Look who didn't do it, guys like Milt Schmidt, Gaye Stewart and Sid Smith.

If I come across as dismissing your points, it's because top 20 finishes don't mean much from an ATD perspective, and that's the basis of the argument. Top 10 means something. Remarkable accomplishments mean something. Watson's second place finish in goals means a lot. A tie for 19th in goals doesn't mean much to me.

The funny thing about 20-goal scorers in the O6 era is there were more 20 goal scorers in 47 (22), 48 (17) and 49 (14), when they played 60 games, than there were in 53 (10), 54 (12) or 55 (13), when they played 70 games.

I'm not a big stats guy to begin with, and I don't like formulas when it comes to hockey, because hockey transcends stats. This ain't baseball, where they have concocted a stat for everything. (Thank God for that). I like having league leaders. I like having guys who do the truly remarkable. (And I don't think that many consecutive top-20 finishes is remarkable. Top 10 finishes, yeah, that's great. But top 20? No.). Alex Delvecchio never led the league in anything, but five top-five finishes in assists? That impresses me. Frank Mahovlich never led the league in goals, but he was second four times. That impresses me. Guys who put up great numbers, even though their surrounding talent was less than impressive? That impresses me. Top 20 finishes, on their own, don't do it for me. Never have. Never will. And finishing tied for 14th in goals in 1966, or tied for 17th in points in 1977, isn't exactly something that builds legacies. In fact, (I'm pretty sure that Denis Potvin and Phil Esposito don't know they finished tied for 17th in points in 77).

When Watson was chosen for the HHOF through the veteran's committee, I'm pretty sure it was for his well-rounded game, that second place finish in goals, the four 20-goal seasons and his role in hockey's first real dynasty. I don't think the selection committee cared about the top 20 finishes in goals.

More than anything else, I look for how a guy played the game. I look at what he brought to the table. How will he fit into this line? How will he fit into that defensive pairing? How will he fit into our locker room? How does he fit our team's identity? How's his leadership? (We came up aces on that front this draft). Does he fill a specific need? Is he a unique player, or are there several other players just like him? (Especially vital in the early rounds). And then I look at the stats. Did he lead the league in anything? Did he have any top 10s? Where did he finish in those top 10s? Did he do anything that really stands out?

And I ask a few other questions: Have I ever had him in the draft? Have I picked him since raleh and I started collaborating on this draft? And how much have I wanted to pick him in previous drafts. We've picked one guy we've had in our four previous drafts: Doug Mohns. I've had Fleury, Linden, Stevens and Brewer in the ATD, and Bun Cook and Steve Smith in the MLD, but those were before raleh and I started working together. I have a lot of guys I've always wanted to pick, so I'm thrilled with my team.

 

[seventieslord]

If I come across as dismissing your points, it's because top 20 finishes don't mean much from an ATD perspective, and that's the basis of the argument. Top 10 means something. Remarkable accomplishments mean something. Watson's second place finish in goals means a lot. A tie for 19th in goals doesn't mean much to me.

On its own, no.

A career full of that, compared to a guy with similar top-10s and fewer "auxiliary" accomplishments, should mean something to you. After all, it does for Gartner, even beyond the top-20.

The funny thing about 20-goal scorers in the O6 era is there were more 20 goal scorers in 47 (22), 48 (17) and 49 (14), when they played 60 games, than there were in 53 (10), 54 (12) or 55 (13), when they played 70 games.

Interesting. Scoring dropped at a greater rate than the schedule increased.

Point still stands because 20 goals at the start of Watson's career meant a much different thing than 20 goals did by the end of it.

You're still talking about flat totals when you should be concerned with the rankings. Clearly 20 goals in 70 games in 1953 means more than 20 goals in 60 games in 1947. Doesn't it?

I'm not a big stats guy to begin with, and I don't like formulas when it comes to hockey, because hockey transcends stats. This ain't baseball, where they have concocted a stat for everything. (Thank God for that). I like having league leaders. I like having guys who do the truly remarkable.

