Jim Robson Division Final: #3 Calgary Cowboys vs #4 Edmonton Oilers

Discussion in 'All Time Draft' started by BM67, Dec 9, 2006.

  1. BM67

    BM67 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    4,640
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    In "The System"
    Home Page:
    The Calgary Cowboys will face the Edmonton Oilers in the Jim Robson Division Final. The Cowboys defeated the Seattle Metropolitans in a best of seven second round series, winning in six games. After an opening round victory over the Victoria Salmon Kings the Oilers defeated the Burnaby Mountaineers in a best of seven second round series, winning in seventh game OT.

    Calgary Cowboys

    Coach: Punch Imlach
    Captain: Mark Messier
    Alternate Captains: Igor Larionov, Ivan Hlinka

    Vladimir Krutov - Igor Larionov - Sergei Makarov
    Keith Tkachuk - Mark Messier - Theo Fleury
    John LeClair - Eric Lindros - Frank McGee
    Jiri Holik - Ivan Hlinka - Martin St. Louis
    Ken Linseman

    Frantisek Pospisil - Rob Blake
    Steve Smith - Zdeno Chara
    Sandis Ozolinsh - Ulf Samuelsson
    Sergei Gonchar

    Jacques Plante
    Tony Esposito
    Kirk McLean


    Edmonton Oilers

    Head Coach: Bob Johnson
    Captain: Ted Kennedy
    Alternate Captains: Darryl Sitler, Lanny McDonald, Pierre Pilote

    Ilya Kovalchuk - Ted Kennedy - Glenn Anderson
    Brian Sutter - Darryl Sittler - Lanny McDonald
    Bob Gainey - Brent Sutter - Claude Provost
    Vic Hadfield - Dave Poulin - Didier Pitre
    Don McKenney

    Pierre Pilote - Butch Bouchard
    Leo Boivin - Babe Pratt
    Babe Siebert - Ted Green
    Jimmy Roberts

    Terry Sawchuk
    Frank Brimsek
    Charlie Hodge​
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2006
  2. Frightened Inmate #2

    Frightened Inmate #2 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary
    Home Page:
    Well I think that this series is the Cowboys to lose - they are a much fresher team having played a total of 6 games while their opposition in Edmonton are nearly double that number, with the previous round being a seven game battle. That being said this will be a battle between the goaltenders and how can you say something negative about Sawchuk or about Plante who are both two of the greatest to ever play the game. Past that there is a slight advantage on defense for the Oilers but the Cowboys have the definite advantage in the forward ranks.

    It is odd though this division has the #3 and #4 ranked teams while every other division has #1 and #2....
     
  3. Murphy

    Murphy Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Oh sure, where have we heard that before?

    More to come.
     
  4. Frightened Inmate #2

    Frightened Inmate #2 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary
    Home Page:
    Ture but at the same time what I lack in the top end talent that BUrnaby had I make up for in spades with three lines that will be able to score which does a great deal to neutralize the Gainey - Provost third line that the Oilers possess. Depth is what really wins series and I just didn't see depth from the Burnaby Mountaineers while the Cowboys certainly have the depth.

    At the same time I think that the difference between Vernon and Plante is what is going to be the real diffence between Burnaby and Calgary.
     
  5. God Bless Canada

    God Bless Canada Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Newspaper reporter
    Location:
    Bentley reunion
    Goaltending: Calgary. A virtual dead heat. Sawchuk or Plante? Brimsek or Esposito? A very tough call. You could ask 20 knowledgeable fans who has the edge, and you wouldn't get a clear-cut majority. Sawchuk and Plante were both integral parts of great teams. Plante backstopped the best team ever, Sawchuk won four rings in six years with Detroit, and five overall. I'm going to give Calgary the duke, simply because I think Plante is the best goalie who ever lived. But it's damn close.

    Defence: Edmonton. This is where Edmonton's going to have to make gains. Not just in their blue line corps, but in the overall system. They have the best overall defenceman in the series (Pilote), possibly the best offensive defencemen (Pilote and Pratt) and likely the best defensive defencemen in the series (Boivin and Bouchard). Calgary doesn't have that dominant defenceman who can be relied on for 30 minutes per game. Furthermore, Edmonton's overall system is stronger. They have the best checking line in the draft, with premier checkers Gainey and Provost. They have strong defensive players like Poulin and the Sutters. Even Kennedy and Anderson are defensively capable. Calgary does have impressive defensive defencemen with Samuelsson, Blake, Chara and Smith.

