Before I start, I should note, I'm not matching forwards to forwards, at all. The opening face-off will have the Taylor line, but, after that, no deliberate match-ups.
Instead, I'll be matching forwards to defence and defence to forwards.
I want Pospisil and Clapper vs Ullman and Jagr and Talbot and Flaman vs the Hawerchuk line. I want the Taylor line vs Day and Green and Bentley vs Reinhart and Magnuson. After that, I leave it in Blake's hands.
-Thanks Sturm for the whole post about Ullman and Hawerchuk. I agree wholeheartedly, and I think you aren't giving Ullman enough credit Nalyd.
-With Primeau, agreed with GBC that you aren't giving enough credit here again Nalyd. However, the point that you make is fairly irrelevant, because at home, that line will be against your third line. The second line will likely match up against the Bentley line, while Ullman will try and get out against the Taylor line or the fourth line. He could handle Bentley, and maybe contain Taylor IMO, but if we get our way, Primeau won't see much of either, although he is capable. Like I brought out last series, Phil Esposito said for a stretch in the playoffs, he was the most dominant player he'd ever witnessed, moreso than Gretzky, Orr and Howe. Hyperbole? Yup. Exaggeration? Hell yeah. But every exaggeration is based on the truth, and the truth is, he was a defensive beast.
The big difference between checking most scorers and Taylor is Taylor's speed. If Taylor goes 75%, Ullman will have to go 100% to match it. And Taylor will have enough in the tank to go 100% late in the game when Ullman is exhausted. Over a seven game series that is a factor.
There are two ways to check a guy like Taylor: 1) Play conservative, make him come to you. 2) Work your f#*%ing ass off.
Ullman playing a conservative defensive style would be a boon for me. And, assuming this goes 6 or 7 games, which it will, the more I make a guy like Ullman work in games 1-5 will pay dividends in games 6 and 7.
I'm not planning to do a direct match-up, but, if you think Ullman vs Taylor won't hurt Ullman's production, you are fooling yourself, it takes more than hockey sense to stop a Cyclone.
Keep in mind, I won the division, I get 4 games with last line change. At the very least, Primeau will take lots of face-offs against Taylor and Bentley.
Not saying Primeau sucks or nothing. His well rounded play was just too small a part of his career for him to be concidered effective in an ATD environment.
-On defense, you have the best defenseman in Clapper. After that though, I'd say we have the next three best. I know you're a Langway fan Nalyd, so I don't know how much convincing you need on that. I disagree that he'll be in trouble against your two speedy centers, but that's an argument for later. Hap Day is being referred to as our best defenseman for his mobility, offensive smarts and toughness. Wilson obviously has the Norris, whatever that means.
You'll find no argument from me that Clapper is the best defenceman in the series and that Langway is the second best.
On the flipside, I will argue that Hap Day is worse than Pospisil. Wilson is open to debate, he's the 2nd best offensive d-man in the series, and it is too hard to compare between him, Flaman and Pospisil due to leagues, eras, styles of play and what not. I view them as all roughly equal, but debates can be made for all 3.
I've already gone through and demonstrated through MVP voting how Pospisil was not just the best defenceman in the golden age of Czechoslovakian hockey, but was also consistantly one of the elite Czechoslovakian players.
Flaman has 3 2nd team all-stars in a league with Doug Harvey, Red Kelly, Bill Gadsby, Tom Johnson, Tim Horton, Marcel Pronovost and other legends. Everyone knows the Gordie Howe quote, "He's the toughest defenseman I ever played against." But everyone forget Beliveau's take on him, "Any other player I do not worry about, but when I go near that fellow, believe me I look over my shoulder." Yes, the 6-1 and 6-3 powerforwards most fearsome physical opponent in the 1950's was the 5-10 Flaman. He was strong and he knew how to use his strength. Hockey Hall of Fame journalist Jim Proudfoot had this to say of Flaman, "When hockey players talk shop, they frequently discuss the matter of who is their toughest opponent. A note of something bordering on awe creeps into the conversation when the name Flaman comes up. It is not a question of fear, for Flaman is not a vicious player, but a question of knowing that Flaman can deal a devastating body check, that he is among the most competent of defencemen in the business, and that, if aroused, he is one of the most capable fisticuffers in the league." And, to top it off, he twice captained the Bruins to the cup finals.
Fern Flaman is one of the toughest shutdown d-men in NHL history. He's a shade below Scott Stevens and Jack Stewart, not below Hap Day.
