Jim Robson semi-final: Montreal Victorias vs. Hogsmeade Lunas
- Thread starter VanIslander
- Start date
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Dr John Carlson
Registered User
Special teams. A few opening thoughts...I'll go through each forward unit to start.
Our first lines are both really good and the composition of each makes sense. Jagr is the best player here and Boucher/Conacher are the next best in whichever order. The Francis-Jagr duo is proven and my Boucher-Conacher duo should easily work. I don't see much separating these.
I think my second line just fits a lot better. George Armstrong is being asked to do a whole lot here for Montreal. He's both the defensive conscience of the line as well as the primary puck-winner. That's already a lot, but Armstrong was not a great skater - he'll be huffing and puffing the length of the rink doing overtime for Dionne and especially Stewart. What happens when Armstrong is behind the net working to get the puck out front, and instead the Lunas win possession and Bobby Orr or Scott Niedermayer starts the transition up ice? The line's sole defensive conscience can't possibly get back in time. Meanwhile, for my unit, Hooley Smith is being tasked to do a lot as well, but there are important differences on why mine works better: first, Hooley was a strong skater with a lot of speed so I don't mind having him do more work, and second, he's working from centre ice which is a more impactful position defensively. The Panarin and Kane duo also doesn't absolutely require a puck hound in the corners like Nels Stewart does. Hooley won't always be digging around along the boards, so he'll be able to check back more readily.
The third lines are built for different purposes. Montreal's is a two-way matchup line, mine is a secondary scoring line that's responsible enough defensively. I don't really know where to start in comparing them since their uses are different, so I'll sort of justify mine a bit since I know people will see Joe Thornton's name and wince. I think this is a really good setup for Jumbo. His biggest playoff problem IMO was that his motor sometimes didn't run as hot as it needed to, so having two big dudes on his wings who played tough, physical hockey is what he needs to get activated. Roberts and Thornton is an obvious scorer/playmaker duo and Stasiuk was a very good ES scorer too (8th in ES scoring in his full seasons with Boston versus 22nd on the PP over the same span). In this more sheltered role with less pressure to produce, I think Thornton should excel.
I prefer my fourth line as well, as I think Mosdell is considerably better than Rolston as a shutdown centre at ES, and while I campaigned for Oatman in the pre-merger project because of his versatility and longevity, strictly on a per-game basis, Scotty Davidson was just a much better player.
Both defenses look pretty good, with a lot of mobility along with solid chemistry within pairings. Obviously having Bobby Orr is a sizable advantage. Not much else to add right now.
Grant Fuhr's playoff resume is a lot better than Lundqvist's, but as I said in the draft thread, Lundqvist is the man. To argue against him would be disingenuous for me, so I'm fine with calling it even.
Then there's the coaching. There was a lot of talk about Toe Blake's fit as the head coach of this forward corps. Billy Reay was then taken as an assistant. I'll wait to hear more from @rmartin65 and @ResilientBeast on the fit.
Thanks for providing some opening thoughts, @Dr John Carlson . I'm looking forward to a good series; hopefully either my co-GM or I (or both!) can find some time to put up some arguments in our favor.
Here are our special teams, since we have to post them multiple times this year-
PP1: Goodfellow - Campbell - Stewart - Dionne - Jagr
PP2: Gadsby - Duncan - Firsov - Francis - Perry
PK1: Gadsby - Chelios - Cook - Metz
PK2: Goodfellow - Flett - Armstrong - Rolston
Here are our special teams, since we have to post them multiple times this year-
PP1: Goodfellow - Campbell - Stewart - Dionne - Jagr
PP2: Gadsby - Duncan - Firsov - Francis - Perry
PK1: Gadsby - Chelios - Cook - Metz
PK2: Goodfellow - Flett - Armstrong - Rolston
Yeah, I think both top lines are pretty good. Montreal has the edge at two of the three positions- RW (as much as I like Conacher, Jagr is definitely the superior player) and LW- and, as you mentioned, the overall best player among the six. Plus, Montreal's offense is more balanced; both Firsov and Jagr are threats to shoot or pass, while Boucher and Conacher are more limited in scope when it comes to producing offence. In other words, you can't shut down Montreal's offense by keying in on one puck-carrier, but I think Montreal can but a real damper on Hogsmeade's line by slowing down Boucher.
