ATD #11, Jim Robson Quarterfinals. Kilkenny Bustards (4) vs. Kenora Thistles (5)
- Thread starter EagleBelfour
- Start date
papershoes
Registered User
first off, congrats to DoMakc & JohnFlyersFan for building a very strong team. this looks to be one heck of a match-up.
i'm hoping to post some initial thoughts sometime tonight.
i'm hoping to post some initial thoughts sometime tonight.
Sorry that I post that late, but I had really crazy work schedule this weekend.
I have to congratulate you on assemling an awesome first line, you can't shut down Gretzky and Messier, and Hedberg, while he doesn't bring the defensive ability and cornerwork of Jari Kurri, is very good goalscorer, who can keep up with Wayne and fits Thistles' run and gun style perfectly. While you've paid premium for trading up for Gretky, Messier and Dionne, you still managed to collect really good offensive depth, still I think our forward corp is a tad deeper, with Ron Francis and Bryan Hextall on the second line, who are borderline first liners in this thing. Though you play Marcel Dionne on the second line, he still will have to carry it offensively, and he won't get any easy matchups against our team, so we can assume that he won't be much of a difference.
Where your trading hurt you is your defence. The most of your defencemen are offensive defencemen who can skate very well, which fits your style, but I'm not sold on Mike Ramsey as Coffey's partner, I'm not sure he can cover all the time for him and handle big minutes. Another concern is your 2nd pairing - both are very good skaters, but both are more offensive defencemen, who were paired with defensive parners (Tregubov and Davydov). Sologubov was a risk taker - he had a habit deke forchecking forward in the defensive zone, and leaving his position to go for a big hit. He was described as atypical soviet defenceman, who was more of an individualist then a team player. Another question mark is the level of his competition.
i think our defence is much more balanced and actually better at playing defence.
Another edge I give to our team is goaltending, while Thompson is very good goalie, there were not many who were better then Hall, and Thompson wasn't one of them. As for his playoff resume, this time he plays for a much deeper team then Chicago he'll get enough help from our forwards and defence (which cannot be said about Thompson) and Hitchcock's goalies, like Lemaire's ones tend to overachieve, so i think he'll be fine.
i think neither team has a coaching advantage, both are good coaches, both coach payers they had history with (like Primeau, who had his best regular season and playoffs under Hitchcock), players who fit their coaching philosophy.
Special teams:
Though you have a great power play unit, penalty killing is a bit of concern, while our PP-unit isn't as good as yours, it's not far behind with Murphy, Hull , Trottier on the first and Francis on the second. I think our PK units are better and deeper, there are not many forwards on our team who aren't good penalty killers. And Hitchcok's teams tend not to take many minor penalties.
Why I think our team will win this matchup:
You build a very good offensive team, a team that is going to win many games with score 7-6. But we won't surrender that many, we can slow down your transition game by playing trap or left wing lock (Paul Coffey did terrible, playing against NJ in 1995 finals), will cause many turnovers that will result in odd man rushes. You know defence wins championships.
I have to congratulate you on assemling an awesome first line, you can't shut down Gretzky and Messier, and Hedberg, while he doesn't bring the defensive ability and cornerwork of Jari Kurri, is very good goalscorer, who can keep up with Wayne and fits Thistles' run and gun style perfectly. While you've paid premium for trading up for Gretky, Messier and Dionne, you still managed to collect really good offensive depth, still I think our forward corp is a tad deeper, with Ron Francis and Bryan Hextall on the second line, who are borderline first liners in this thing. Though you play Marcel Dionne on the second line, he still will have to carry it offensively, and he won't get any easy matchups against our team, so we can assume that he won't be much of a difference.
Where your trading hurt you is your defence. The most of your defencemen are offensive defencemen who can skate very well, which fits your style, but I'm not sold on Mike Ramsey as Coffey's partner, I'm not sure he can cover all the time for him and handle big minutes. Another concern is your 2nd pairing - both are very good skaters, but both are more offensive defencemen, who were paired with defensive parners (Tregubov and Davydov). Sologubov was a risk taker - he had a habit deke forchecking forward in the defensive zone, and leaving his position to go for a big hit. He was described as atypical soviet defenceman, who was more of an individualist then a team player. Another question mark is the level of his competition.
i think our defence is much more balanced and actually better at playing defence.
Another edge I give to our team is goaltending, while Thompson is very good goalie, there were not many who were better then Hall, and Thompson wasn't one of them. As for his playoff resume, this time he plays for a much deeper team then Chicago he'll get enough help from our forwards and defence (which cannot be said about Thompson) and Hitchcock's goalies, like Lemaire's ones tend to overachieve, so i think he'll be fine.
i think neither team has a coaching advantage, both are good coaches, both coach payers they had history with (like Primeau, who had his best regular season and playoffs under Hitchcock), players who fit their coaching philosophy.
Special teams:
Though you have a great power play unit, penalty killing is a bit of concern, while our PP-unit isn't as good as yours, it's not far behind with Murphy, Hull , Trottier on the first and Francis on the second. I think our PK units are better and deeper, there are not many forwards on our team who aren't good penalty killers. And Hitchcok's teams tend not to take many minor penalties.
