MLD11 Sir Montagu Allan Semifinal: North Pole Dancers (1) vs. Weyburn Red Wings (4)
- Thread starter seventieslord
- Start date
Before things fly, a question:
Should I declare Johnny Mowers starting goaltender now that it's playoff time?
Should I declare Johnny Mowers starting goaltender now that it's playoff time?
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
The blame can't be solely pinned on him though; it seemed like a team collapse to me, and the Red Wings only scored 1 goal total in Games 6 and 7. He also has another extra Stanley Cup Final to his credit the year before, and was aboslutely brilliant in the Cup Run supposedly, as shown here in this quote from LOH:
If the Pole Dancers want to declare Mowers as their starting goalie after going with Don Edwards all year, that's fine by me. Moves like that only serve to create tension and dissension in locker rooms. And if they want to go with Don Edwards - he of the 3.44 GAA and zero series wins in best-of-seven's - I'm also game with that. Edwards and Mowers are two fine goalies - both were on my list - but Edwards playoff record is iffy, and if he goes with Mowers now, it'll fracture the room. And they won't play like a team.
The first defence pairing is awesome. Coutu might be undisciplined, but he's still a double-tough guy to play against. He's paired with Dave Babych - maybe the strongest player in the draft, and certainly one of the best offensive defencemen available.
They'll need to log big minutes, though, because I see exploitable match-ups on the second and third pairing. Bob Rouse is solid, but he could have problems against the big-game mentality of Payne, or the speed of Courtnall and Adams. (An Adams vs. Rouse match-up would be very favourable for Weyburn, thanks to Adams excellent size, speed and hockey sense). And McCabe is definitely an exploitable opponent, with his defensive liabilities and error-prone style of play. (We just faced a team that has Sheldon Souray, who possesses some of the weaknesses of McCabe).
The first line has tremendous offensive ability. They're explosive. Patrick was my top-rated forward in the draft. Taylor's a sensational offensive talent. Babich is an excellent two-way player. The question is: are they tough enough? Do they have the guy on that line who can open up room for their skilled teammates? Or will they struggle against tougher, more physical defencemen, such as a Dailey, a Jerwa or a Smith? While we have an excellent two-way line, we also feel comfortable deploying our speedy, tough grind line out there against them.
Their third line is excellent. There might be some issues with the footspeed of Ricci or the size of Marsh (5'5" is small by any era's standards), but those are two excellent defensive forwards.
The first defence pairing is awesome. Coutu might be undisciplined, but he's still a double-tough guy to play against. He's paired with Dave Babych - maybe the strongest player in the draft, and certainly one of the best offensive defencemen available.
They'll need to log big minutes, though, because I see exploitable match-ups on the second and third pairing. Bob Rouse is solid, but he could have problems against the big-game mentality of Payne, or the speed of Courtnall and Adams. (An Adams vs. Rouse match-up would be very favourable for Weyburn, thanks to Adams excellent size, speed and hockey sense). And McCabe is definitely an exploitable opponent, with his defensive liabilities and error-prone style of play. (We just faced a team that has Sheldon Souray, who possesses some of the weaknesses of McCabe).
The first line has tremendous offensive ability. They're explosive. Patrick was my top-rated forward in the draft. Taylor's a sensational offensive talent. Babich is an excellent two-way player. The question is: are they tough enough? Do they have the guy on that line who can open up room for their skilled teammates? Or will they struggle against tougher, more physical defencemen, such as a Dailey, a Jerwa or a Smith? While we have an excellent two-way line, we also feel comfortable deploying our speedy, tough grind line out there against them.
Their third line is excellent. There might be some issues with the footspeed of Ricci or the size of Marsh (5'5" is small by any era's standards), but those are two excellent defensive forwards.
I do believe you are exaggerating "splliting up the lockerroom" if I were to switch goalies. Starting goalies get switched all the time in the NHL and throughout NHL history, sometimes even in the playoffs. Neither of these guys has a history of bad attitude problems in that sort of situation, so I highly doubt the effect of switching goalies will be anything more than minimal, if there even is any tension. Jimmy Skinner is a good enough coach to prevent such a thing anyways.