    Offence: Calgary. This is Calgary's trump card in this series. All four of their lines are offensively capable. Edmonton doesn't have a true game-breaker. Calgary had Messier and Fleury who are proven playoff star producers, and Larionov has three rings. Several other players could be difference makers offensively. They don't quite have Edmonton's offensive dimension from the blue line, but Ozolinsch and Gonchar are strong offensive defencemen, and Blake is strong in the offensive zone. The wildcard for Calgary is legendary “One Eyed†Frank McGee, who once scored 14 goals in a Stanley Cup game. Edmonton will continue to rely on offence by committee, with several players who can contribute, but nobody who's likely to go for two goals and two assists in this type of setting.

    Coaching: Calgary. Interesting match-up in that neither team has a coach who's really suited to their team. Calgary has Imlach and some bona fide free spirits. You wonder how Lindros, Tkachuk, Fleury and Linseman would respond to a tactician like Imlach. Or how would Larionov respond to playing for a guy who can make Victor Tikhanov look like a player's coach? Larionov hated Tikhanov. I can't see him enjoying the Imlach experience. On the flip side, Johnson favoured an up tempo style, which isn't really well-suited to this team. I'll give the edge to Calgary, for no other reason than if the players were going to tune out or quit on Imlach, they would have done it be now.

    Grit: Edmonton. The other tough call in this series, another dead heat. Both GMs succeeded in building teams that they felt would be very difficult to play against. Calgary might have the best second line in the draft - a fierce combination of speed, skill, strength and physical play. This is Messier's time of year. Calgary has plenty of grit on their third line, too, along with Kenny Linseman and four rugged defencemen. But Calgary can go grit for grit with Calgary, thanks to Kennedy, Anderson, two Sutters, Pronovost, Poulin and Hadfield. Edmonton has plenty of grit on the blue line, too.

    Intangibles: Edmonton. A definite edge for the Oilers. Hard to believe that a team that has Messier, Larionov, Samuelsson, Smith and Blake could be at a disadvantage for intangibles. But Edmonton might be No. 1 in the draft when it comes to intangibles. They're among the leaders for Stanley Cup rings and they might have more captains than any team in the draft. This is when you want Kennedy, Anderson, the Sutters, Gainey, Pronovost and Bouchard on your team. Pilote set a record for points by a defenceman in the playoffs. Leadership, character, the will to win and the knowledge of how to win a best-of-seven series. Edmonton is an intangibles machine.

    Key matchup: Edmonton versus fatigue. They're coming off a tough, seven-game series versus Burnaby. And it won't get any easier. Calgary will pound them from the get-go. Edmonton has to withstand the pressure, or Calgary's gunners will take over, and at that point, it'll be series over.

    Prediction: This is going to be a rugged, hard-nosed, smash-mouthed series. Edmonton's ability to withstand the physical pressure against Calgary's second and third lines will determine the victor in this series.
     
  6. Frightened Inmate #2

    Frightened Inmate #2 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary
    Home Page:
    Keys to Victory for the Calgary Cowboys:

    1. Scoring Depth - I do believe that this is where Burnaby feel into trouble as they were relying on the 1-2 punch of Gretzky and Kurri to provide the offense for the team to get past the Oilers and that lead to a situation where Gainey/Provost were able to focus their efforts on those two players. With the Cowboys there are four lines each of which feature an player who has been awarded the honour of MVP by their respective leagues (Krutov, Larionov, Makarov: Messier: Lindros, St. Louis: Hlinka). That depth is what was lacking in Burnaby's lineup and I don't think that it plays well into the hands of the Edmonton team. This is further the case due to the home ice advantage held by the Cowboys as they will be able to get their top performers away from the top checkers on Edmonton.

    2. Goaltending - Plante vs. Sawchuk, what more really needs to be said about these two. Both capable of taking control of a game and I can't say anything bad about either one.

