ATD #11, Foster Hewitt Quarterfinals. Minnesota Saints (3) vs. Trinec Steelers (6)
- Thread starter EagleBelfour
- Start date
A couple things to watch:
*How will Minnesota's defence handle the offensive onslaught from the Steelers? Trinec's speed and skill rate among the best in the draft. They have three lines that can score. They have a lot of toughness in the top three lines, too. Trinec can score a lot of goals in a hurry. A two-goal lead or a three-goal lead won't be safe. And the Steelers have defencemen who can get involved in the offence, too.
*How will Trinec's defence handle Minnesota's offence. The Fighting Saints will take a hit if they move McGee to the first line. And while Thornton's playoff record is auspicious, go back and watch the San Jose/Nashville series in 2006 and 2007. Thornton was a force. Especially in 2006. He drew a lot of penalties with his size and strength against Nashville's D. Guys like Gonchar, or even Ross, could find themselves in trouble against Thornton. And if Ozolinsch has to play in the series, that could be even worse. Minnesota's offence isn't as potent as Trinec's, but Trinec's defence isn't as effective as Minnesota's offence, either. Guys like Sloan, Stewart, Smyl and Kurtenbach - effective grinders with a scorer's touch - could add to the woes for the Steelers' D.
Trinec has an edge in coaching. Make that a big edge in coaching. And they have an edge in net. Durnan will have to be at his best, because he'll see a lot of rubber.
*How will Minnesota's defence handle the offensive onslaught from the Steelers? Trinec's speed and skill rate among the best in the draft. They have three lines that can score. They have a lot of toughness in the top three lines, too. Trinec can score a lot of goals in a hurry. A two-goal lead or a three-goal lead won't be safe. And the Steelers have defencemen who can get involved in the offence, too.
*How will Trinec's defence handle Minnesota's offence. The Fighting Saints will take a hit if they move McGee to the first line. And while Thornton's playoff record is auspicious, go back and watch the San Jose/Nashville series in 2006 and 2007. Thornton was a force. Especially in 2006. He drew a lot of penalties with his size and strength against Nashville's D. Guys like Gonchar, or even Ross, could find themselves in trouble against Thornton. And if Ozolinsch has to play in the series, that could be even worse. Minnesota's offence isn't as potent as Trinec's, but Trinec's defence isn't as effective as Minnesota's offence, either. Guys like Sloan, Stewart, Smyl and Kurtenbach - effective grinders with a scorer's touch - could add to the woes for the Steelers' D.
Trinec has an edge in coaching. Make that a big edge in coaching. And they have an edge in net. Durnan will have to be at his best, because he'll see a lot of rubber.
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
Couple quick thoughts:
1. Can you change Holmes to be the starter?
2. Just so you know, Gainey-MacKay-Darragh-Stevens-Taylor functions as a 5 man unit. They will play the Hull line. Taylor will shadow Hull. I figure the best I can do is have one of the few guys in history that can skate with him shadow him.
3. The difference between McGee, Ovechkin and Crosby is style of play, not value.
4. The McGee line is an energy line, not a defensive line, so their offensive ability will be used.
1. Can you change Holmes to be the starter?
2. Just so you know, Gainey-MacKay-Darragh-Stevens-Taylor functions as a 5 man unit. They will play the Hull line. Taylor will shadow Hull. I figure the best I can do is have one of the few guys in history that can skate with him shadow him.
3. The difference between McGee, Ovechkin and Crosby is style of play, not value.
4. The McGee line is an energy line, not a defensive line, so their offensive ability will be used.
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
Some more thoughts.
I think the offenses are roughly equal, if anything Minnesota is stronger because of Taylor, Stuart and Hall being a lot better than Gonchar, Ross and Maxwell. I think my 3rd love isn't getting the love it deserves. McGee was dominant, and like Ovechkin and Crosby, has 4 seasons, all of which he was arguably the best in the world. And he has crazy good cup experience.
I also think my 2nd line gets a bum rap offensively. Taylor will be with the line most if not all the time and Taylor/MacKay was one of the first great dynamic duos in hockey. Add to that one of hockeys first great money scorers in Darragh and you have a line that is VERY dangerous on the counter attack. And very quick, one of the speediest units in the tournament.
And going back to defence, I think I have a pretty freaking significant advantage.