I'm unsure of the attack on Rouse- what do you mean he'll have trouble against big-game menatlity players? As far as speed, I haven't seen anything on him that suggests he was a particularly slow player- nothing that suggested he was particularly fast though either, but we tend to assume that the guy is average with little evidence either way. He can handle size as well; he's certainly not a small-fry. Unless you could provide some. Besides that, he's paired with an great, rugged, physical all-around defenceman Gord Fraser, who should certainly be able to help him in handling these forwards,
As far as McCabe, to my knowledge, he didn't used to be so error-prone, and he will be playing a more limited-role than he was with the Leafs as well, which one would think would reduce such things. In addition, he's playing with great defensive defenceman and shotblocker Al Arbour, who should be able to make-up for McCabe's shortcomings.
As for my first line, I'll start off by saying none of these three guys were considered particularly soft. Babich, in addition, was consider considered to be a "real spark plug"
and he "constantly revved up the pace of the game by rushing forward and raising the intensity of every play" by Kings of the Ice, plus Tarasov said he could do anything, which suggests to me some measure of toughness. I also recall seeing a quote that showed Patrick making a heck of a hit...I'll see if I can find it. All-in-all though, I don't think my first line has toughness issues.
As for my third-line, thanks for the compliments, but don't forget about Baldy Cotton, who's certainly not a scrub. He was a quality checker and penalty-killer, and was said to be "fearless" and "very-willing to mix-it up." Stanley Cup champion and finalist too, and like Ricci and March, ups his offensive game in the playoffs, with multiple top 10's in playoff stats.
Edit: To expand on the question of first-line toughness, Patrick was top-5 in PIM in the 1941 playoffs.
I'm unsure of the attack on Rouse- what do you mean he'll have trouble against big-game menatlity players? As far as speed, I haven't seen anything on him that suggests he was a particularly slow player- nothing that suggested he was particularly fast though either, but we tend to assume that the guy is average with little evidence either way. He can handle size as well; he's certainly not a small-fry. Unless you could provide some. Besides that, he's paired with an great, rugged, physical all-around defenceman Gord Fraser, who should certainly be able to help him in handling these forwards,
As far as McCabe, to my knowledge, he didn't used to be so error-prone, and he will be playing a more limited-role than he was with the Leafs as well, which one would think would reduce such things. In addition, he's playing with great defensive defenceman and shotblocker Al Arbour, who should be able to make-up for McCabe's shortcomings.
As for my first line, I'll start off by saying none of these three guys were considered particularly soft. Babich, in addition, was consider considered to be a "real spark plug"
and he "constantly revved up the pace of the game by rushing forward and raising the intensity of every play" by Kings of the Ice, plus Tarasov said he could do anything, which suggests to me some measure of toughness. I also recall seeing a quote that showed Patrick making a heck of a hit...I'll see if I can find it. All-in-all though, I don't think my first line has toughness issues.
As for my third-line, thanks for the compliments, but don't forget about Baldy Cotton, who's certainly not a scrub. He was a quality checker and penalty-killer, and was said to be "fearless" and "very-willing to mix-it up." Stanley Cup champion and finalist too, and like Ricci and March, ups his offensive game in the playoffs, with multiple top 10's in playoff stats.
Edit: To expand on the question of first-line toughness, Patrick was top-5 in PIM in the 1941 playoffs.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Good discussion so far, fellas. A few comments:
- Don't believe that it will split up your locker room if you make the switch. Like you said, this kind of thing happens all the time, and I don't remember Carolina (X2), Anaheim, Washington or Montreal being split at a sudden change of starter in the playoffs in recent years. This is overblown.
- As for "As far as speed, I haven't seen anything on him that suggests he was a particularly slow player- nothing that suggested he was particularly fast though either, but we tend to assume that the guy is average with little evidence either way." - this may fly for old-school players, but Rouse only retired a decade ago. Most of us remember him, and no, he wasn't a fast skater. Think of him like perhaps the Willie Mitchell of his time. If the footspeed question is to be brought up for Rouse, it should be for Smith as well.
- GBC, a canucks fan, will tell you that McCabe definitely made his share of mistakes before coming to Toronto, and by all acounts he is right. I think McCabe's best defensive hockey was played in the 01, 02, and 03 seasons before his head got too big and he got saddled with too much responsibility. I understand he was erratic before that, and after that was the second coming of Jeff Brown plus physicality.
- I wouldn't question North Pole's first line for toughness. They don't have a major fist chucker but they have a sparkplug, Babich, who didn't shy away from physicality at all, and Patrick, who was somewhat of a power forward (and I use the term lightly, more like a Lecavalier)
- Patrick and Harris are the offensive stars of this series. No one else can match the offensive achievements of these two. Taylor is next. Horvath comes close, but he was rather inconsistent. Skinner and Shibicky were excellent scorers for their eras. McGimsie is tough to call but he is a hall of famer. Young Getzlaf already has an offensive resume superior to that of Courtnall, Payne, Christian, and Babich, who did little to nothing offensively in relation to the best of their eras. That's the way it boils down for me.
