seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Dennis Hextall was never in a situation where he had a chance to prove himself in the playoffs. His playoff record is one of those that would best be termed as "incomplete." During the three-year run when he went for at least 52 assists and 138 PIMs each year (you can throw in a 44-assist, 164 PIM season if you want), he played in six playoff games. You can't get a good evaluation of a guy based on six playoff games. (I know some of the stats freaks would like to, but they don't have a clue). But if you want to talk about the perfect LW to work with Larouche in the MLD, that would be Dennis Hextall, because he brings the playmaking ability and the grit that Larouche needs to succeed.
Incomplete = not complete.
No one is going to assume Hextall could have, or would have performed better in the playoffs. Part of it is getting your team there - he wasn't able to do that with much regularity. And part of it is at least pulling your weight and putting up some decent numbers... you know, assert yourself. I see no evidence that Hextall did that, so why should we assume he will now?
He's an OK playmaker, yes. But let's not talk about 44 and 52 assist seasons in the 1970's like they are anything that special. He was 3rd in the NHL the year he got 62. And that was the only time he was top-10 in the NHL in assists.
And last I heard, taking penalties was a bad thing. Hextall had 114 fights but then he had 828 PIMs from other infractions. You malign "stats freaks" and then proceed to use a stat (PIM) to attempt to quantify how tough or gritty Hextall is... it doesn't fly.
He is the right "type" of player to put next to Larouche. But his playoff inexperience will kill that line.
You're right that Crowder's playoff resume isn't sterling, but Crowder's in the complimentary role. And it's a role that suits him fine. He's excellent defensively, he's tough, he's physical, he's a force in the corners, and he can score goals, finish off chances, and pick up the garbage goals that Hextall and Larouche create with their skill. There are very few players who credibly fit the bill of a power forward in an MLD that follows a 28-team ATD. Crowder is one of the few. The days of Morrow and Doan slipping to the MLD are over.
So Regina can't have a two-time cup winner with excellent playoff numbers on their 2nd line in a complementary role, but Crowder, with 0.42 PPG in the 1980's playoffs can thrive as a support player on Melville's second line? Bizarre.
He is an OK goal-scorer in the regular season, but that's it. He's not even as good a goalscorer as Hextall is a playmaker. No question he's tough and physical. Defensively? Try again. if Crowder was any good defensively then the Bruins would have relied on him for some penalty killing. He had 4 PP goals scored against him in his career.
And I think the playoff record for scorers isn't as much as an issue. That's why I don't make it a big part of my arguments. Unless someone has a sterling playoff record, like Brad Richards or Steve Payne. If a guy has that great playoff record, that's great. But if he doesn't, I don't make an issue of it like the ATD.
I wouldn't make an issue of it either if I were you.
Fact is, the Greens, the Regehrs, the Lefebvres, those are the elite shutdown players now. And the same guys that had the problems against ATD shutdown defensemen in the playoffs will have problems here. If it gets easier for some, it gets easier for all. The MLD isn't some equalizer where the good playoff performers will continue to be good while all the bad ones get better because Lefebvre and Regehr aren't Watson and Foote.
I don't think you've give Amonte or Haynes the right linemates.
You'll have to spell out for us how an elite (at this level) goalscorer who isn't much of a playmaker and an elite (at this level) playmaker who isn't much of a goalscorer, aren't good linemates. And both are fast enough to keep up with eachother, which is a big bonus. You make it sound like this is some kind of shrimp line - Amonte is 6'0", 200 lbs and Haynes, at 5'10", 160, was only slightly below average for the 1930's.
Markov is a very, very good all-round defenceman. I thought he should have been a second-team all-star last year, but you also couldn't argue with Brian Campbell's selection, since Campbell had such a huge impact on San Jose in the final six weeks. But Markov fits in well with Jovanovski - a steady, smart, well-rounded defenceman who can also move the puck and effectively quarterback a power play. His defensive game is really underrated.
Hey, I hear ya. Nothing against Markov here. But he's not the guy to cover for Jovo's gaffes. He's no Regehr.
Wensink, with what he brings to the table, has no trouble justifying his place in the line-up. He's not just a toughie. And he's not going to be in the headlines for a clash with Melville RCMP after a DUI. He's not going to try to sneak "Columbian bam bam" across the border at North Portal or Regway. (The two busiest Canada-U.S. border crossing in Saskatchewan). He's a good guy (something that can't be said about Probert), he's a good locker room guy, he's tough as nails, and he's actually pretty good defensively.
...and he's nowhere near the player Probert is. Just like 500 other tough players who were "good guys" and scored a few goals once or twice.
Explain to me how Wensink, who is "pretty good defensively" was on the ice for just one PP goal against in his entire career.
Our coaching is better. Partly because it does help to have the extra set of eyes. Partly because it's the perfect tandem. Johnson is the player's coach - the guy who knows how to handle the players, who knows what to say to them and when to say it to them, and just has the great mind for the game. The perfect coach for guys like Pierre Larouche and Ziggy Palffy, but also a guy who'll get respect from the Richard's, Owen, Crowder, Smyth, Jovo, Lefebvre and Gee. Dwight McMillan - as anyone who knows anything about Saskatchewan hockey will tell you - is a master strategist, a guy who can pick the game apart and create the perfect game plan. He can be tough and demanding. But he'll turn a guy like Larouche loose, too. And for the stats freaks out there: at this time next year, Dwight will be the winningest coach in hockey. Anywhere.
Well, not that it's not impressive, but you should be paying attention enough to know that stats freaks don't really care for career totals.
I'm sorry I don't "know anything about Saskatchewan hockey" - if I were fortunate enough to be able to make my living writing about hockey I am sure I would know more. As it is, like 99.99% of people, I have a day job that consumes half my working hours and unfortunately I don't have time to study everything. The history of hockey vs. the modern-day SJHL isn't really a tough choice when determining how to spend my free time.
I'm not convinced your tandem is going to be an advantage over Gerard. Where are the quotes to prove what kind of coach Johnson is, or is it just because you say so? Even if you can back that stuff up, Johnson is highly unproven. Not even three full seasons in the NHL? It's like drafting Shane O'Brien for your MLD blueline and claiming he's big, tough, aggressive, and he'll make life hell for my forwards. He's big, tough, and aggressive, but you need a track record too. Johnson doesn't have that - he won one cup with Bobby Orr in his corner. Not exactly a world beater. McMillan has the track record - he's done wonderfully in the SJHL, but the bad news side of that is, well, it's the SJHL, a junior B league. What evidence do you have that he can coach top-level pro players? It's not the same as coaching kids.