Why I think our team will win this matchup:
You build a very good offensive team, a team that is going to win many games with score 7-6. But we won't surrender that many, we can slow down your transition game by playing trap or left wing lock (Paul Coffey did terrible, playing against NJ in 1995 finals), will cause many turnovers that will result in odd man rushes. You know defence wins championships.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Papershoes, let's see some arguments. This series has the potential to be the closest, yet very little has been said, particularly from your side.
Choosing between these two teams will be difficult and I hope to see well-reasoned arguments from both sides so the decision isn't automatic.
One contrast that I see right away between these two squads, is between the checking lines. This is a Sather-Muckler team if I ever saw one. Complete run and gun. Smith-Fredrickson-MacLean on a 3rd line leaves little doubt as to what the line is for. The 4th line has more in the way of grit and two-way play but is far from a shutdown unit too. Kilkenny's Duff-Brind'Amour-Graham, on the other hand, is an outstanding shutdown unit that has reasonable scoring ability too. You can't shut down Gretzky, but you can at least help contain him. You'd rather have that line out there against him than a bunch of scorers. The plus side is that this line can and will put in some goals when playing against Gretz and Mess.
One major similarity between the two teams is strength down the middle. Trottier-Francis and Gretzky/Dionne are two of the best 1-2 punches in the draft. Kenora has the major edge in the offensive zone with those two, but Kilkenny has the defensive edge. Who prevails? Tough to say.
Choosing between these two teams will be difficult and I hope to see well-reasoned arguments from both sides so the decision isn't automatic.
One contrast that I see right away between these two squads, is between the checking lines. This is a Sather-Muckler team if I ever saw one. Complete run and gun. Smith-Fredrickson-MacLean on a 3rd line leaves little doubt as to what the line is for. The 4th line has more in the way of grit and two-way play but is far from a shutdown unit too. Kilkenny's Duff-Brind'Amour-Graham, on the other hand, is an outstanding shutdown unit that has reasonable scoring ability too. You can't shut down Gretzky, but you can at least help contain him. You'd rather have that line out there against him than a bunch of scorers. The plus side is that this line can and will put in some goals when playing against Gretz and Mess.
One major similarity between the two teams is strength down the middle. Trottier-Francis and Gretzky/Dionne are two of the best 1-2 punches in the draft. Kenora has the major edge in the offensive zone with those two, but Kilkenny has the defensive edge. Who prevails? Tough to say.
papershoes
Registered User
sorry for the lack of discussion - i've been meaning to respond for quite some time but, have been crazy busy at work.
thanks - hedberg is certainly no kurri (it would have been fantastic to snag kurri). however, this has more grit and toughness with messier. he'll be able to dig out pucks, let gretz and hedberg play create, and battle in front of the net. i do agree that the line loses tremendously not having kurri's defensive presence. that said, messier is skilled enough to play the two-way role on the line.
as i mentioned before, i really like your team. i agree to an extent that you have more forward depth. however, in terms of pure offensive depth, the thistles have you licked. we can role three offensive lines that are absolute threats to score. you have depth but, can they continuously stop an offensive onslaught led by gretzky, dionne, and fredrickson down the middle? can they consistently stop a transition game led by coffey, sologubov, and svedberg on the blueline?
i agree, hextall and francis are borderline first-liners. that said, dionne should be a sure-fire first-liner in the atd. he gets slammed for his playoff record which diminishes his value slightly. however, in my opinion, he's the best second-line centre in the atd. playing out of the spotlight (and in the shadows of gretz and mess) will lesson the pressure and allow him to play his game. furthermore, sather is an ideal coach - allowing dionne to play to his offensive strengths and create opportunities to score. i think you are selling dionne incredibly short by saying "he won't be much of a difference". in the situation he's in, he has every opportunity to succeed. if we can forgive hall's playoff misgivings due to the team you've created around him, then we need to do the same for dionne.
i'm not going to argue that your defence is more balanced. i also won't argue that you have more players with greater success in the defensive zone. however, my three "risk-takers" (coffey, svedberg, and sologubov) were selected because of their offensive abilities and tremendous skating abilities. in his prime, only orr could skate better then coffey (though niederemeyer is a fantastic skater as well). every line the thistles ice will have an offensively-oriented defenceman who can flat out fly and begin a transition game with a great collection of offensive players. to add balance, each risk-taker is paired with a defensively conscience defenceman (ramsey, kuzkin, and turner).
as for ramsey, i confident he can handle the minutes alongside coffey. he has great size, great work ethic, leadership, and a very sound defensive game - blocking shots and playing great positionally.
as for kuzkin - he was more then an offensive defenceman. he was regarded for having strong positional skills. his speed and positioning will allow him to cover for sologubov's risk-taking.
i agree, hall definitely has the edge over thompson. hall is without question top-10 and, could be considered top-5 by some. however, thompson was good in the playoffs. as a rookie in 1929, he went 5-0, and 3 shutouts, with a 0.60 gaa to win the stanley cup. while he never won another cup, he compiled a 1.88 gaa in his playoff career (5th all-time). his seven shutouts in 44 playoff games is much better then hall's six shutouts in 115 games. he also recorded a staggering 81 shutouts in 12 years of hockey. no question hall's better - but, thompson certainly won't lose us any games either.