Taylor and Stevens are the top 2 d-men in the series by a significant margin. Taylor as a d-man is arguably one of the top 3 offensive d-men ever. Stevens is one of only a handful of players who can dominate with defence. (And he'll be on the ice with the only forward in the modern era who could.) Goodfellow is 3rd. Stuart is the 4th best defenseman. And then it's a close call between Foote, Gonchar and Hall who's 5th.
So yeah. My 1st pairing blows everything else in the series out of the water. Literally a dominant yin-yang defensive pairing. My 2nd pairing is only a step back of Trinec's 1st pairing and my 3rd pairing roughly equal to Trinec's 2nd pairing.
I think the offenses are roughly equal, if anything Minnesota is stronger because of Taylor, Stuart and Hall being a lot better than Gonchar, Ross and Maxwell. I think my 3rd love isn't getting the love it deserves. McGee was dominant, and like Ovechkin and Crosby, has 4 seasons, all of which he was arguably the best in the world. And he has crazy good cup experience.
I also think my 2nd line gets a bum rap offensively. Taylor will be with the line most if not all the time and Taylor/MacKay was one of the first great dynamic duos in hockey. Add to that one of hockeys first great money scorers in Darragh and you have a line that is VERY dangerous on the counter attack. And very quick, one of the speediest units in the tournament.
And going back to defence, I think I have a pretty freaking significant advantage.
Taylor and Stevens are the top 2 d-men in the series by a significant margin. Taylor as a d-man is arguably one of the top 3 offensive d-men ever. Stevens is one of only a handful of players who can dominate with defence. (And he'll be on the ice with the only forward in the modern era who could.) Goodfellow is 3rd. Stuart is the 4th best defenseman. And then it's a close call between Foote, Gonchar and Hall who's 5th.
So yeah. My 1st pairing blows everything else in the series out of the water. Literally a dominant yin-yang defensive pairing. My 2nd pairing is only a step back of Trinec's 1st pairing and my 3rd pairing roughly equal to Trinec's 2nd pairing.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Don't do this, Nalyd. Don't Odie Cleghorn me. Being arguably the greatest player in the world in 1905 is not the same as being arguably the greatest player in the world in 2009. Not even in the same ballpark. I mean, other than Tommy Phillips, who was Frank McGee's competition for the distinction of best forward?
The cream of the crop from the pre-NHA era were certainly great players and belong in the ATD, but are you actually equating Frank McGee's accomplishments to Alexander Ovechkin's? To this point, Ovechkin hasn't had the longest career, but his level of dominance has been "generational" (Jagr-level) in the time he's been in the league. You're making a tremendous leap of faith by placing McGee and Ovechkin even in the same sentence. I'm all for celebrating the careers of bygone stars, but I can't help but feel we're starting to lose a bit of perspective here.
Reds4Life
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 3,896
- 223
I have much better offense imho. Thornton is the ultimate playoff choker and he is your first line center. Gainey is one of the greatesr defensive players ever, still he is not even 50 points player.
I think that my first two forward lines are so much better than yours that it more than offsets your huge defensive advantage. Tkachuk - Roenick are solid duo for the third line and Hossa is a big, strong and very fast winger, he is also responsible defensively and a backchecking machine. I have two Selke trophy winners on my 4th line in Draper and Peca. Also, Bill Durnan is a lot better than either of your goalies. And then there's Scotty Bowman..
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
McGee is a tough case, mostly because he was so clearly a cut above, it's hard to say just how far above he was. His career average was 3 goals per game. (Phillips' best 4 years are 2.7gpg.) That is so absurdly unbelievable, that it is, unbelievable. You yourself have said that over the course of mid-1900's to the mid-late 1910's there was a rapid growth in the quality of organized hockey. And I agree with you. McGee played on the weak end of the spectrum. I'm not denying it. But, he was clearly a man amongst boys. He is in the regard comparable to guys like Bobrov, Tumba and Kuhnhackl. But even then, no proto-European player slapped the competition around like McGee did.