    3. Fatigue - Edmonton has already played two hard fought series and double the playoff game of Calgary - if the Cowboys come out of the gates hitting hard they should be able to grind down a tired Edmonton hockey club.
     
  7. VanIslander

    VanIslander Don't waste my time

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2004
    Messages:
    26,988
    Likes Received:
    1,460
    Trophy Points:
    170
    No.

    Burnaby third line: 1130 NHL goals, 1918 NHL points
    Cowboys/Blazers third line: 943 goals, 2033 NHL points

    And my third line did it in LESS games. Do the math.

    Second line Lone Elvi's team has a bit more than the Mountaineers (3965 pts to 3485 pts) but the first line can't compare to Gretz-Kurri.

    And let's look at ONLY playoff points:

    Mountaineers third line: 160 NHL playoff goals, 366 NHL playoff points
    Cowboys/Blazers third: 86 NHL playoff goals, 186 NHL playoff points

    If the Edmonton Oilers could contain the top three lines of the Mountaineers, then they will LESS problem in the second round against those forwards. (Certainly not more problem, as insinuated). And the Mountaineers had more formidible scoring defensemen.

    And the Calgary Cowboys (other/old/new name: Vancouver Blazers) seriously lack defensive-minded forwards. I expect St. Louis and Plante to do a lot of swearing in the series and more so since their defensemen are not stellar compared to their opponents.

    Plante stood on his head to be top star and get the team past the first round in OT of game six. Can he repeat against a much grittier opponent in an Edmonton Oilers team that specializes in the broken play, garbage goal and close clutch situations?
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2006
  8. VanIslander

    VanIslander Don't waste my time

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2004
    Messages:
    26,988
    Likes Received:
    1,460
    Trophy Points:
    170
    Overall, the Edmonton Oilers are facing no greater offensive force, lesser defensive punch and much less defensive pressure, but much better goaltending than they did in the first round.
     
  9. BM67

    BM67 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    4,640
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    In "The System"
    Home Page:
    Just quoting raw point totals doesn't tell the whole tale. Raw numbers say Housley and Murphy are better than Orr.

    Propp's best season had him tied for 15th in league scoring. Turgeon peaked at a tie for 5th. On the other hand, Lindros tied Jagr for 1st, losing the Art Ross on fewer goals, and St. Louis won an Art Ross. Both also won the Hart trophy. Heck, Leclair and St. Louis have two Stanley Cups to Lehtinen's one.
     
  10. Frightened Inmate #2

    Frightened Inmate #2 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary
    Home Page:
    That is the problem with your team it is built upon math rather than common sense... points don't mean anything unless they are put into context of the players in question, their abilities and their talents. What would I rather have on a team - a John LeClair - Eric Lindros tandem... or a soft Propp - Turgeon pairing. Sure one may have more goals than the other (I would really like to see adjusted goals by the way) but that doesn't change the fact that at hockey in general LeClair and Lindros were both superior players to Propp and Turgeon. You can throw goals out there as much as you want but realistically having watched the games I can tell you who I would much rather have on the team. There is more to a game and offense in general than what appears in the Sunday papers team breakdown.

    Once again with the numbers. Just using numbers is a horrible way to run a team in this draft and it will result in your team losing. Here is how I break down the two teams as to who I would rather have from an offensive perspective

    Kamensky/Krutov = Krutov
    Gretzky/Larionov = Gretzky
    Kurri/Makarov = Draw

    Shanahan/Tkachuk = Shanahan
    Roenick/Messier = Messier
    Larmer/Fleury = Fleury

    Propp/LeClair = LeClair
    Turgeon/Lindros = Lindros
    Lehtinen/St. Louis = Lehtinen (although that could change with a few exceptional seasons from St. Louis as he has done in the past)

    Graves/Holik = Draw
    Carbonneau/Hlinka = Hlinka
    Otto/Linseman = Draw

    Williams/McGee = McGee

    Once again using purely numbers in order to justify your arguement - just like the people who point out a highlight goal and declare someone the second coming. Who would you rather have on a team - Lindros or Turgeon. As anyone who has played the game or anyone involved with the game and 99 times out of every 100 you will hear the name Lindros... the rest of the time you will have the same person saying that Verbeek is better than Richard because he scored more goals...