i'll have to disagree here - as i think the thistles have the edge in coaching, especially in the playoffs. both coaches have teams suited to their styles but, sather has had much more playoff success with his particular squad. here are some playoff stats:
sather: 4 stanley cups, .705 winning percentage, 5-time conference champions
hitchcock: 1 stanley cup, .545 winning percentage, 2-time conference champion
while i'll agree that your squad has a better "defensive" penalty-kill, the thistles will be employing sather's strategic approach of using skilled offensive players on the pk. in this regard, our penalty-kill is easily the biggest threat to score a short-handed goal (with gretzky and messier sitting #1 and 2 in career shorthanded goals). this tactic has been successful in the past.
additionally, should the thistles need to buckle down defensively, we can roll a pk of sorrell-kaspar-ramsey-turner or hull-foligno-ramsey-kuzkin. though not as great as your penalty-killers, they are still very effective defensive players.
this may be the case for a number of teams however, it certainly wasn't the case when the gretzky, messier, coffey, and sather led oilers were winning cup after cup in the 80's.
thanks - hedberg is certainly no kurri (it would have been fantastic to snag kurri). however, this has more grit and toughness with messier. he'll be able to dig out pucks, let gretz and hedberg play create, and battle in front of the net. i do agree that the line loses tremendously not having kurri's defensive presence. that said, messier is skilled enough to play the two-way role on the line.
as i mentioned before, i really like your team. i agree to an extent that you have more forward depth. however, in terms of pure offensive depth, the thistles have you licked. we can role three offensive lines that are absolute threats to score. you have depth but, can they continuously stop an offensive onslaught led by gretzky, dionne, and fredrickson down the middle? can they consistently stop a transition game led by coffey, sologubov, and svedberg on the blueline?
i agree, hextall and francis are borderline first-liners. that said, dionne should be a sure-fire first-liner in the atd. he gets slammed for his playoff record which diminishes his value slightly. however, in my opinion, he's the best second-line centre in the atd. playing out of the spotlight (and in the shadows of gretz and mess) will lesson the pressure and allow him to play his game. furthermore, sather is an ideal coach - allowing dionne to play to his offensive strengths and create opportunities to score. i think you are selling dionne incredibly short by saying "he won't be much of a difference". in the situation he's in, he has every opportunity to succeed. if we can forgive hall's playoff misgivings due to the team you've created around him, then we need to do the same for dionne.
i'm not going to argue that your defence is more balanced. i also won't argue that you have more players with greater success in the defensive zone. however, my three "risk-takers" (coffey, svedberg, and sologubov) were selected because of their offensive abilities and tremendous skating abilities. in his prime, only orr could skate better then coffey (though niederemeyer is a fantastic skater as well). every line the thistles ice will have an offensively-oriented defenceman who can flat out fly and begin a transition game with a great collection of offensive players. to add balance, each risk-taker is paired with a defensively conscience defenceman (ramsey, kuzkin, and turner).
as for ramsey, i confident he can handle the minutes alongside coffey. he has great size, great work ethic, leadership, and a very sound defensive game - blocking shots and playing great positionally.
as for kuzkin - he was more then an offensive defenceman. he was regarded for having strong positional skills. his speed and positioning will allow him to cover for sologubov's risk-taking.
chidlovski said:
i agree, hall definitely has the edge over thompson. hall is without question top-10 and, could be considered top-5 by some. however, thompson was good in the playoffs. as a rookie in 1929, he went 5-0, and 3 shutouts, with a 0.60 gaa to win the stanley cup. while he never won another cup, he compiled a 1.88 gaa in his playoff career (5th all-time). his seven shutouts in 44 playoff games is much better then hall's six shutouts in 115 games. he also recorded a staggering 81 shutouts in 12 years of hockey. no question hall's better - but, thompson certainly won't lose us any games either.
i'll have to disagree here - as i think the thistles have the edge in coaching, especially in the playoffs. both coaches have teams suited to their styles but, sather has had much more playoff success with his particular squad. here are some playoff stats:
sather: 4 stanley cups, .705 winning percentage, 5-time conference champions
hitchcock: 1 stanley cup, .545 winning percentage, 2-time conference champion
while i'll agree that your squad has a better "defensive" penalty-kill, the thistles will be employing sather's strategic approach of using skilled offensive players on the pk. in this regard, our penalty-kill is easily the biggest threat to score a short-handed goal (with gretzky and messier sitting #1 and 2 in career shorthanded goals). this tactic has been successful in the past.
additionally, should the thistles need to buckle down defensively, we can roll a pk of sorrell-kaspar-ramsey-turner or hull-foligno-ramsey-kuzkin. though not as great as your penalty-killers, they are still very effective defensive players.
this may be the case for a number of teams however, it certainly wasn't the case when the gretzky, messier, coffey, and sather led oilers were winning cup after cup in the 80's.
Yes and yes. This Kilkenny team has 4 centers that are great defencively, every forward (even Hull to some point under Hitchcock) are dedicated backchecker, there will be no easy matchups for your lines despite your offencive depth.