In conclusion, the few elite players of the 1900's (McGee, Phillips, Stuart etc...) have a unique dilemma, they are very clearly a cut above weak competition, but, we then have to gauge how far above the competition they are. What sets McGee apart is how he held the Stanley Cup in a vice grip during his playing career. We can tell McGee would have been ATD worthy in any era. But would he have been very good or great is subject to debate. And I personally, am arguing greatness, but would not hold it against anyone for saying very good. There is the variable there because all we know is that he was a lot better than a sub-par crop.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
"Don't Odie Cleghorn me"?
relating McGee to Ovechkin and Crosby is much different from talking about 1911 in the same breath as 1913 and 1917 and relating a player to his peers.
relating McGee to Ovechkin and Crosby is much different from talking about 1911 in the same breath as 1913 and 1917 and relating a player to his peers.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Josef Malacek's level of dominance was probably higher. In McGee's case, at least Phillips is close to his scoring level (and Tommy Phillips was known as an outstanding all-around player, as well). As far as I know, none of Malacek's competition could come even remotely close.
I basically agree with you. We don't really have any clean way of measuring the greatness of the players who peaked before the first great generation (Lalonde, Taylor, Malone, Nighbor, etc.), and so there is a lot of guesswork involved. As always, when it comes to guesswork, I think the most sensible thing to do is to split the difference. How good could McGee have possibly been? I suppose the Ovechkin level is (generously) his upper limit. How bad could he have been? I dunno...an MLD/AAA-level player, in all likelihood. Quite a large gap between the possible extremes, which is the crux of the problem. I split the difference and see McGee as a guy who is a good 3rd liner or an excellent 4th liner at the ATD level. Comparing him to an Ovechkin (who we know, in no uncertain terms, has been otherworldly in his brief time in the NHL), is assuming the absolute top end of McGee's potential to be reality, a position which I cannot agree with in all fairness.
70's - my statement was perhaps unfair, though to be honest the 1911 NHA more closely resembles McGee's leagues than it does even the 1913 NHA. It is a minor point, at any rate. I just feel the need to hammer this point home before we go too far afield with these old-timers. I have been known to go a bit over the top on occasion.
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
You are way undershooting things here. Take the case of Si Griffis. Generally considered a 2nd pairing d-man. He was a 2nd tier star (The modern equivalent of a #1 d-man who would never be a Norris contender, like Teppo Numminen.) in McGee and Phillips day, and more importantly, in his prime he was Phillips #2 guy in Kenora/Rat Portage. (And the two of them were left in the wake of a young Fred Taylor when they played an exhibition game.)(And also note, the two of them could not overcome the Sens until McGee retired.) After that period, Griffis was good enough to play well into the 1st great generation as a veteran defence leader.
Another example is Jack Laviolette. In the 1900's he was a best player on a non-contender player. Then, in the 1910's he was a running mate to legit stars (Lalonde and Pitre.)
When you factor in that Laviolette and Griffis were passed their prime in the 1910's, it is reasonable to say that at their best they were equivalent to guys like Eddie Oatman, Rusty Crawford and Odie Cleghorn. (Lets leave Cleghorn horn out because his ATD worth is disputed.) I think Crawford and Oatman are well established as ATD 4th liners. Now factor in that McGee and Phillips were at least a step above Laviolette and Griffis when they were all in their prime together.
Therefore, the low end on a guy like McGee ought to be viewed as a solid ATD 3rd liner. So, his upside is generational talent. His downside is middle of the road 3rd liner. Under your metric, that ought to make him a good 2nd liner. And, I'm using him as a 3rd liner where-in the 3rd line is the secondary scoring line/energy line. So, if anything, I'm underusing McGee.
Go ahead, focus on Thornton when you look at my 1st line. I don't have a 5 time Art Ross Winner leading the line or anything. And Doug Bentley is a 2 time goal scoring leader with great speed and 2-way play.
And on the 2nd line, this is the checking line, so yeah, having the best defensive forward of all time on it is hardly a bad idea. And again, go ahead and underrate how MacKay and Taylor can hurt you.
Also, Draper may be great in his own end, but in an ATD context, he's an offensive liability.
Last edited:
Sturminator
Love is a duel
I was talking about McGee's peak value. Even if I accept (and again, assuming that McGee even could have been as good as Ovechkin at his peak is quite generous - the only player from that generation who was as physically dominant as Ovechkin is Hod Stuart) your argument and say that McGee's peak value is that of an ATD 2nd liner, what do we make of the fact that his career spans all of 4 seasons? Aha!
You see...we agree. I believe that McGee had ATD 2nd line talent, but I do not agree with you that he is a legitimate 2nd line center because his career was extremely short even by the lower standards of his era. Ovechkin, for his own part, clearly has 1st line talent, but is not yet an ATD 1st liner because he hasn't done it for long enough. Your comparison cuts both ways.
