I really don't have time right now hopefully you'll be able to wait on me for a day or two. Maybe I can get to it later tonight.
I do want to quickly mention that you question two time first all star Clark Gillies being on the first line when you have Bill Mosienko who only has two second all-stars and one of them was a war year.
Mosienko is as much out of place on a first line than Clark Gillies, both should be complimentary players on a second line. But to return on the All-Star selection, Mosienko could have done better if the competition was not as steep as it was at his time. Maurice Richard, Gordie Howe, Bernard Geoffrion, Andy Bathgate, Ed Litzenberger, Bobby Bauer were his competition of the top of my head. But in fairness, Gillies will play a role he accustom to, just like I think Mosienko compliment Moore and Abel very well with his speed and overall abilities.
In any event, you were fair in saying our top line is better and more dangerous with Bossy being the top goal scorer in the series without question. You did kind of pump your own line's playoff credentials, but you can't really say they have any advantage in that over our top line given that Gillies, Bossy and Keon have enough cup rings to fill the cup itself. Those guys can and have got it done in the playoffs as well. That's really where they made their legends.
Fair assumption. However although Dave Keon could correctly be called a ''Trottier-Lite'', you cannot ask him to fill the same void at the center position than Bryan Trottier. The meanstreak of Trottier and his incredible all-around prowess will be missed.
I also 'kind of pump my own line playoff credentials'', because we can't forget their great ability to step it up come playoffs. Mike Bossy is the best offensive player of this serie, but the players that can 'step it up' the much in the playoffs is my first left winger Dickie Moore. Sid Abel was also very productive in the playoffs. Overall, my first line is also the most physical of the two with 'Diggin Dickie' and 'The Old Bootnose'. Your first line is better, but especially come playoff time the advantage is not big.
I'll allow that you have an edge in second lines but I won't allow that it's a huge one. Krutov was as dominant in his peak as anyone on your second line. Keats was among the best players of his generation and had peers who would tell you so. You also admit that Litz isn't really far off Lanny in your own view. There's an edge for you here mostly thanks to Busher but I certainly wouldn't say it's a huge one.
I would say the difference between Krutov and Jackson is as huge as it can get in almost any series. Busher Jackson is by my count the 7th best Left Winger in the history of the game (give or take a couple of position). Krutov is about #40 (personnal opinion, you definitely have him higher, but some GM have him for away outside their Top-50). Even in his prime, Krutov never was the dazzling offensive phenomenon Jackson was.
Duke Keats was a wise selection after the Top-300, but getting praised by his peers dosen't cut it for me. When guys like Wayne Gretzky has said of 50 players that they were one of the best players of all-time, you gotta take those players quote with a grain of salt (is that an ok expression in english?) What I see of Duke Keats is a good offensive players that his more of a playmaker than a scorer. Never was Top-5 in goals (5-time top-10, 8-time Top-20 which show constancy). Was twice top-5 in assist, 6-time Top-10 and 8-Time Top-20 which show constancy again. From 1922 to 1925, he definitely was one of the best players in the WCHL and I give him credit. But he couldn't do much after that (his NHL career his quite disappointing to say the least).
I think Lanny McDonald is a notch over Litzenberger. I had Litzenberger fourth on my list and McDonald first, but McDonald was the clear #1, a notch ahead of Pitre and Gilbert. McDonald was a much better goalscorer, both were not known for their playmaking abilities, McDonald is a great leader and letters worthy even in the AD which can't be said of Litzenberger. Defensively, I will still give the edge to McDonald.
You put Lemaire over Keats based on what really? Was Lemaire ever even close to the best player on his team while Keats was not only the best player on his team but again he was even called the best of all time by one of his teammates. Lemaire as an awesome piece of a great puzzle in Montreal while Keats was the go to guy.
Again, being praised by a teammate dosn't cut it for me. As much as I respect the WCHL, the league never was as close as good as the NHL of the 1970's. The greatest success of Keats was at a time when forwards like Cy Denneny, Frank Nighbor, Howie Morenz, Aurel Joliat, Babe Dye, Reg Noble, Punch Broadbent just to name a few were battling in the NHL. All of them and some more I'm forgetting are all better players than Keats and were all in the best league in the world. I think the world of the guys pré-26 who played in the NHA, PCHL, ECAHA and WCHL, and I believe in all honesty that Keats was a great selection at 31X, but he never was close to being the best player in the world, let alone the best player of all-time. I'll admit that Keats should be taken higher and the difference between him and Lemaire is not as huge as the draft ranking shows. However, I took Lemaire, because he was the perfect fit between Jackson and McDonald. A great playmaker with a great two-way game. Let Jackson and McDonald put the puck in the net; Lemaire will feed them passes and be the first to backcheck. That's what in my opinion make my second line very lethal.