As for your second question, your transition game will be slowed down by trap, Paul Coffey couldn't skate through NJ Devils in 1995, and he didn't lost a bit of his offencive or skating ability by that time, and he is your most talanted rusher (I actually question Sologubov's rushing ability at this level, he did it against not really great Soviet competition in the 50ies, but this doesn't mean much). Your team is not suited to play dump and chase - the most effective tactic against the trap, so i think skating through the middle and gainig our defencive zone won't be as easy as you think.
Dionne will have the pressure carring his line offensively, and he won't have easy matchups, so he will be in the same situation as he was with LA. As for Hall, I thought durnig the draft we came to conclusion that Chicago's struggles were more due to the lack of depth, and Kilkenny has tonns of it, and playing for defencive team will make Hall's job much easier. The fact that he won Conn Smythe in losing case (they were actually swept by Canadiens) say something about his ability to play in playoffs, as far as I know Dionne never showed that.
Kuzkin and Sologubov used to play with more defencive partner, that why I'm not sure how well they'll do together - if Kuzkin will have to cover for Sologubov, how effective can he play, and I'm not sold on Sologubov's rushing abilities at this level.
As for Ramsey, he is good defenceman, the question is - is he good enough to play 20+ minutes against Trottier, Hull, Francis and Hextall with his partner often being out of position? Turner was depth defenceman for Habs, who didn't had much resposobilities. He isn't used to play with somebody like Lil-Strimma, how good he can cover for him.
During Thompson first (and second) season forward pass wasn't allowed, so you have to take his stats with a grain of salt, and with forward pass he won 3 games (also a playoff series) just once. I'm not arguing that he'll lose you a game, but i'm not sure he'll be able to steal a game, or how good will he play with such offencive defence in front of him.
Yeah, and it worth nothing that he had arguably the most talanted team, with the best forward of alltime? And his winning percentage isn't saying much, the NHL of 90ies - 00ies is much more competetive as it was in the 80ies. i think that Hitchcock has more to do with his team's succes that Sather. I stay by my point - neither coach will be the reason for his team's failure.
I disagree. Our penalty kill will be dangerous enough, Graham, brind'amour, Hull and Trottier all scored 19 or more career SHG. And Joe Pelletier described Murphy as:
so it won't be easy to score shorthanded.
D.Hull-Foligno both aren't center, who is going to win faceoff against Trottier, Francis, Brind'amour or even Zetterberg? Generally, i think our team has an advantage in the faceoff circle and winning faceoffs is crucial for a team like Kenora, they need the puck.
Kenora Thistles are no Edmonton Oilers. Oilers had Messier and Anderson on their second line, you have Messier on your fist line and Dionne wasn't half as good as Messier in playoffs, oilers had Tikkanen who could do all the little things, they had Kevin Lowe, they had Grant Fuhr. And Edmonton never faced a team that was as good as Kilkenny defencively.
papershoes
Registered User
a number of great players had difficulty against the '95 new jersey trap - including a 33 year old paul coffey. however, the '95 red wings were not as great of a collection of players as these thistles.
there is a weak link your trap - brett hull. though he may have learned a little bit about backchecking from hitch, that was three years out a of a 19 year career. how much will the free-spirit hull buy into the kilkenny trap?
i'm certainly not arguing hall's abilities. however, as i mentioned before, if we can forgive hall's misgivings because of the depth you've surrounded him with - eliminating his main weakness in chicago, then we can definitely do the same with dionne. on kenora, dionne has more depth surrounding him. he's number 2 behind the greatest player of all-time - so, it will be gretzky, not dionne that will attract the most attention. he has a much stronger corp of defensemen that can get him the puck. and, he has two great linemates in hull and mullen. finally, he's surrounded by numerous player's with multiple championships - players who knew what it takes to win the big game.
i think you are underestimating sologubov's talent a great deal. here's something i posted when i selected him...
in my opinion, he's very much a legitimate 7th rounder in the atd. and, judging by his average draft position, so do a number of other atd gm's (including your co-gm).
he was an early russian superstar and, the first russian blueline superstar. russian hockey historians argue for his merit as one of the greatest soviet blueliners ever (alongside fetisov).
while playing for cska moscow, he won 9 soviet championships (1950, 1955, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1964).
he's a member of the "fetisov club" - for the all-time top 40 scoring defense players in the soviet and russian elite leagues - ranked 2nd behind only slava fetisov himself.
he's ranked 4th, and the namesake, of the "sologubov club" - for the soviet and post-soviet blueliners that scored 100+ goals in the soviet and russian elite league championships, play-offs, international games of the national team, european cups, nhl and in the championships of the top hockey countries.
add to that the following resume:
- Russian Hockey Hall of Fame (zms, 1956)
- WWII veteran
- USSR Elite Hockey League: 128 goals in 350 games
- WC Gold 1956 and 1963
- WC Silver 1955, 1957, 1958, 1959
- WC Bronze 1960, 1961
- Olympics Gold 1956 - best defender of the tournament
- Olympics Bronze 1960 - best defender of the tournament (at age 35 - 9 pts in 5 games)
- IIHF Best Defensemen Award 1956, 1957, 1960
a prominent nhl player (undrafted at this stage) indicated he was talented enough to play on any nhl team in the original six era. he garnered comparisons to bobby orr and doug harvey.
he might have built an even better resume had the national team been formed prior to him turning 25.
i'll take him on my team any day.