    Who was selected for the Olympics and the Canada Cup... I can tell you it wasn't Turgeon.

    Well that could be because the Mountaineers offensive depth wasn't present save for your own diluted ideas that Roenick was just that much less of a player than Messier and that Turgeon was a better played than Lindros.

    Do the Cowboys have a checking line - not really but if you look at it every line that the Cowboys ice has a player who can play effective defense. Larionov (moreso than you can say about Gretzky), Messier, St. Louis and Holik/Hlinka, were all players who played effectively at both ends of the ice... do we have the checking line - no but at the same time does our superior depth make up for that - I would have to say yes it does.

    Uhh yes. His record speaks for itself... much the same way as Vernon's and yet in a completely different manner.
     
  11. Frightened Inmate #2

    Frightened Inmate #2 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary
    Home Page:
    To add to that how many times did Propp lead a team in points? 0. In fact he was on one occasion beaten in points scored by my fourth line right winger. Now I am not saying who is better and who is worse between Linseman and Propp but just spouting numbers is quite foolish as you need to look at the game as a whole and Lindros or LeClair brought many more dimensions to the game than Propp or Turgeon did.
     
  12. Frightened Inmate #2

    Frightened Inmate #2 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary
    Home Page:
    I see this one as a draw, I can't say anything bad about either one although I might give the advantage to Plante because of more Vezina trophies and more cups... but still this really is as close as it can get.

    As I have said before the philosophy of the Cowboys defense is defense by committee and I think that I have assembled a pretty good d-corps with that in mind. I don't have the stud defenseman that can be relied on for 30 minutes a night and for that I do agree with you in that Edmonton does have a much better defense corps.

    I don't really see the offense from the Edmonton team - they have some very nice players but there are some significant holes in the team. No matter how good Kovalchuk did in the first round I still have to say that their weak point is the dynamic scorer - the Makarov in their lineup if you will. If they are down by a goal who do they throw out there? I really don't see that player on their team.

    Although what I am changing the lineups so they were as followed.

    Krutov - Larionov - Makarov
    Tkachuk - Messier - Fleury
    LeClair - Lindros - McGee
    Holik - Hlinka - St. Louis/Linseman


    I just want to see how people feel a player like McGee would perform in a more modern NHL. I did decide not to put him at center though just as the role of the center is a much more demanding one from a tactical standpoint and I don't know how well he would be able to perform in those situations given the limited knowledge regarding aspects of the game such as positioning. Plus given what we all know about Lt. McGee's character I feel as though his presence will add significantly to the dressing room.

    Well if Imlach is anything like Tikhanov look for Larionov to be playing the best hockey of his career. He hated the guy there is no doubt about that but at the same time he was able to get the most out of Larionov and I feel as though Imlach will be able to do the same, after that I feel as though Messier will react well to Imlach's style and the chips fall into place after that.

    I agree, I must say that this is the series that I have been dreading as no matter which team advances they will be in trouble - a lot of big bodies who don't only like to hit but they like to hit hard and often.

    It pains me to day it but I agree. They are a hard team to play against and I don't expect that it will be easy for either team. I do think that putting McGee in the lineup will be able make this a more even matchup though in terms of heart something that I would put him in a league of his own on.

    Well it is a story of two different teams right now - and both of them have completely different strengths but it should turn out to be a great battle between the two.
     
  13. God Bless Canada

    God Bless Canada Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Newspaper reporter
    Location:
    Bentley reunion
    Elvi, I wouldn't say that these two teams have completely different strengths. Calgary and Edmonton have lots of grit and are difficult to play against. They also have outstanding goaltending. So from that perspective, I think there are a lot of similarities.

    I think McGee will do fine for your team on the Legion of Doom duo, just like I think Pitre will do fine for Edmonton. I think Lindros and LeClair will open up a lot of room for One Eye.