When it comes to the third and fourth lines this is where I have an issue with how you approach this analysis. You can go line for line and say you have the TYPICAL all time draft lines for your third and fourth line. We didn't do that. We went with three scoring lines.
Would you match the third line up with our "fourth" or third with third. We spread out our offensively gifted players onto THREE offensive lines that can all burn you with elite, all star talent instead of the typical two scoring lines with a checking line and a physical line.
With the two way play throughout our line-up we didn't feel the need to sacrifice picking elite scoring talent later in the draft to get "tough grinder" types.
Instead our fourth line has two time first all star Charlie Simmer, elite playmaker Ulf Nilsson and a rough and tumble big time goal scorer and two way player in Robert. It's basically a 2nd 2nd line.
So you note that you do have a slight edge in your second line versus our second line, but we have essentiallly TWO worthy second lines in the way that we built them. Our offensive talent comes in waves and won't let up.
As for that checking line... I'd put Tik and Lemieux ahead of Murray and Balon but Mackell is right with them... and Provost is far and away the best player among the two lines as you say. Plus Murray was a Selke winner and all three players have had some terrific moments as scorers. We're not talking about one dimensional guys.
This is where we will disagree
a whole lot. I think my third line, especially in the playoffs, are
easily better offensively and physically than the Trail Smoke third line.
- Troy Murray got 43 points in 113 games in the playoffs;
0.38PPG. If we take out his one hit wonder playoffs run, he's at 24 points in 98 games;
0.25PPG.
- Dave Balon; 14 goals, 35 points.
0.44PPG.
- Claude Provost; 25 goals, 63 points.
0.50PPG.
------------
- Esa Tikkanen; 72 goals, 136 points.
0.71PPG
- Claude Lemieux; 80 goals, 158 points. Conn Smythe.
0.68PPG
- Fleming Mackell; 22 goals, 63 points.
0.79PPG
Just offensively; how is that even close? I would love to hear an argument that the trio of Balon-Murray-Provost is more apt offensively than a Tikkanen-Mackell-Lemieux.
Now not only offensively, but physically my trio is much more aggresive, punitive and frightening to play against than your trio. The legacy of ALL three of my players were made by the brilliant and important goals they scored, the great defensive awareness and shadowing they were able to do against the best in world and the physical plays they were able to showcast.
Claude Provost
----------------
Esa Tikkanen
Claude Lemieux
----------------
Fleming Mackell
---------------
Troy Murray
----------------
Dave Balon
That's how our third line matchup. Make a case all you want in the regular season, but in the playoffs my third line is one of, if not the beat third line of All 28 teams. They can compete against any lines. My third line is better offensively than your fourth line, better defensively and grittier than your third line. They are the perfect combination for a playoff run.
''Instead our fourth line has two time first all star Charlie Simmer, elite playmaker Ulf Nilsson and a rough and tumble big time goal scorer and two way player in Robert. It's basically a 2nd 2nd line.''
If you had Simmer-Nilsson-Robert as your second line, you would of been in a world of trouble and wouldn't of make it in the second round. Those are not two VERY borderline second liner and one that shouldn't be on a second line at all.
Charlie Simmer as two first all-star selection. It's fine, but what did he do in the playoffs? A good playoff run in 1982. A ... well yea that 's pretty much it. He doesn't bring anything more than some offensive talent. I'll admit I respect much more the playoff credential of Ulf Nilsson. He had good teammate all career long, but some of his playoffs years in the WHA and NHL were very good. I give him credit to be a good playoff performer, but again he dosn't bring much more. René Robert is definitely someone I looked for my fourth and someone I respect very much. I think he will be the most dangerous player on this fourth line.
You didn't talked a lot about my own fourth line though. The fact is: my fourth line is just as much good offensively as your fourth line, starting by the best player of all six players Tommy Dunderdale. His stats in the PCHA are mesmerizing. Take a look:
Tommy Dunderdale
That's is way more impressive than any of Charlie Simmer or Ulf Nilsson regular season or playoff success. But he also bring a physical and gritty play, characteristic of the Detroit Falcons.
Gordon Roberts was also a very good, intimidating and physical player that could score goals at ease. And Ken Randall of the right side was a tough SOB. He was a great instigator that had enough talent to chip in some goals and was fast enough to keep up with anyone. (I would love to see Randall and Roberts go at it!) I know they aren't as big names as your fourth, but as trio they are the superior fourth line. And again, they are builted for the playoffs.
BTW, you wanna play your fourth line against mine? After the third shift, Simmer and Nilsson will be scare to go in the corners. Wanna play your fourth against my third? With Tikkanen, Mackell and Lemieux it's the same thing. Wanna play them against my top-two line? You could do that!