Hap Day was never named to a post season all-star team, although why he wasn't on the 2nd all-star team in '33 is a mystery and he did have some solid years pre-all-star teams. Keep in mind, he was inducted into the Hall in 1961, long after his playing career, and his brilliant coaching career. It would be foolish to say his coaching exploits didn't help him get inducted. Because, honestly, if you take a way his coaching success, I fail to see why he'd be in the Hall at all. Not to say he's a bad player, he's a great 2nd pairing guy in the ATD. But, he was simply not elite. Clapper, Langway, Wilson, Pospisil and Flaman ware all elite talents in their realms. Hap Day was just very good.
-Even with Taylor, I believe Jagr is still the best offensive player in the series. Similar to Lalonde last series, Taylor has some advantages, although he's much more one dimensional than Lalonde. We can get in depth with that as well.
Taylor is not one dimensional. We're talking about a guy who was regarded as the best center in the world, the best rover in the world and the best defenceman in the world at different points of his career.
And lets face it, Taylor's combination of speed, agility, skating and puck control is a dimension in itself. A skill set that is so rare it isn't even generational. Taylor, Morenz, Orr, Kharlamov and Bure, that is it. And what's the common trend? When applied, it is a game breaking skill set that no one can defend against. Dirty play is often resorted to. And Clapper, Flaman and Paiement will make people suffer for trying that.
-Size. Maybe I'm looking at your roster and going "Bentley is small, Taylor is small, BAM!", but at first glance, I think we have the tougher, bigger team.
Your team is bigger. But mine is quicker. And my defence is very tough, but also very clean.
-The wings. While you have an advantage down the middle for the top two lines, we have a clear advantage on the wings. The Bondra pick was questioned, and while you couldn't have done much better considering where you got him, I still don't know if he's suited to play a top-6 role. Shayne Corson for example would not be a fun matchup for him, because of his physicality, and Bondra's lack of, IMO. And while that is pushing it a bit in terms of fairness, here's a serious question; are Leclair and Nedomansky physical enough to open up room for Cyclone? How about Gottselig and Bondra to open up room for Magic Max, or to handle physical duties at all, against guys like Vaive?
Edit: ^ Just noticed Sturm also pointed that out, FWIW.
Here's a listing of NHL goal scoring titles won in this series.
Peter Bondra-2
Norm Ullman-1
That is it, 3 goal scoring titles won, 2/3 won by Bondra. He is VERY well suited to a 2nd line role. Heck, if all you need is a pure sniper who can skate, Bondra is 1st line worthy. From the ten year period of 1994/95 through 2003/04, only Jagr has more goals.
Shayne Corson would be a fun match-up for Bondra. Well, he wouldn't even notice the match-up, what with Bondra having to look over his shoulder to see Corson. Bondra was for a long period the fastest player in the NHL. Corson may be tough, but he's not quick. And if he steps out of line, Paiement will be lining up against him a lot.
Are Leclair and Nedomansky going to make room for Taylor? Yes and no.
No, they aren't the type of players to pound opponents into the ice.
Yes, they have the strength to serve as excellent picks.
Yes, Taylor will be the primary puck carrier on the rush, but, once the rush is ended, both Leclair and Nedomansky can control the puck well, particularly Nedomansky, the Czechoslovakian system often relies on RWs to be the puck carrier and that style started because of the skill of Ned and Martinec. Therefore, when the play is set in the zone and all of Winnipeg's defence is in the zone, Nedomansky will be the primary puck carrier. Thus giving Taylor free reign of the high slot.
And the Bentley line will play a more Soviet style once the rush ends, lots of quick passing, avoiding the boards and corners, always moving their feet until a shot emerges. They will be more run and gun, giving up as many rushes as they create, but with their speed, backchecking is not a concern.
As for Vaive, say hello to Monsieur Talbot, you'll be seeing a lot of each other.
-Goaltending versus coaching. It was brought up last series, and will definitely be brought up again in this series. I think Blake is a better coach than Lester Patrick, and your team is equally suited to Blake's style as Regina was to Patrick. However, even with Billy Smith stepping it up, big time this time of year, I still think Benedict is/was the better goalie, and therefore the gap between Sawchuk and Smith is even bigger than last series.
I think coaching gets really underrated. I'd like to have an elite mind determining how my teams talents are used. But, I respect Patrick's abilities. I'd say Patrick & Sawchuk is a bit better than Blake & Smith, but not by much. And I think my defence will do a better job in bringing out the best in Smith than yours will in Sawchuk. And I think my fast paced offence will out gun yours while wearing out your forwards and causing your defencemen to take bad penalties.