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
1. Harvey Pulford was more physically dominant than Hod Stuart.
2. My argument is that by your system the worst you could call him is a 2nd liner, when you were implying your metric could leave him out of the ATD all together.
3. If a four season career is that much of a hindrance, then Ovie and Crosby are liabilities on the 2nd line.
4. Everything I've read about McGee states that stylistically he compares very closely to Ovechkin.
SourceLegends of Hockey said:
But really, the best argument is this:
-From 1894-1903 Ottawa never earned the right to challenge for the cup.
-1903 was Ottawa's 1st cup victory.
-Frank McGee's rookie season was 1903.
-Between 1903 and 1906, Ottawa successfully defended the Stanley Cup 11 times. Losing once to the Montreal Wanderers in 1906. (In 1906 Ernie "Moose" Johnson was a 20 year old in a breakout rookie season. Montreal won at the end of season playoffs. Thus making this series the breakout performance of an ATD great #2 d-man/borderline #1 d-man. Other new additions to the Wanderers: Lester Patrick and Ernie Russell.) (Also, the Phillips/Griffis Thistles challenged Ottawa twice, losing both times. Then won the Cup once McGee retired.)
-Frank McGee retired after 1906 season.
-Ottawa did not challenge for the cup again until 1909 when they added Cyclone Taylor.
In summary:
Before McGee: Ottawa was not a Stanley Cup contender.
After McGee: Ottawa was not a Stanley Cup contender.
With McGee: Ottawa won the cup in it's first attempt and successfully defended it 10 times.
Therefore: McGee was a one man dynasty.
Is that not the mark of true greatness?
And what's more. You say equal to Ovechkin is the best case scenario for McGee. Ovechkin has won one playoff round. McGee, as shown, was a one man dynasty. McGee's best case scenario, might just be top 10 all time. If we are to cut hard on the downside and say 3rd line is his downside, we have to be optimistic on the upside and compare him to someone like Maurice Richard.
Last edited:
Sturminator
Love is a duel
By "physical dominance", I was talking about the combination of size, strength, physicality and speed. In the context of a comparison to Ovechkin, it should have been obvious that I was not focusing only on hitting, which Pulford was certainly good at. Was McGee a great athlete? No doubt. Was he an Ovechkin-level physical monster? Possibly, but as a bald assumption, it is a highly generous one.
Then your argument is either false or stems from a misunderstanding of the point I was trying to make. You simply shifted the value inputs based on your own assumptions and then declared my results invalid because they differed from your own. Of course they did, we started from different assumptions.
If we look at Frank McGee and say "in terms of peak value, he could either be a 1st line or a 4th line talent, or somewhere in between", then we have our range set, and I think it is a fair one. Notice that I have adjusted the "floor" value up from MLD to ATD 4th line level here. It is not at all clear that any player from McGee's generation played hockey at the level of the ATD 1st liners (those that belong on a 1st line, at least), but it is possible. It is also possible that they were of a lower quality than you or I would probably like to think - that of about average ATD 4th liners. Again, I'm not saying this is what I think, only outlining the boundaries of what I see to be the possibilities.
If you average the values of an ATD 1st and 4th liner, then, you've got a middlepoint of 2nd/3rd line type peak value as a safe assumption for the top players of this era (McGee, Phillips, Stuart, etc.). In the case of Tommy Phillips, that is exactly what I think he is: either a lower-end (though viable) 2nd liner or an outstanding 3rd liner. In the case of Stuart, I think he's solidly a #3 defenseman (rather than a 3/4, which is what you'd get if you average a 1 and a 6) because of his level of physical dominance and because criticisms of career length vis-a-vis Stuart are grossly distorted. But peak value is not the end of the discussion with McGee, because he does get knocked for the length of his career, which brings him from the Phillips 2nd/3rd line level down to the level of just a 3rd liner (albeit a good one) in my opinion.
I do not honestly consider Crosby an ATD scoringline player at this point. He's got two very strong years and one great one to his credit, nothing more. Yes, he is a weak 2nd liner in my opinion, and if he broke his back tomorrow and never played again his resume as it stands today would not hold up well in comparison to the average ATD 2nd line center.
Ovechkin is better. He's got two very strong seasons to his credit and two great ones. Add a Hart-calibre season to Crosby's resume and they are equals, but obviously Ovechkin has one great season over Sid and that is quite big. Even Ovie I don't consider a superamazing 2nd liner, but I think he belongs there at this point, even with only a 4 year career.