We have Dave Keon and Claude Provost who are both recognized as being either the top defensive player at their position of all time... or at least in the top 2 or 3.
So when you look at the forward group as a whole I'd say our advantages...
-Top goal scorer in the series by far (Bossy)
-Top first line with large playoff pedigree and some chemistry among the wingers
-Top two defensive forwards in the series (Keon and Claude)
-Basically two second scoring lines with six players who could all easily find their way onto second lines based on their scoring ability... so we have scoring depth all throughout the line-up and an offensive unit that comes at you in waves.
- Yes
- Yes, but all teams played 82 games by now: the chemistry isn't an advantage anymore
- Cannot disagree, but #3, #4 and #5 are on my team with Tikkanen, Lemaire and Lemieux.
- I already stated I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Simmer and Nilsson are BORDERLINE second liner (and would hurt a team using them as 2nd liner) and Roberts is FAR from a second liner. Tikkanen, Lemieux and Dunderdale are better option for a second line than Nilsson, Simmer and Mackell, Roberts better suited on a 2nd line than Roberts.
----------
- After Bossy, I have the #2, #3, #4 and I could argue #5 best offensive talent in this series with Dickie Moore, Busher Jackson, Sid Abel and Lanny McDonald.
- I have a clear advantage on the 2nd line
- I have a clear advantage on the 3rd line
- I have a better 4th line, a line I could use in more situation and more adapted to play a more important role in this serie.
- Something we didn't talked about but that it's important: my 13rd and 14th forward are Buddy O'Connor and Ernie Russell. My 7th D is Taffy Abel. For the Trail, Ray Getliffe and Behn Wilson. We all know playoffs are hard and injuries happen a lot. I've got an EXCELLENT trio of replacement, probably the best in the league. If injury occur, those guys are ready and can contribute, more than a Wilson or Getliffe.
That's just the forward group.
lets not forget that we also clearly have the top goaltender in the series as our guy is one of a few who could be called the greatest of all time while Brimsek is in more of a third tier of starters in this draft. Great goaltender but a clear edge to Sawchuk.
I have Sawchuk #4 on my list, Brimsek #11. Sawchuk is better, everyone knows it. Next!
Same with coaching. Shero is terrific, but he doesn't have anywhere near the resume that Dick Irvin has. Lets also not forget that we added Claude Ruel to his staff. Ruel proved with the Canadiens how effective he could be not only as a cup winning head coach but as a multiple cup winning assistant coach with Bowman. Our staff is also a clear edge.
A Irvin-Ruel duo is on paper better than Shero, but I wouldn't take them to coach my team (I could of took Irvin). I decided to go with Shero, because he's the guy that suits my team the best. THIS IS a Shero team. Does Irvin suits his team as good as Shero suits his. I'll let you make the case, the only thing I know is that if I could select from ANY coach available to coach my team, Shero would be #3 behind Toe Blake and Scorry Bowman. You can call it a edge if you want, I don't see it that way.
We BETTER have the edge up front, in net and behind the bench because there's no question you do hold an edge over us on the back end.
You don't have the edge up front, you do have it in net, I don't see any edge on either team in coaching.
Really you only need one name to explain why that is. Bourque is likely the best player in the series....
(But I'd say Sawchuk and Bossy are EASILY 2nd and 3rd)
- Bourque is not likely the best player on this serie, he's EASILY the best player on this serie.
- You're definitely right.
So I'll concede thanks to him and a strong group that you've built that you have an edge on the back end. However, I'd say it's not as strong as you sold it as being.
Rod Langway is one of the best defensive defencemen in the history of the game. Doug Wilson is a fantastic two way defender with an offensive game that I'd say passes anyone but Bourque on your blue line. I've very happy with that first pairing.
I love Langway, your assessment on him is exact. In my opinion Doug Wilson isn't as fantastic defensively as you make him to be. He's was good offensively though, and yes, he's in my opinion the second best overall offensive defenseman, far away after Bourque. I've said overall, because I think Jim Thomson was the better passer.
We have mobility and defensive ability on each pairing. A player like Colville with Vasko... very complimentary and accomplished. Our third pairing again matches up accomplished offensive and defensive defencemen. Both who have been part of some of the most intense hockey ever played... whether it's as a big part of Canada's 1972 summit win or as a key puck mover for the dynasty Oilers in the playoffs.