- Don't believe that it will split up your locker room if you make the switch. Like you said, this kind of thing happens all the time, and I don't remember Carolina (X2), Anaheim, Washington or Montreal being split at a sudden change of starter in the playoffs in recent years. This is overblown.
- As for "As far as speed, I haven't seen anything on him that suggests he was a particularly slow player- nothing that suggested he was particularly fast though either, but we tend to assume that the guy is average with little evidence either way." - this may fly for old-school players, but Rouse only retired a decade ago. Most of us remember him, and no, he wasn't a fast skater. Think of him like perhaps the Willie Mitchell of his time. If the footspeed question is to be brought up for Rouse, it should be for Smith as well.
- GBC, a canucks fan, will tell you that McCabe definitely made his share of mistakes before coming to Toronto, and by all acounts he is right. I think McCabe's best defensive hockey was played in the 01, 02, and 03 seasons before his head got too big and he got saddled with too much responsibility. I understand he was erratic before that, and after that was the second coming of Jeff Brown plus physicality.
- I wouldn't question North Pole's first line for toughness. They don't have a major fist chucker but they have a sparkplug, Babich, who didn't shy away from physicality at all, and Patrick, who was somewhat of a power forward (and I use the term lightly, more like a Lecavalier)
- Patrick and Harris are the offensive stars of this series. No one else can match the offensive achievements of these two. Taylor is next. Horvath comes close, but he was rather inconsistent. Skinner and Shibicky were excellent scorers for their eras. McGimsie is tough to call but he is a hall of famer. Young Getzlaf already has an offensive resume superior to that of Courtnall, Payne, Christian, and Babich, who did little to nothing offensively in relation to the best of their eras. That's the way it boils down for me.
Alright, I'll take that for Rouse; never really saw him play, so all I have to go by is what is written of him. Of course, as you noted, Smith is questionable in that rergard as well.
Didn't see McCabe's days before a Leaf uniform, but I stand by that his reduced role and playing with Al Arbour should minimilize the effect of his erratic defensive play. And he has a great offensive-resume for a third-pairing guy.
Thanks, and I agree that Patrick and Harris are the two best of the series. I too think think Taylor ousts Horvath as well; the only notable playoff finish on Horvath I can find is one top-5 in goals, while Taylor has a stanley cup, 2 top-10 finishes in playoff points (including a top-5) and 3 top-10 finishes in playoff assists (incuding a 2nd and a 3rd). Taylor is the more consistent as well, as you noted.
In addition, we think our third-line whill be able to shutdown your best offensive line better than yours shall fair against mine. Ricci is probably the best defensive forward on either third-line, and as great an offensive resume Syl Apps has, it doesn't seem to transition to the playoffs. March you've already touched on, and he has a great offensive playoff resume and is one of the better third-line RW's in the draft; in his counterpart Crowder, I don"t find much abut defensive play except maybe the word "rugged", but that's more about grit. Baldy Cotton doesn't seem to have the respect, but he was a quality checker and penalty-killer, a gritty guy, and also has a good playoff offensive record, and seems to be better than Greg Gus adams, who has a quote that makes me wonder why he's on a third line from Joe Pelletier:
http://canuckslegends.blogspot.com/2008/09/gus-adams.html
Doesn't seem like a third-line type to me; nor does he have much in the way or notable scoring finishes, making me believe that Baldy Cotton is all-in-all the better of the two.My third-line should score more than yours does in the playoffs from what I can see, and should have more shutdown ability as well.
As for second-lines, we have the best player on either line in four-time PCHA First-All star (and an extra second all-star) Smokey Harris, who outclasses his counterpart in Courtnall. Getzlaf vs McGimsie is a hard one to determine; although I suppose I'll lean a bit towards Getzlaf. Skinner and Shibicky is tough; Skinner has four PCHA second-all stars and a Retro Conn Smythe going for him, but Shibicky was a good playoff performer as well. However, the biggest edge on this line is easily Harris over Courtnall by a wide margin, and for that I think our 2nd-line, not to mention our top-6, is the better in this series.