and, if the argument that he couldn't win against the whitby dunlops carries such great weight, i guess we should discount every player on the 1980 soviet team after losing to a bunch of amateur americans in lake placid (only a couple of which will be drafted in the atd).
in my opinion, there's no much separating kevin lowe and mike ramsey - aside from championship rings. don't get me wrong, i'm a huge fan of kevin lowe but, both are big, strong, defensive defencemen. both are great positionally, can make the big hit, block shots, and cover for a risk-taker like coffey. ramsey logged monster minutes playing in buffalo. why can't he do the same with kenora? so, if we are questioning ramsey's ability as a top-pairing d-man, we need to toss kevin lowe's name in there as well.
good point! i didn't know about that.
i stay by my point - sather has the advantage, especially considering the team he has in kenora. you're right, his winning percentage is due to having an extremely talented team with the greatest player ever. what does he have in kenora? an extremely talented offensive team with wayne gretzky. really no difference there. if he was so effective with edmonton, he'll be just as effective coaching kenora. i'm not going to argue that hitchcock hasn't been a key cog in his teams success - hitch is a great tactician. however, sather was instrumental to the success of the oilers - he let them play the wide open game that they were properly suited to. he wasn't merely a "push-button" coach.
oilers legacy said:
you're right, they aren't the oilers - in my opinion, they are better. we still have gretzky, messier, and coffey (the three major pieces to the dynasty). not having kurri hurts - he's an incredible two-way talent. dionne is a better replacement offensively. mullen is a decent replacement for anderson - certainly doesn't have as strong a playoff resume but, is a gritty, hard-working, speedy, two-way player. ramsey is a suitable replacement for lowe. kuzkin, sologubov, and svedberg are better then huddy, gregg, and fogolin. and thompson is an admirable replacement for fuhr.
the oilers were very successful against some great defensive players, especially the collection the dynasty islanders had...
new york islanders - trottier, potvin, tonelli, bourne, gillies, goring, langevin, morrow
philadelphia - kerr, propp, poulin, howe, sutter
boston - bourque, kasper
They had much better defence, there was a swede who actually did a very good job of covering for Coffey, Konstantinov and Fetisov, not bad 1-2 punch in the middle. Again you aren't playing New Jersey.
If he bought into Hitchcock's system in Dallas, i don't see why he won't do it this time. And he played for Bowman too.
Where I said I'm going to match the lines, I have 4 lines capable to shut Dionne, it's not like he'll get an easy matchup because he is playing on the second line. It's true that he'll have better puckmoving defencemen, but they have to get through the middle zone, and it won't be easy.
Hall, I thought we discussed it during the draft. Didn't HO prove that Hall's playoffs SV% was at the same level as in the regular season, so the reasons for Chicago's playoff struggles are elsewhere. And he won Conn Smythe, Dionne didn't.
i think you are underestimating sologubov's talent a great deal. here's something i posted when i selected him...
Oh, that wasn't necessary, i read this already and more, I think he is good defenceman, no Bobby Orr, like he was called, but there are not many Bobby Orrs out there (I actually thought that Fetisov was called "second or (russian) Orr". What did i question was his stickhandling in own zone and his rushing ability, it worked against weak competition. As for your lake placid argument, it's ridiculous, everybody can lose on a given night, espesially if there is politics as motivation. And 3 of those amateurs were drafted in the ATD, one by yourself.
I never seen Mike Ramsey play during his prime (I've seen him as Red Wing), so I really can't judge, from what i read Lowe is rated higher (f.E. Lowe's Norris finishes : 81-82: 10th, 87-88: 5th, 88-89: 8th vs Ramsey's:89-90: 7th). Again Lowe has Niedermayer as defencive partner, who can skate too, and is better (or more disciplined) defencively, much more help from his forwards that Ramsey, and a better goalie behind him, it's not like we comparing them in vacuum.
And Hitchcock has a team that suits him. That's why I don't see any difference between both coaches.
And Oilers won the Cup without Sather and Grtezky.
Messier is maybe a better replacememt for Kurri, but Dionne is a big downgrade from Messier as second line center in playoffs. And Mullin don't having a great playoff resume, isn't the best thing for Dionne's winger. And there are no Tikkanens on your team, and I take Fuhr over Thompson.
They were swept by Islanders 1983. So it's 1-1 against them.
papershoes
Registered User
breaking the trap
actually, brett hull is one of the more outspoken advocates against neutral zone trap (alongside mario lemieux). he's often been quoted about his beliefs that the trap was ruining hockey.
"Two years ago, then-St. Louis Blues left winger Brett Hull profoundly griped about how the trap was killing the excitement and flow of the game. He later was made to apologize to commissioner Gary Bettman for his comments, but his distaste for the trap appeared to be felt by most of the league." (Chris Anderson - Hockey Digest)
"The top three worst things I've seen in hockey?" Hull mused on another occasion. "The invention of the trap. The invention of the morning skate. And the invention of the extremely ugly uniform." (Brett Hull)
on another note, implementing the trap brings up another very interesting argument - one that i believe won't have an answer. there is certainly no questioning the trap's effectiveness in the 90's, as the new jersey devils implemented the system to perfection, and championships. as a result, the nhl created several rule changes to limit the effectiveness of the trap, including cutting down on obstruction penalties and, eliminating the the red-line and allowing two-line passes. these new rules have limited the effectiveness of the trap significantly. so, the question then surrounds which "rules" these atd games are being played under. i don't think there is a real answer to this, and it shouldn't carry much weight, but, definitely a neat argument to think about.