I've state my case on both my and your second and third pairing. Vasko and Colville and a good pairing, but the Gold Dust Twins are better. I also made my claim about how I felt that my duo of Cook-Gusev was better than Ruotsolainen and Bergman. I'l copy-paste my claim:
''So, I'll have the advocate for my third pairing. If you don't know them, click on the players link. Lloyd is a tremendous offensive defenseman. His offensive instinct brought him 3 Retro Norris in the PCHA. 4 time scoring leader among D, 5 time goalscoring leader among D. He didn't shied away from using his body. I discover Cook last draft when BM reunited the famous Cook-Duncan duo, I feel both of them are extremely underrated and deserve better fate (especially Duncan as a 7th D!). He's an elite 5th defenseman is paired up with a good defensive defenseman. Alexander Gusev is the strong defensive presence. I was watching the summit series not long ago the famous new years eve CCCP-Canadiens games and I focus my attention to #2, and I was extremely impress. He was playing first PP time with Vasiliev, but except his booming shot you don't except a strong offensive game from Gusev. However, Gusev was very big and has a strong reach. he was always well position and was a good skater for his ice. What I was surprise to see is how good of a good passer he was, especially the first pass in the defensive zone. Always on the tape, VERY seldomly does he miss a pass on the transition. He was also a strong leader, wearing a letter most of his career.''
Our defensive core is in my view very balanced with no weak links and an absolute defensive rock in Langway. He'll be out there a ton in order to contain your top two lines. We have puck moving and offensive skill on every pairing so they will all be able to jump start a deep offensive team that again comes at you in waves.
You do have a good defensive squad who play against a better defensives squad. I already stated that I don't see your team as better offensively as mine. Your ''offensive waves'' dosn't scare me much with three defensive duo that could contain you + all four lines that can hit you offensively, defensively or physically.
You mention that we just went through a battle while your team didn't have to play. If we're going to mention that kind of thing I'd like to point out that often that can bite a team in the butt. Our team is riding high with a ton of momentum after a real playoff war and victory. Your team has been sitting back waiting and that may allow us to get the jump on you in game 1 and steal the one road win we'll need.
It's true, but I think only having 2 or 3 days to rest after one of the two hardest fought battle of the first round will hurt you more than me resting 10 days. Those guys are playoffs performer, pumped and ready to go.
(In hindsight, I shouldn't of use this argument for the only reason that it is me that tabulate the results. I'm sure no one think I would rigged any results, but still ...)
I very much admire your team as usual Eagle.
As I am. Dave Keon and Terry Sawchuk are two guys I would love to get one day, while Claude Provost and Ruotsolainen already wore the Red and White jersey
That being said, I feel like our team happens to be a very tough match up for you. It may be 1 vs. 4 but I think our team is built to play a team like yours.
-Best two defensive forwards in series (Keon, Provost)
-Top goaltender by a significant margin (Sawchuk)
-An edge behind the bench by a good margin (the irvin/Ruel team against Shero who only has two cup wins compared to Irvin's record setting playoff history)
-The top goal scorer in the series (Bossy)
-Top first line in the series
-Basically two second lines so we can send waves of offensvie attack
-A well balanced defensive core with a horse in Langway and excellent puck movers/reliable defenders on each pairing
You again have the edge with Bourque leading your back end and you have an excellent team, but I'm confident we can push you to your limit and take this seires in 6 or far more likely 7.
- Cannot disagree, but #3, #4 and #5 are on my team with Tikkanen, Lemaire and Lemieux.
- Yes
- I stated that I disagree with that assessment. And if we go with stats alone, Irvin Sr. 4 Stanley Cup wins in 16 finals isn't very impressive.
- Yes, but all teams played 82 games by now: the chemistry isn't an advantage anymore
- After Bossy, I have the #2, #3, #4 and I could argue #5 best offensive talent in this series with Dickie Moore, Busher Jackson, Sid Abel and Lanny McDonald.
- Yes
- I already stated I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Simmer and Nilsson are BORDERLINE second liner (and would hurt a team using them as 2nd liner) and Roberts is FAR from a second liner. Tikkanen, Lemieux and Dunderdale are better option for a second line than Nilsson, Simmer and Mackell, Roberts better suited on a 2nd line than Roberts.
- I agree you have a balance defensive team, but overall, my defensive is better offensively, defensively and physically.
---------------------------------------------
- I have the best player in the serie (Raymond Bourque)
- I have a clear advantage on the 2nd line
- I have a clear advantage on the 3rd line
- I have a better 4th line, a line I could use in more situation and more adapted to play a more important role in this serie.
- Something we didn't talked about but that it's important: my 13rd and 14th forward are Buddy O'Connor and Ernie Russell. My 7th D is Taffy Abel. For the Trail, Ray Getliffe and Behn Wilson. We all know playoffs are hard and injuries happen a lot. I've got an EXCELLENT trio of replacement, probably the best in the league. If injury occur, those guys are ready and can contribute, more than a Wilson or Getliffe.
- Every duo on my defensive squad are better than the Trail defensive duo
(1930-1932)