It's not a question of style, but of degree. I just cannot stomach an assumption that Frank McGee was as physically dominant as one of the most physically dominant players in history (which Ovechkin absolutely is) without a very clear reason to do so. I don't think it's as clear as you'd like it to be.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
In fairness to McGee, I should add that I think you make a very good point about the success of those Ottawa teams with and without Frank McGee. Skaters from the "Starters and Subs" era (eg. when the starting skaters routinely played the whole game, or most of it like modern basketball players) can be much more easily judged by the success of their teams than can their modern counterparts because their effect on the outcome of games was much higher as they were on the ice much longer.
And we see a quite profound effect that Frank McGee had on his team. The guy was obviously a winner.
And we see a quite profound effect that Frank McGee had on his team. The guy was obviously a winner.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
The Minnesota Fighting Saints (3) vs. The Trinec Steelers (6)
Game Results:
The Minnesota Fighting Saints: 1 - The Trinec Steelers: 4
The Minnesota Fighting Saints: 3 - The Trinec Steelers: 2 OT
The Trinec Steelers: 4 - The Minnesota Fighting Saints: 6
The Trinec Steelers: 3 - The Minnesota Fighting Saints: 1
The Minnesota Fighting Saints: 3 - The Trinec Steelers: 2
The Trinec Steelers: 2 - The Minnesota Fighting Saints: 3
The Minnesota Fighting Saints (3) defeats The Trinec Steelers (7) in 6 games.
Series Three Stars
1: Bobby Hull - Trinec Steelers
2: Scott Stevens - Minnesota Fighting Saints
3: Cyclone Taylor - Minnesota Fighting Saints
Series Recap:
- Bobby Hull played very good series, on a team where only Peter Forsberg and him showed up. They teamed-up for 10 of their team 17 goals and were electrifying together all series. Nedomansky seemed out of place of the line and was often left out by the dynamic duo.
- The Youngster duo of Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin were often mismatch by the strong defensive duo of Scott Stevens and Cyclone Taylor. While they were able to score a goal each in this series, it is obvious that the Fighting Saints defensive duo outbeated them.
- For the winners, the best forward in this series was unquestionably Mickey Mackay. The PCHA star use his speed and his great stickhandling abilities with ease against a defensive corp that couldn't stop him. In game five, he scored the game winner late in the period by deking defenseman Art Ross before scoring on Bill Durnan by moving his body to the right, but reaching far left with the puck and sliding it near Durnan left post. Mackay later admitted that before the game, he watched the famous tape of his adversary Peter Forsberg doing the same trick.
Game Results:
The Minnesota Fighting Saints: 1 - The Trinec Steelers: 4
The Minnesota Fighting Saints: 3 - The Trinec Steelers: 2 OT
The Trinec Steelers: 4 - The Minnesota Fighting Saints: 6
The Trinec Steelers: 3 - The Minnesota Fighting Saints: 1
The Minnesota Fighting Saints: 3 - The Trinec Steelers: 2
The Trinec Steelers: 2 - The Minnesota Fighting Saints: 3
The Minnesota Fighting Saints (3) defeats The Trinec Steelers (7) in 6 games.
Series Three Stars
1: Bobby Hull - Trinec Steelers
2: Scott Stevens - Minnesota Fighting Saints
3: Cyclone Taylor - Minnesota Fighting Saints
Series Recap:
- Bobby Hull played very good series, on a team where only Peter Forsberg and him showed up. They teamed-up for 10 of their team 17 goals and were electrifying together all series. Nedomansky seemed out of place of the line and was often left out by the dynamic duo.
- The Youngster duo of Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin were often mismatch by the strong defensive duo of Scott Stevens and Cyclone Taylor. While they were able to score a goal each in this series, it is obvious that the Fighting Saints defensive duo outbeated them.
- For the winners, the best forward in this series was unquestionably Mickey Mackay. The PCHA star use his speed and his great stickhandling abilities with ease against a defensive corp that couldn't stop him. In game five, he scored the game winner late in the period by deking defenseman Art Ross before scoring on Bill Durnan by moving his body to the right, but reaching far left with the puck and sliding it near Durnan left post. Mackay later admitted that before the game, he watched the famous tape of his adversary Peter Forsberg doing the same trick.