    I think Edmonton's offence could be summarized in the "by committee label that you gave your defence. I don't think they have that true offensive game-breaker. Sittler and Pitre are the closest to that. Yet in a rugged best-of-seven, I'd rather have Kennedy or Anderson than Makarov. Kennedy is one of the all-time clutch scorers. He was awarded three Conn Smythes by the HHOF in that retroactive Pod Shot dealy. Anderson is No. 4 all-time in post-season scoring. Makarov basically played his way out of Calgary with his post-season performances in 1990 and 1991. He was fine in 1994 with San Jose as part of the Russian 5, but Makarov generally was the biggest reason that Russian players had such a bad wrap in the post-season in the early 1990s.
     
  14. Murphy

    Murphy Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton
    "Edmonton is an intagibles machine", LOL, I love that quote GBG.

    I cringe a bit when it's said Bob Johnson is more suited for an up-tempo, offensive game. He drew up and developed a plan to beat Edmonton in 1986 with a game plan that largely depended on stopping offensive hockey. I think the man knew defense, I don't think he counted on Steve Smith scoring the series winning goals though. (here's hoping history repeats itself) Non the less I think the man knew defense and knew it well. I largely selected him based upon the fact that his players loved him though and would do anything for him though. Imagine a team like this that would go threw a wall for their coach.

    I'm not sure coming off a tough, long series is much of a disadvantage at all, in fact it's an advatage to start the series. The team would be playing well and riding the momentum. It might catch up to them late in the series but with the way I envision them I'd think they'd exact a toll on Calgary as well and both team will be hurting near the end.

    No Game Breakers? Its been mentioned before but I have to say it again. I think I have one of the greatest there is in Teeder Kennedy. It's legendary what he accomplished in the playoffs. Sittler, In my opinion made a mediocre Leafs team a force to be reckoned with and of course he scored the famous series winning goal at the 76 Canada Cup. I'm not sure how many game winning goals Anderson scored in the playoffs but I think I remember seeing it was more than Gretzky. He's way up there in overtime goals as well. I think I have three exceptional game breakers up front in the line-up.

    Anyways I haven't much time to add more to this one or any other series but I'll start chirping it up soon. Suffice to say this team is built to stop offensive hockey and has the horses to do the dirty work it takes to win. Unlike wussies like Gonchar & Ozolinsh........;)

    Just a little more,

    What the hell is Calgary's fourth line? Is that a checking line or just a collection of guys not good enough to play decent minutes? Ken (I don't fight my own battles Linsmen) Ivan ( I was only good enough to play 2 seasons in the NHL) Hlinka and Bobby ( I should have never been selected in an all-time draft but I guess I'm paying for it by playing with Linsmen & Hlinka) Holik.

    Calgary better only role three lines, Teeder's going to eat that line up if he faces them and Calgary's going to be the more tired team as the series goes on.

    Ted Green and Leo Boivin vs Lindros isn't going to be pretty either. Maybe One Eye should dress for him......
     
  15. Frightened Inmate #2

    Frightened Inmate #2 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary
    Home Page:
    The Flames were one of the more underrated teams in the mid to late 80s and it is no suprise that they were able to win one of the series verse the Oilers but in doing so they needed a very lucky bounce one which I wouldn't want to be counting on. Furthermore the Oilers at the time were one of the teams that were reading their own press clippings - did they have the talent to beat Calgary, they sure did. But at the same time they believed everything that was written about how great they were... that isn't the way that Punch Imlach runs a team.

    You mean that it isn't a disadvantage to have played two series already and be waiting against a team that isn't rusty (played and won a series already) but at the same time isn't beat up. I have seen it time and time again where an inferior team has been able to win due to the fact that the team that they played before beat them up.

    I do like Anderson, I really do but the problem is at least in my opinion I always viewed him as a complimentry player. A great player yes but he was a complimentry player when he was at his peak. Would I take him on my team anyday you bet I would. I like your team I will make no qualms about that, Sitler is a great player (I would rather have Messier but that is just me) Kennedy is a great player (apparently he had little racist figures outside his house growing up) as is Larionov.... but when you have a Kovalchuk on your top line there is a problem with offensive capabilities.

    Your team has the best checking line in the draft in my opinion and one of my lines is neutralized as a result however the top 3 lines are all capable of putting the puck into the net... something I don't think your team will be able to defend against as well as you were able to the Mountaineers.