now back to the series...
how will the thistles counter the trap? the skating and passing abilities of our defencemen will be extremely instrumental.
essentially, the thistles plan to employ a similar system that the tampa bay lightning used to perfection when capturing the stanley cup in 2004. a system that they used to beat the hitchcock-led, neutral zone trap employed, philadelphia flyers. as i have evidenced below, the lightning used team speed and the defencemen passing to break the trap. so, the typical dump and chase isn't the only method to breaking the trap. the tampa approach can easily be applied to the thistles - our defence is built upon tremendous passers (coffey, svedberg, sologubov) and, we have the speedy wingers that can play the system.
hitchcock himself has even commented on the ability of the pass to loosen the stranglehold of the trap
papershoes said:
actually, brett hull is one of the more outspoken advocates against neutral zone trap (alongside mario lemieux). he's often been quoted about his beliefs that the trap was ruining hockey.
"Two years ago, then-St. Louis Blues left winger Brett Hull profoundly griped about how the trap was killing the excitement and flow of the game. He later was made to apologize to commissioner Gary Bettman for his comments, but his distaste for the trap appeared to be felt by most of the league." (Chris Anderson - Hockey Digest)
"The top three worst things I've seen in hockey?" Hull mused on another occasion. "The invention of the trap. The invention of the morning skate. And the invention of the extremely ugly uniform." (Brett Hull)
on another note, implementing the trap brings up another very interesting argument - one that i believe won't have an answer. there is certainly no questioning the trap's effectiveness in the 90's, as the new jersey devils implemented the system to perfection, and championships. as a result, the nhl created several rule changes to limit the effectiveness of the trap, including cutting down on obstruction penalties and, eliminating the the red-line and allowing two-line passes. these new rules have limited the effectiveness of the trap significantly. so, the question then surrounds which "rules" these atd games are being played under. i don't think there is a real answer to this, and it shouldn't carry much weight, but, definitely a neat argument to think about.
now back to the series...
how will the thistles counter the trap? the skating and passing abilities of our defencemen will be extremely instrumental.
john kreiser - hockey digest said:
essentially, the thistles plan to employ a similar system that the tampa bay lightning used to perfection when capturing the stanley cup in 2004. a system that they used to beat the hitchcock-led, neutral zone trap employed, philadelphia flyers. as i have evidenced below, the lightning used team speed and the defencemen passing to break the trap. so, the typical dump and chase isn't the only method to breaking the trap. the tampa approach can easily be applied to the thistles - our defence is built upon tremendous passers (coffey, svedberg, sologubov) and, we have the speedy wingers that can play the system.
michael farber - sports illustrated said:
al strachan said:
hitchcock himself has even commented on the ability of the pass to loosen the stranglehold of the trap
ken hitchcock said:
papershoes
Registered User
that's what i'm getting at...considering we both built our teams around our coaches strengths, we need to turn our attention to their statistics. and, when we do, you can't argue that sather has been more successful in the playoffs with his style of team then hitchcock. sather has him licked in both stanley cups and playoff winning percentage. in this case, the edge goes to sather.
actually, mullen was very good in the playoffs. he has three cups to his name, and scored 106 points in 143 games. in '89, when calgary won the cup, mullen led the playoffs in goals, and finished 3rd in playoff points. in '86, when calgary made it to the finals, mullen again finished 1st in playoff goals, and 3rd in playoff points. and, in '81, mullen finished 10th in goals, and 5th in points even though his team was elminated in the division finals.
this makes him a very, very good linemate for dionne. not only a winner but, a guy willing to do what it takes to win.
Sorry, but this will be my last answer, I won't have enough time tomorow.
I don't what all these quotes worth, they all were made before he've gone to Dallas. So I would assume that Hitchcock could convince him, that there other aspects of the game then scoring, and they as important as scoring. Joe Pelletier describes it best:
Since Hull will work with Hitchcock, all these quotes have no relevance.
And the mighty Oilers-like Tampa needed seven games and very strong showing from their goaltendenter (twice the first (among them in Game 7) and twice the second star of the game) to get it done. Why did they need their goaltendender to step up, maybe because they created too many turnovers? Will be Thompson able to do the same? I doubt it.
Another point is that every system is as good as the execution. Hitchcock didn't had the right personel in Philadelphia, only good defensive players were Primeau (who had a very good series), Kapanen, Gagne and Handzus, traditionally weak Flyers defence without their best - Desjardins, and Robert Esche. Kilkenny is much more suited to play defensive game as that Flyers team.
Now to your defence. I never heard something about Sologubov, he was known for his rushes open-ice hits, and goalscoring, but not for his outlet passes. Svedberg was in the same mold - he was converted forward and a great rusher, but his career goals to assist ratio is 1:1, so I'm not sure how good his outlet passes were. Coffey was very good passer, but couldn't get it done against NJ, there is an evidence of his failure, but no evidence of his succes against the trap.
Again, there is always an option to put a third guy down, if things go wrong.