@ImporterExporter dug up some good evidence that Stewart was not (always) poor defensively or slow. We aren't billing him as some sort of speed-demon defensive wonder, but we think there is ample evidence that - especially during his career at wing- he was not the vampire (I believe that is how @Sturminator once referred to him) as the caricature we often make him here in the ATD.
As for Dionne- I think he was much better as a puck winner than he gets credit for, but I will agree that the majority of the puckwinning burden is on Armstrong. We believe that the offensive abilities of Stewart and Dionne will make this trade-off worth it, as they are almost certainly one of the strongest 2nd line duos around this year.
I agree that making comparisons across lines with two separate purposes is difficult.
This is another instance of two lines that don't have the same function. I agree that Mosdell is the superior player; Rolston was selected to help out on special teams and provide some positional flexibility. I'd say our spare (Marty Walsh) would be a better fit at ES, but that would cause issues on special teams.
Oatman vs Scotty Davidson is a classic case of peak vs longevity. @ResilientBeast may disagree here, but I have no issues saying Davidson at his peak was a better player than Oatman at his peak. But Davidson's peak was quite short, while Oatman has extremely impressive longevity.
Orr is definitely the best defender in this (and any other) series, but Montreal makes up the ga (and then some) in terms of depth. The HoH list has them
Orr
Chelios
Gadsby
Niedermayer
Goodfellow
That looks about right to me, except for one name- Jack Campbell. He's been discussed at length since the project, but there is no doubt in my mind that he is absolutely belonging in that range. His career was shot, but there is a good case for him as the best player in the game, and a decent case for best of all time (granted, "all-time" didn't reach too far back at that point) until Bowie and McGee. Even if you think that is too high, Campbell is certainly the next best, which means Montreal has 4 of the top 6 defenders.
Some quotes talking about Campbell-
"Campbell, the finest hockey player in Montreal at present, who was the Vics cover-point...”
"Campbell and J. Arnton, usually the stars on the team..."
"Had the Victorias been a little harder pressed perhaps their play would not have appeared so brilliant and dashing, but such play as Campbell showed can only be characterized as wonderful. His speed and his cleverness at dodging are worth going a long way to see; in a couple of instances he wriggled through the whole McGill team and only stopped at the goal-keeper, while the puck seemed to be magnetically attracted by his stick"
"J. Campbell again played a marvellous game and was ably seconded by E. Barlow and J. Kinghorn, who both played well. Crathern also kept goal well”
"For the winners, Campbell as usual played brilliantly at cover point and Crathern in goal was invaluable."
“One of those grand runs for which Campbell was famous..."
"The M.A.A. men seemed flushed with victory and immediately started their rushing tactics, but to no purpose, Campbell and Arnton could not be passed”
"Campbell at last made on of the runs for which he is now so famous, and taking the puck the full length of the ice put it through the posts”
“Campbell, at coverpoint, as usual, however, was a whole team in himself, and it was chiefly due to his fine play that some of the combined rushes of the M.A.A.A. men lost their effectiveness for scoring”
“On the Vic side, as usual, Campbell carried off the honors. He seemed the only one who could withstand the rushes of W. Hodgson successfully, and when he would up as fine a run as ever was seen in a hockey match by getting the puck past Paton and scoring he was rewarded by the unstinted applause of the spectators."
“J. Campbell’s playing was work going a long way to see"
“Campbell was in his element, and was always cool and exact in his checking"
“but Campbell proved to be a regular stone wall. Nothing passed him”
“Of course, the match last night did not furnish much criterion for Campbell proved time and again that he was able to play most of the opposing team”
“After about 15 minutes play Campbell, by one of the grandest runs and prettiest pieces of dodging ever witnessed…”
"Campbell was brilliant and cool, as usual, while Shearer, Eddie Barlow and Jack Arnton played their old time game”
"J. Campbell, at cover-point, bring down loud applause by frequent clever runs clean through his opponents"
“Campbell made many exceptionally fine runs and thus removed all danger temporarily”
“Campbell retaliated by another grand run clean through every one of his opponents, who he either knocked over or cleverly dodged by the excellence of his head work"
“Campbell was instrumental in first breaking the attack by one of his dodgy runs”
“The most prominent and striking feature of the match was the dashing and brilliant play of Campbell, of the Vics, who to-day stands unequaled”
Even works for me. I would like to commend you on your goalie coach selection, by the way. That was a great move, in my opinion.