That sounds a lot like me, so why do we rarely see eye to eye? (see below)

(And I don't think that many consecutive top-20 finishes is remarkable. Top 10 finishes, yeah, that's great. But top 20? No.). Alex Delvecchio never led the league in anything, but five top-five finishes in assists? That impresses me. Frank Mahovlich never led the league in goals, but he was second four times. That impresses me. Guys who put up great numbers, even though their surrounding talent was less than impressive? That impresses me. Top 20 finishes, on their own, don't do it for me. Never have. Never will. And finishing tied for 14th in goals in 1966, or tied for 17th in points in 1977, isn't exactly something that builds legacies. In fact, (I'm pretty sure that Denis Potvin and Phil Esposito don't know they finished tied for 17th in points in 77).

No, it doesn't build a legacy but it can sure support it. If Lanny McDonald hadn't had four more good seasons in the 35-40 goal range on top of the four he spent as a top-10 goalscorer, is he in the hall? I doubt it.

You're still dodging this. All else being equal, having a handful of extra seasons in the top-20 is ALWAYS better than not having them. It demonstrates consistency and longevity. It can make the difference betweeen a good career and a great one.

Delvecchio? One of the best playmakers of all-time. Top-5 five times. So was Doug Bentley. So was Morenz. Sid Abel and Lindsay did it six times. Sounds like they're all equally accomplished as playmakers. But when you expand the criteria, gaps start to form. Delvecchio has them beaten, 10 to 8, 7, 8, and 8 in top-10 finishes. He has them beaten 14 to 8, 8, 8, and 8 in top-15 finishes, and he has them beaten 18 to 9, 8, 8, and 8 in top-20s. His 5-6 best seasons for assists are about as good as all theirs, but his 7th-18-best seasons were a lot better. In his 12th-best playmaking season he was 12th in assists. In Morenz, Lach, Abel and Bentley's 12th-best playmaking seasons they were not even in the top-20. Better longevity and consistency (in playmaking)

Mahovlich was in the top-10 eight times. Roy Conacher, Joe Malone, Bathgate, Max Bentley and Marty Barry were all top-10 seven or eight times. Mahovlich has them beaten 11 to 7-8-9-9-9 in top-15s and 14 to 8-8-9-9-9 in top-20s. In his 10th-best goalscoring season he was still the 12th-highest. In theirs, they weren't even top-20. Better longevity and consistency (in goalscoring)

When you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, you always get a better view. Nothing wrong with looking at the big picture. We're all here to scrutinize the players of the past and present. The more detailed info we have, the better.

When Watson was chosen for the HHOF through the veteran's committee, I'm pretty sure it was for his well-rounded game, that second place finish in goals, the four 20-goal seasons and his role in hockey's first real dynasty. I don't think the selection committee cared about the top 20 finishes in goals.

Two of those 20-goal seasons placed him somewhere between 10th and 20th in the league so wouldn't those just be meaningless seasons?

Oh, right. Flat total.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

But from an ATD perspective, what impresses me the most is top 10 finishes in goals, assists and points, or doing things that are truly remarkable. What Gartner did was truly remarkable.

That statement basically counteracts your entire argument. Top-20 finishes don't mean anything much apparently, yet Gartner's legacy is built on them. 5-9-9-9-10 are his only top-10 goal scoring seasons, hardly what I'd call remarkable for an ATD scoring line player.

Also: Skip my pick if it comes up before 10 Edmonton time, I'm heading out to watch the game.

 

[VanIslander]

consistency and career totals has some value

just like peaks have some value

and championship performances have some value

and praise by peers has some value

and intangibles have some value

...

let's not be reductionist !!

some GMs appear to be obsessed with statistics, some with individual awards, some with cups, ... too much attention to any one or two dimensions is artificial and a distortion of the nature and history of the game

 

[seventieslord]

consistency and career totals has some value

just like peaks have some value

and championship performances have some value

and praise by peers has some value

and intangibles have some value

...

let's not be reductionist !!

some GMs appear to be obsessed with statistics, some with individual awards, some with cups, ... too much attention to any one or two dimensions is artificial and a distortion of the nature and history of the game

All true*. Keep in mind that the discussion of the past two days has been all about peak versus consistency; the rest has been pushed aside during this discussion but I believe I speak for both of us when I say that we value those and other factors as well. Although this conversation has been about the virtues of flat goal and assist totals versus rankings in the league, I am not over-obsessed with statistics and GBC doesn't have to tell you that he isn't; our disagreement is over what angles to view and appreciate statistics, one of several important factors, from.