I hink we discussed how to stop your team more then enough, how do you want to defend us. It's not like you are going to control the puck all the time, your centers will have tough time wining many faceoffs against Trottier-Francis-Brind'Amour, how want you to get the puck back? You have Messier how is strong along the boards, but about your other lines, who is going to dig puck ot of corners?
But you can't attribute their record just to their coaching ability. It doesn't take a Fields Medal winner to let the most talanted team in the history of hockey play their game, and they didn't had the competition of Dallas, who had two powerhouses - Colorado and Detroit in their own conference.
[/QUOTE]
I don't what all these quotes worth, they all were made before he've gone to Dallas. So I would assume that Hitchcock could convince him, that there other aspects of the game then scoring, and they as important as scoring. Joe Pelletier describes it best:
Since Hull will work with Hitchcock, all these quotes have no relevance.
And the mighty Oilers-like Tampa needed seven games and very strong showing from their goaltendenter (twice the first (among them in Game 7) and twice the second star of the game) to get it done. Why did they need their goaltendender to step up, maybe because they created too many turnovers? Will be Thompson able to do the same? I doubt it.
Another point is that every system is as good as the execution. Hitchcock didn't had the right personel in Philadelphia, only good defensive players were Primeau (who had a very good series), Kapanen, Gagne and Handzus, traditionally weak Flyers defence without their best - Desjardins, and Robert Esche. Kilkenny is much more suited to play defensive game as that Flyers team.
Now to your defence. I never heard something about Sologubov, he was known for his rushes open-ice hits, and goalscoring, but not for his outlet passes. Svedberg was in the same mold - he was converted forward and a great rusher, but his career goals to assist ratio is 1:1, so I'm not sure how good his outlet passes were. Coffey was very good passer, but couldn't get it done against NJ, there is an evidence of his failure, but no evidence of his succes against the trap.
Again, there is always an option to put a third guy down, if things go wrong.
I hink we discussed how to stop your team more then enough, how do you want to defend us. It's not like you are going to control the puck all the time, your centers will have tough time wining many faceoffs against Trottier-Francis-Brind'Amour, how want you to get the puck back? You have Messier how is strong along the boards, but about your other lines, who is going to dig puck ot of corners?
But you can't attribute their record just to their coaching ability. It doesn't take a Fields Medal winner to let the most talanted team in the history of hockey play their game, and they didn't had the competition of Dallas, who had two powerhouses - Colorado and Detroit in their own conference.
[/QUOTE]
papershoes
Registered User
to suggest that khabibulin, an mld goaltender, could bail out a run and gun offensive team yet, thompson, a definitive atd starter and top-30 all-time goaltender couldn't seems silly. i'm not going to argue that khabby wasn't great in that post-season, because he was tremendous. however, thompson also played tremendous in the '29 bruins cup win. forward pass or not, a 5-0 record, with 3 shutouts, and a 0.60 gaa is amazing. and, for what it's worth, he was also awarded a retro conn smythe for the series.
svedberg was a paul coffey clone, playing an identical game to the great oiler defencemen. he could skate effortlessly, shoot, and make great passes.
1972summitseries said:
Khabibulin was great that postseason, he was at his best, and he did it against Flyers with Roenick, aging Leclair and Recchi, Thompson will have to face Trottier, Hull, Francis among others.
papershoes
Registered User
and thompson put up his 5-0 record, 3 shutouts, and 0.6 gaa against howie morenz, frank boucher, bill cook, bun cook, aurel joliat, and sylvio mantha.
he outdueled george hainsworth (the '29 vezina winner) and john roach.
don't downplay how lights out thompson was that post-season.
all this considering he played behind the team that scored the most goals that season.
Again, without the forward pass it was another, very lowscoring game, thompson played behind shore, hitchman and clapper, luxury he won't have this time. And the fact Bruins scored the most goals doesn't indicates they played run and gun style, as far as I know nobody did it that time espesially in playoffs.
papershoes
Registered User
it's too bad we were both busy in the early-going of this series - we've begin to build an awesome discussion lately...
trottier, francis, and brind'amour were all fantastic face-off men. however, this doesn't mean that the thistles won't be able to win draws. mark messier provides tremendous versatility to the thistles as both a winger and centre. during the oilers cup runs, it was messier taking the important draws. i dug up this response from another hfboards poster regarding messier and trottier in the '84 playoffs.
steve kasper took several key face-offs for the bruins, and fredrickson took every important face-off for the '20 canadian olympic team.
you bring up a good point about digging the puck out of the corners. without a doubt, messier is the guy for the first-line. he's tough, gritty, and a fantastic forechecker. he'll be able to do the dirty work, providing gretz and hedberg with the puck to create scoring opportunities. on the second line, hull and mullen can tow the line. dennis, like bobby hull, was built like a horse (as are most farmers). hull did what needed to be done to win...
as for mullen, though undersized, he played tough and gritty, doing whatever it takes to win...
as for the third line, fredrickson and maclean can easily do the board work to retrive the puck - though maclean will be relied upon for this role moreso then fredrickson.
should we need additional toughness, foligno can move up for a couple of shifts to provide strength along the boards.