All in all, I think the Montreal Victorias win a hard fought series on the back of some gamebreaking offensive talent and superior defensive depth.
Dr John Carlson
Registered User
This would be valid if not for the transition prowess of Orr, the best rushing defenseman of all time, and Niedermayer, the best skating defenseman of his generation. Both will be used heavily in transition as puck-carriers, or as outlet options for when Boucher or Kane/Panarin are carrying through the neutral zone. To that end, I took two pure stay-at-homers to pair alongside them which will free them up to involve themselves in transition, and hired Tommy Ivan as coach, who had plenty of experience utilizing rushing defensemen as an integral part of his team's offense via Red Kelly. And, if we really need to, Benn and Conacher on the wings have plenty of size, so if we need to dump and chase at times, they'll be able to hold their own against the big boys you've got on the blueline. So I'm not concerned about our top line being smothered.
I think your criticism of my first line could be applied equally to your second line, with Dionne being tasked with so much of the puck-carrying. Since my top two lines feature excellent defensive centres, either one will be able to shadow Dionne through neutral and make it really hard on them to gain the zone. Montreal doesn't have the luxury of Orr and Niedermayer to aid transition though - Chelios was a great producer from the blueline, but that wasn't due to his rushing. The most eager rushers on Montreal are likely Campbell and Duncan, and they don't stack up versus Orr and Niedermayer on that front, no matter how much we've come to appreciate their eras. If Dionne is being shadowed, where is Montreal's transition play coming from when the second line is on the ice? Point taken that Nels Stewart can become a caricature on here, but I don't think he's any better as a puck-carrier than Conacher or Benn are on my top line.
For sure. Though I think it's a little different for Davidson, since his lack of longevity wasn't due to any sort of regression in play or durability issues that sapped his athleticism. He just died. What little hockey he did play, he played at an extremely high level, save for the half-season he played at point in 1913, which I didn't care much for.
I'm not at all sold that Campbell is certainly better than Art Coulter, who may have been the premiere pure shutdown defenseman of his day, and who also has synergy with Frank Boucher on my second PK unit. But that's getting into difficult cross-era comparisons between somebody who played amongst a tiny talent pool in the absolute earliest days of the game versus a consolidated pre-WWII talent pool when hockey had long been solidified as a cornerstone of Canadian culture. I think any declarations that either is certainly better than the other is going too far with the knowledge we're working with. We don't even know what Campbell's handedness was, or how big he was.
But let's just assume that he is better than Coulter. Where does that actually get us? I think the problem with just comparing these players in a hierarchy is missing the point that we're judging pairings, not players. I can't see Gadsby-Chelios as a better top pairing than Stanley-Orr because mine has the GOAT paired with somebody who complements him extremely well and matches the type of partner Bobby played with in real life, though Allan Stanley was a tad more disciplined than Dallas Smith. Stanley is also big and physical enough to provide real resistance against Jaromir Jagr on zone entries, or Nels Stewart in front of the net.
Then that leaves the second pairing, which is very close in talent. Niedermayer and Campbell would both be the puck-movers. Goodfellow is more of a two-way guy and Coulter is more shutdown. I think the chemistry is easier to justify for my pairing. Niedermayer-Coulter feels a lot like the Niedermayer-Weber pairing for Canada at the 2010 Olympics, which obviously worked out quite well for Scott in his final season playing hockey, and while Coulter mainly paired with Muzz Patrick in New York, he did get some time with the offensive-minded Babe Pratt, so the chemistry fits. For Montreal, Goodfellow, who had fine speed, is going to want to rush the puck sometimes, and Campbell is going to want to rush often. Going through your game reports in the pre-merger discussion thread, I could only find two instances of Campbell's point partner scoring a goal, and mentions of his partner making big runs up ice are few and far between. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that he took care of almost all of the rushing while his partner stayed close to goal. Meanwhile, a brief search shows that in Detroit's Cup-winning years, Goodfellow paired with pure stay-at-homers Ralph Bowman and big Bucko McDonald, as well as stints alongside captain Doug Young, a two-way guy who leaned more toward defense. All this to say, neither Goodfellow nor Campbell are paired with somebody who fits the type of partner they had in real life. And if the talent is close, I'm certainly leaning toward the pairing with the more natural fit in Niedermayer-Coulter.