    Well first if you look at the revamped lines for this round you will see that the fourth line consists of
    1. Jiri Holik - one of the best two way players of the Czechoslovakian league (I would compare him in many ways to another Jiri in Lehtinen)
    2. Ivan Hlinka - Czechoslovakian player of the year who was able to come over to a completely different culture/lifestyle in his early - mid 30s and help lead a Canucks club to the Stanley Cup finals.
    3. Martin St. Louis - Hart/Pearson Trophy winner, large role in Tampa Bay's stanley cup win and a player who can play an allround game at both ends of the ice.

    I don't think that Bobby is on this team.


    I will enjoy you trying to take out Lindros by way of putting power against power as he had shown time and time again that is where he dominates the opposition, especially when the opposition is 5'7.... I worry about your team as your approach is very similar to the Burnaby team that was just eliminated.
     
  16. Murphy

    Murphy Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Where did the Jerry Holik come from? Never heard of him....

    But this team did take out another team with some of these so called Czech greats......:p:

    I'll look closer at matchups tomorrow as I'm supposed to be working....:biglaugh:
    As of now I can't decide which line to sick the Gainey line on. I'd imagine something like keying in on the Messier line but I'd hate to waste that line going against a couple of scrubs like Tkachuk and Fleury.

    Speaking of Fleury I heard he....... ah I don't have time.
     
  17. Murphy

    Murphy Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Ah screw work, lets see how the lines matchup.

    I'd say the Gainey line goes up against the KLM. I can't imagine they faced anything like them before and the fancy criss-crosses, back passes aren't going to be very effective against smart, well positioned guys like Gainey and Provost. I can see the KLM line getting frustated as time goes on and the opportunities opening up for Gainey and Provost. This should be one of those times when the checking line actually outscores the scoring line.

    Kennedy vs Messier. Both are legends, both are playoff hero's and both are exemplary leaders. Should be a real interesting battle. Kovalchuk vs Fleury should be interesting. Kovalchuk obviously has the higher end talent but Fleury is Fleury, he finds a way to get it done. Anderson vs Tkachuk should be interesting as well, two "complimentary" players going at each other, they should be sticking each other all series long. Anderson obviously steps it up come playoff time, Tkachuk? not so much. Neither line are the strong defensive line, other than Kennedy, I'd think they should trade chances pretty evenly. I'd think Kennedy vs Messier in the face-off circle would be interesting as both are extremely adept there. Kennedy's strong defensive play should make up for what he loses against Messiers offense as well. The series might actually come down to these two and who out performs the other.

    Sittler vs Lindros. I like the Oilers chances here. I'd take Sittler over Lindros. Both are actually pretty similiar in there style of play, both good stickhandlers and both not afraid to get dirty. Sittler was a smart player though, Lindros? maybe not so much. Lanny against LeClair, I'd take Lanny anyday. Sutter vs McGee, both sound like similiar players, both good hitters who can score, maybe an edge to One Eye as he is in the hall of fame.

    Poulin vs Hlinka. I think this matchup shows that while Calgary has the higher end talent up front, the Oilers have better depth. Hall of Fame winger in Pitre against Holik, even if he's a Lehtinen type, its a mis-match. Hlinka isn't no Poulin, maybe in Czeckslovakia he is but this isn't Czechslovakia hockey we're talking about. Hadfield vs St Louis is probably a saw-off. Both had high end scoring seasons, both chosen to play for Canada after successful seasons, both had frustrations of not living up to previous success. Maybe an edge to St Louis for his MVP season.

    If the Gainey line can control the KLM line and Kennedy can outperform Messier. Both scenarios that are highly plausible. Its not much of a mis-match up front.

    Now speaking of mis-matches, lets compare defense.......:D


    Tomorrow.
     
  18. raleh

    raleh Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dartmouth, NS
    Something I've been waiting to say until my maroons were eliminated is that the Oilers are definately my favorite team in this draft...I NEVER thought I would be saying that the Oilers were my favorite team.
     
  19. Murphy

    Murphy Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Thanks Raleh.

    When I was able to swing deals and land Lanny and Sittler, my two favourites growing up I started to like them very much as well. I'd like to have matched up Wendel Clark with them but Brian Sutter was probably a better choice after all.