trottier, francis, and brind'amour were all fantastic face-off men. however, this doesn't mean that the thistles won't be able to win draws. mark messier provides tremendous versatility to the thistles as both a winger and centre. during the oilers cup runs, it was messier taking the important draws. i dug up this response from another hfboards poster regarding messier and trottier in the '84 playoffs.
greatgazoo said:
steve kasper took several key face-offs for the bruins, and fredrickson took every important face-off for the '20 canadian olympic team.
you bring up a good point about digging the puck out of the corners. without a doubt, messier is the guy for the first-line. he's tough, gritty, and a fantastic forechecker. he'll be able to do the dirty work, providing gretz and hedberg with the puck to create scoring opportunities. on the second line, hull and mullen can tow the line. dennis, like bobby hull, was built like a horse (as are most farmers). hull did what needed to be done to win...
greatest hockey legends said:
as for mullen, though undersized, he played tough and gritty, doing whatever it takes to win...
greatest hockey legends said:
as for the third line, fredrickson and maclean can easily do the board work to retrive the puck - though maclean will be relied upon for this role moreso then fredrickson.
should we need additional toughness, foligno can move up for a couple of shifts to provide strength along the boards.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
I believe that Dit Clapper converted to defense only very late in Thompson's career. At any rate, Clapper didn't win his first all-star nod on the blueline until the season Thompson was traded to New York in favor of a young Frankie Brimsek. The B's blueline was still strong in front of Thompson (and in fact, Tiny's Bruins were quite often the best regular season team in the league), but it's worth pointing out that Clapper, specifically, played very little defense in front of Thompson.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
The Kilkenny Bustards (4) vs. The Kenora Thistles (5)
Game Results:
Kilkenny Bustards: 4 - Kenora Thistles: 2
Kilkenny Bustards: 8 - Kenora Thistles: 1
Kenora Thistles: 2 - Kilkenny Bustards: 0
Kenora Thistles: 4 - Kilkenny Bustards: 3 OT
Kilkenny Bustards: 1 - Kenora Thistles: 2 OT
Kenora Thistles: 3 - Kilkenny Bustards: 4 2OT
Kilkenny Bustards: 5 - Kenora Thistles: 2
The Kilkenny Bustards (4) defeats The Kenora Thistles (5) in 7 games.
Series Three Stars
1: Wayne Gretzky - Kenora Thistles
2: Glenn Hall - Kilkenny Bustards
3: Mark Messier - Kenora Thistles
Series Recap:
- The depth and the poor performances of goaltender Tiny Thompson hurt the Kenora Thistles in this series, because the stars of this team showed up, starting with #99 Wayne Gretzky. He and linemate Mark Messier were both extremely effective, making the best out of what Glenn Hall were given them. It's a given that if both goaltenders would of switched teams, the faith of this series would of been different.
- Bryan Trottier was the Kilkenny most dominating force on the ice. He and Brett Hull displayed some great offensive abilities, while often John Tonelli was covering for their lack of defensive awareness.
- Dick Duff was sublime, keeping Anders Hedberg off the scoreboard all series long. Hedberg, who scored 49 goals in the regular season on a line with Gretzky and Messier, was not able to get a lone one in 7 games.
- Defenseman Viktor Kuzkin made a name for himself in this series. Moving up on a line with Paul Coffey, relegating Mike Ramsay with Sologubov on the second pairing, Kuzkin played smart, positional hockey, covering the mistake prone Paul Coffey.
Game Results:
Kilkenny Bustards: 4 - Kenora Thistles: 2
Kilkenny Bustards: 8 - Kenora Thistles: 1
Kenora Thistles: 2 - Kilkenny Bustards: 0
Kenora Thistles: 4 - Kilkenny Bustards: 3 OT
Kilkenny Bustards: 1 - Kenora Thistles: 2 OT
Kenora Thistles: 3 - Kilkenny Bustards: 4 2OT
Kilkenny Bustards: 5 - Kenora Thistles: 2
The Kilkenny Bustards (4) defeats The Kenora Thistles (5) in 7 games.
Series Three Stars
1: Wayne Gretzky - Kenora Thistles
2: Glenn Hall - Kilkenny Bustards
3: Mark Messier - Kenora Thistles
Series Recap:
- The depth and the poor performances of goaltender Tiny Thompson hurt the Kenora Thistles in this series, because the stars of this team showed up, starting with #99 Wayne Gretzky. He and linemate Mark Messier were both extremely effective, making the best out of what Glenn Hall were given them. It's a given that if both goaltenders would of switched teams, the faith of this series would of been different.
- Bryan Trottier was the Kilkenny most dominating force on the ice. He and Brett Hull displayed some great offensive abilities, while often John Tonelli was covering for their lack of defensive awareness.
- Dick Duff was sublime, keeping Anders Hedberg off the scoreboard all series long. Hedberg, who scored 49 goals in the regular season on a line with Gretzky and Messier, was not able to get a lone one in 7 games.
- Defenseman Viktor Kuzkin made a name for himself in this series. Moving up on a line with Paul Coffey, relegating Mike Ramsay with Sologubov on the second pairing, Kuzkin played smart, positional hockey, covering the mistake prone Paul Coffey.
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: 4/27/24 - 5:00PM EDT - #1 Florida vs #1 WC Tampa Bay [ECQF GAME 4]- Latest: Five Alarm Fire
-
-