---
No surprise that we both feel we have the better team. I think both are very good and very close. Ultimately, I think the biggest weakness between the two is Montreal's second line, and that, combined with an advantage on defense through better chemistry, puts Hogsmeade ahead.
That puts a lot of stress on that lone defender hanging back (and I realize that impacts our second pairing as well). I imagine that there will be substantial odd-man rushes going the other way, which the Victorias are in good shape to capitalize on with the offensive talent and goal scoring ability in the top 6.
That's very true- I meant to add that to my post.
That's fair. I'm not big on punishing guys for short/er careers if the reason for them being short/er was not hockey related. A guy dying, missing time due to war, or just walking away from the game due to differences in how the game was looked at at the time isn't a negative for me. That said, I don't think we should be giving them what-if points (which I don't think you are, I' just completing a thought here).
I'm pretty solid on Campbell being superior to Coulter, but I see what you are getting at- we still don't have a great grasp of how to translate amateur era play to professional leagues, especially when we are talking about a player who peaked in the 1880s. But I think we can look at players who crossed eras, and get a sense that, no matter our ideas of talent pool size and strength, the top players remained top players across eras. That's what makes them so historically great.
Campbell wasn't being talked about as the greatest defense player around, he was being called the best player, period. His stats as a defender are unmatched on a per-game level relative to his peers.
The problem is that Stanley (who I do like- I drafted him several years ago, and have a real appreciation for his game) was the 65th (if I'm counting correctly) defender drafted. That's in 4D territory, and, indeed, he was the 4th defender you selected. He's going to be a weak point at the ATD level on a top pairing.
Orr, for as great as he was, only won 2 cups. Depth was an issue on those Boston teams, and I think that Dallas Smith was probably better relative to his league than Stanley is in this edition of the ATD, so Orr is going to be doing even more of the heavy lifting that he was accustomed to in real life, and against stronger competition. And he's going to be doing it without the luxury of a Hart-level player in Esposito (neither of our teams have a player - outside of Orr - who would be a real threat to win the Hart in the ATD).
The difficulty for me is that before, say 1903 or so, points historically didn't rush very often, at least in the AHAC/CAHL. That isn't to say that they never did, but that just wasn't their job. The cover point was responsible for managing that kind of thing, while the point usually cleared the puck through lifts. So expecting to see a roughly even split in rushing between a point and cover point in the 1880s is unreasonable, in my opinion, because that just won't be the case very often (and when it did happen in a particular game, my recollection is that it was by players who usually played forward).
Plus, Campbell kind of breaks the system offensively, even if you are looking at cover points. Allan Cameron is probably Campbell's best competition at CP over the balance of Campbell's career. Here are their offensive stats up through 1891, after which Campbell stopped playing (as far as I am aware)-
| Jack Campbell | Allan Cameron | |
| Games | 29 | 29 |
| Goals | 16.5 | 2.5 |
| Assists | 3 | 1 |
| Points | 19.5 | 3.5 |
It's not even close.
I think the game summaries show that Campbell was a plus defensive player as well as an offensive dynamo; there are plenty of quotes about him being hard to pass or a stonewall, etc. In other words, he wasn't just taking the puck and going all the time, he was actually playing defense at a high level as well. So I don't see why he wouldn't be able to do that while Goodfellow took some chances.
Great discussion guys! Nice to see the back and forth between some top-notch GMs. Something that has been lacking here in these playoffs.
Both of these teams are great, however, I actually think this is one of the more lopsided series in this round. I won't say for who yet as I don't want to influence the voting, but I'm looking forward to seeing the results in this one the most!
Good luck both teams!
Both of these teams are great, however, I actually think this is one of the more lopsided series in this round. I won't say for who yet as I don't want to influence the voting, but I'm looking forward to seeing the results in this one the most!
Good luck both teams!
Thanks for a good series, @Dr John Carlson . Best of luck moving forward!
As I predicted, this one was the most lopsided series of them all! Just not a good matchup for Montreal at all.
Good luck to the Lunas in the next round.
Dr John Carlson
Registered User
It was a good series, and closer than the final tally would indicate IMO. Thanks for the debates!