    I know the Kovalchuk pick wasn't all that popular and if I could do it again I'd probably had picked Ted Lindsay first instead of Sawchuk. That had let me have the great winger I needed and Brimsek could have been the starting goaltender. As hard a team to play against that I was fortunate to assemble, imagine Terrible Ted added to the mix!

    Maybe next time.
     
  20. Frightened Inmate #2

    Frightened Inmate #2 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary
    Home Page:
    I can’t help but think that you are underestimating the skills of the KLM, they are a line which was able to dominate international competitions for the better part of a decade – even when playing against players such as Gainey (1981 Canada Cup) where both Makarov and Krutov were able to put up over a point per game averages as very young, not fully developed, players at the time. Furthermore no matter who was put up against the trio they were always able to succeed and well their records show that to be the case – all three of them Soviet MVPs. But what really gets me is that you honestly think that a very skilled defensive forward in Gainey, a player whose highest point total was 47, placing him ninth on his own team will score more than the KLM line would. I don’t know how to argue against that because it is one of the most absurd statements I have ever read on these boards. I love Gainey and I think he will have a significant role in this series but scorer he was not. Provost sacrificed his scoring and to expect him to do both is only setting yourself up for failure. Lastly the cocky attitude and the swagger around your team is generally not a very good one to have in a playoff type atmosphere. I strongly suspect the KLM line to continue to put up the points against the Oilers much as they did against the Metros.


    Kovalchuk has a higher ceiling than Fleury – when it comes to regular season goals sure I guess that is the case but you are putting a player who has yet to taste the playoffs in a difficult situation to succeed and I wouldn’t doubt it if the speedy Fleury (who has what the Atlanta tinman is missing) to dominate in that matchup. Messier vs. Kennedy should be interesting but in terms of overall quality of game I must take Messier once again, just a better player. Both great competitors but only one of them has won the Conn Smythe trophy (and realistically only one of them deserved to win the Hart as it isn’t a lifetime achievement award as it was in the 1955 season). Plus Messier was no slouch and knew how to take care of business in his own end as an all round player. But what I like about my line moreso than your line is the nasty factor that your team is missing, something that can be very beneficial come playoff time.

    The fact that you think one of the all time greats in McGee is in anyway similar to Sutter that is a laughable concept at the best of times and embarrassing at the worst… McGee I would say has Sutter beat on every single level and one of the few players that could beat him in terms of heart and desire. Lindros vs. Sittler – that is an interesting one as before the injuries Lindros was a wrecking ball and someone who could mow anyone down, Sittler on the other hand didn’t have the same physical aspect to the game and was more of a playmaker than Lindros was. Really I don’t know which player I would take but it is pretty close. Lanny vs. LeClair, both have solid chemistry with their center, I would tend to pick Lanny because I have met him and he is a very standup guy but I wouldn’t switch the teams if I was either of us because it would only serve to make both teams worse. Funny how that is sometimes.

    I would take Hlinka everyday over Poulin, I don’t even know how that is a fair competition, one of them was the best player in Czechoslovakia and the other was what a figure skater who was third best on the Flyers in his best year. Once again a complete mismatch but not in the direction that you think it is. Pitre against Holik, I think you really underrate Holik (if you even know who he is) but I will admit the the aure around Pitre is to great to ignore. St. Louis won the cup. Hadfield went home. Sorry but if you want to go into battle with players who quit on their team because they don’t get to play as much as they feel they should then your team will be the weaker for it, especially if that player is on your fourth line!
     
  21. Murphy

    Murphy Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton
    I don't know who Holik is, I thought he was a figure skater?

    Hlinka played a similiar role in Vancouver then what Poulin did in Philly, only Poulin did it better.

    Vic Hadfield doesn't get much love for what went on in 72 but.....He was one of the first power wingers and captained the Rangers. He was first and foremost a Ranger and made no bones about it. There's no denying what he accomplished in the NHL and no one considered him a quitter in that league.
     