(*career totals are almost useless unless you are comparing contemporaries)

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

He also set up the cup-winner on a give-and-go with his defense partner, Harry Cameron:

Originally Posted by Toronto Star
After seven minutes give-and-take, Cameron checked a Patrick rush, and gave Marshall the puck. Marshall made a rush, with Cameron trailing, passed it over to Cameron when he reached the defense, and Cameron laced it home, waist high. He made it 2-0.

Another quote, another good Cameron defensive play.

Seems odd to see this supposed defensive liability foiling all these rushes in the quotes of the day. Maybe the blueline lynchpin of 3 Cup winners could actually hold his own in his end, contrary to the belief that he was somewhere between Coffey and Housley in defensive ability?

No obligation of course, but I'd sure appreciate any mention of Cameron's play - positive or negative - that were given in the newsletter.

 

[seventieslord]

Another quote, another good Cameron defensive play.

Seems odd to see this supposed defensive liability foiling all these rushes in the quotes of the day. Maybe the blueline lynchpin of 3 Cup winners could actually hold his own in his end, contrary to the belief that he was somewhere between Coffey and Housley in defensive ability?

No obligation of course, but I'd sure appreciate any mention of Cameron's play - positive or negative - that were given in the newsletter.

Actually, I knew you were gonna ask, and I was gonna beat you to it by offering tonight. Shucks.

I will do this from home as I'm still at work. I think he gets a few more mentions than that. The article is actually very long and detailed. If only there was a huge archive where all these long, detailed articles were compiled instead of abridged like in things like The Trail (which currently is as good as anyone really has semi-easy access to) - in fact, two or three accounts from separate newspapers would be even better since back then there was no AP and reporter was often a partisan cheerleader.

For the record, I don't think Cameron's a liability and my opinion of him rises every day, it seems. Coffey/Housley? Doubtful. Trying to say exactly where he fits in would be tough at the moment but It's fair to say he's at least a Coffey - a primarily offensive player who had his moments defensively.

 

[Evil Sather]

Guess I'll bite the bullet on C Pierre Turgeon.

 

[papershoes]

sorry for missing my pick - the internet had been down since last night.

kenora is pleased to select another underrated soviet defenseman, and a perfect partner for sologubov...

viktor kuzkin (d)

Originally a forward, Viktor Kuzkin became the star defenseman of Soviet hockey in the 1960s, most often paired with Vitaly Davydov. Those Soviet teams ended up winning three Olympic gold medals (1964, 1968 and 1972) and eight world championship gold medals in 9 tournaments. In 169 international games Kuzkin contributed 18 goals.

In the Soviet top league he helped CSKA Moscow win 12 national titles, contributing 70 goals in 530 league games.

In 2005 Kuzkin was inducted into the IIHF Hall of Fame for his many contributions to hockey in his lifetime. After nearly 2 decades as a player he became a coach in Japan as well as an assistant coach with CSKA Moscow under legendary head coaches xxxx xxxx and Viktor Tikhonov.

North Americans will best associate Kuzkin as the Soviet captain of the 1972 Summit Series team that shocked Canadian NHLers.

"As captain, my job was to inspire my teammates both on the ice and off. But in this series that wasn't necessary. Everyone understood we were playing the most important tournament of our lives."

The merited master of sport, Kuzkin, who was said to be an avid diver, died in Sochi, Russia, host of the 2014 Winter Olympics.

Kuzkin began his hockey career as a center forward which helped him to become a successful scoring blueliner with a slick puck handling and skating skills. He became famous for his strong positional hockey skills and ability to lead his team in following the tactical game plan. The Soviet defense pair Kuzkin - Davydov was arguably one of the best in the Soviet hockey history. After retiring from hockey, Kuzkin became one of the CSKA's coaches and led the team to several national championships.