  22. Murphy

    Murphy Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Seems I don't have the multi quote function figured out.....:dunno:
     
  23. Frightened Inmate #2

    Frightened Inmate #2 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary
    Home Page:
    They never had to play against a checking line, every major tournament they were the focus of the other teams defensive efforts, there should be no mistaking this. Unless you are saying that defensive forwards were the complete domain of Gainey and Provost, you would be ignoring the fact that in 1981 the KLM line (the line which produced the most by the way) would have been the target of the Canadian checking. It just seems pretty foolish to state out of hand that the KLM line never faced any opposition who could check before. The best players (as all three of them were) will always be the target of the checking lines, and their records show that they were able to overcome these challenges against them. If you were to make that argument of a second line player not having to face the constant barrage of checking game in and game out then I would be tempted to agree with you, but as it stands you have nothing to go on when it comes to the argument as to whether the KLM line ever faced any checkers in their playing careers and whether they were able to adjust their games accordingly, their records and their recognition prove that they were able to do so.

    I still would have to take Messier, who wasn’t really the defensive buffoon that you are making him out to be he was always one of those players who wasn’t defense first but he didn’t slouch on his defensive assignments much like a Kovalchuk would for instance and speaking of the tin man…

    There is nothing to say he would perform either. Heck if you look at Joe Thornton in the regular season you would take him for a playoff performer as well, but we all know he is not. In fact I would say that the questions in Kovalchuks character regarding his effort would make him a very suitable candidate for one of the players who is a regular season gem and a playoff bust. Yet to even lead a team into the playoffs.

    McGee was seriously injured and still continued to play the game that he loved and did so at a level above everyone else, all the while not only risking further injury but a lifelong disability. He could have avoided going to war, but he didn’t, he wanted to serve his country in the great battle. He could have avoided going back to France instead settling for a desk job to ride out the war. But he didn’t. He could have avoided going into the slaughter that was the Battle of the Somme, but he didn’t he wanted to be with his men, his comrades. Now that is the definition of a hero, a hero with more heart than anyone in this draft and to argue otherwise is laughable. Lt. McGee trumped everyone drafted in terms of heart and character and I will stand by that statement every single day of the week.

    Plus in terms of talent, McGee was a step above everyone else it is said the best goalscorer of his time, can the same be said about Sutter? I don’t think so. In fact I know that isn’t the case. I would go so far to say that it is an insult to the history of the game to compare the two, but I do have a flare for the dramatic.

    No Poulin was the figure skater and Hadfield was the quitter and anyone that quits on their country no matter what the circumstances will always have questions regarding their character. Hlinka played a similar style to Phil Esposito using an imposing figure in the slot to bang home goals, a style which allowed Hlinka to win the award for best forward in the 1976 Canada Cup, a tournament that featured players on your second line Lanny McDonald and Darryl Sittler. Yeah I think you might be underrating Hlinka by more than a tad there.

    Jiri Holik played an integral role in the Czechoslovakian teams of the 1970s, the only real test that there was against the soviet teams of the era.
     
  24. BM67

    BM67 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    4,640
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    In "The System"
    Home Page:
    http://www.chidlovski.com/personal/1972/misc/cssrbiof.htm

    - http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/SearchPlayer.jsp?player=12958
     
  25. Murphy

    Murphy Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton
    The only real test that the KLM line faced?

    I'm not saying they never faced checkers before, I am saying they never faced the likes of this shut down line before. If they're good enough to keep Gretzky and Kurri in check then they are certainly capable of shutting down Krutov and Makarov. I get the idea that they might not adapt well from what Krutov did with the Nucks. Makarov didn't shine in the playoffs either. Of course Larionov was the opposite. He did adapt well and performed great in the playoffs. To bad he's only 1/3rd of the line.

    I'm not making Messier a defensive buffoon either. There's no denying he was prone to turning the puck over making the low percentage/high risk pass. Fleury's overtime goal where he skated the length of the ice and did his rollover was a result of a Messier turnover. He wasn't weak defensively but not in the same ballpark as Teeder was.

    I'm not questioning McGee's character either, obviously he was made of the the right stuff but his heart and desire on the ice is comparable to any Sutter.

    Your Cowboys certainly have an edge up front but it's not as large as you think it is.

    Now lets talk defense...........:D
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"