Last edited:
On another note, I am offically declaring Johnny Mowers our starting goalie for the playoffs. Edwards doesn't have a history of having problems being a back-up, and we feel Jimmy Skinner can soothe any tension tha arises, which I doubt will occur anyways. seventies provided a good bunch of modern examples of a goalie switch working.
Jonny Mowers, who went to the Stanley Cup Finals two more times than Bulin did (and not with top teams), and who also has a cup-winning, perhaps Smythe worthy run (based on the LOH quote). He also has a first all-star team, while Khabibulin has none. To expand on Mowers importance durning time in Detroit, a few quotes from the Red Wings website on the 1942/43 season:
-http://redwings.nhl.com/club/page.htm?bcid=his_stanleyCups-4243
I think Mowers should be more than a match against Khabibulin.
Jonny Mowers, who went to the Stanley Cup Finals two more times than Bulin did (and not with top teams), and who also has a cup-winning, perhaps Smythe worthy run (based on the LOH quote). He also has a first all-star team, while Khabibulin has none. To expand on Mowers importance durning time in Detroit, a few quotes from the Red Wings website on the 1942/43 season:
-http://redwings.nhl.com/club/page.htm?bcid=his_stanleyCups-4243
I think Mowers should be more than a match against Khabibulin.
4th Lines:
1. Bob Gracie vs Martin Gelinas: Each have one major scoring run in the playoffs: Martin Gelinas placing 7th in goals and 8th in points with Calgary in 04, and Gracie placing 4th in goals and 9th in points for Tornto in '32. In addition to this, Gracie placed 4th in asssts in a run with the Maroons where he won a second stanley cup, and has a few other top 20's to go along with those 3 high finishes (although those top 20's aren't that specal, I'll admit) From what I can see, Gelinas's offesive production in the playoffs wasn't as good as Gracie's (and it's not as if Gelinas didn't have god oppurtunities). Gracie also has a reglar season scoring peak that Gelinas can't touch; a 3rd in assists and a 6th in points in 1937. I've only managed to find one top-20 in goal for Gelinas, while Gracie has one more top-20 in assists bsides his big peak season. Overall, I think Gracie is the better offensively of the two.
On the other side of the puck, from what I've seen, Gelinas was a hard-working, physical guy while Gracie was a good defensive, "Pepper" or "aggressive" guy. Nothing that suggests one is necessarrily better than the other in the intangibles department (unless more evidence rises to the surface), although defensive game is not something I have seen noted for Gelinas; but I never saw im play, so perhaps I wrong. For the fairly clear offensive edge however, I think Gracie is the better of the two.
2. Andy Blair vs Ron Sutter- Sutter's only notable offensive finishes in major categories both come in the playoffs: a 20th in points and a 16th in assists is all I can find. Sutter can't dream of Blair's best regular-season offensive peak: a 2nd in assists and a 3rd in points. Blair also has a 1st in playoff goals and points in 1929, in addition to two more top 10's in playoff assists, a top-15 in points, and a top-20 in goals. Blair is easily the better offensively of the two.
Of course, I can not deny Sutter's superiority on the other aspects of the game; Blair brings an aggresive style of game and played on the third-line in Toronto '32 cup win, but Sutter was one of the best defensive forwards around for a time, peaking as a Selke runner-up, and was tough as well. I suppose this depends on what you like more out of your 4th-liners; but at the moment at least, I call Blair's offence and Sutter's defence about equal, making this a wash more-or-less, until I see/find evidence showing otherwise.
3. Bill Fairbairn vs Bill Flett- Interesting match-up; particularly as these two met in the playoffs before, in the 1974 playoff semi-finals to be precise. They also were both in the playoffs the previous year, where Flett was 5th in goals, his only time in the top-20 (unless you count his 8th in the WHA). Fairbairn outproduced Flett in both years, playing less games in both years; let us elaborate, and include top-20 finishes
'73 Playoffs
Fairbairn GP:10 G:1 A:9 P:10- 8th in Playoff Assists
Flett GP:11 G:3 A:4 P:7
'74 Playoffs
Fairbairn GP:13 G:3 A:5 P:8
Flett GP:17 G:0 A:6 P:6 - 17th in Playoff Assists
Very interesting, considering Flett played on better teams in those years.
Flett's other notable finishes in the playoffs would be his 19th in points in the '69 playoffs, and his 10th in goals in WHA '79 playoffs. Fairbairn's other notable playoff finishes are a 12th in goals, 13th in assists, and a 12th in points during the '72 playoffs. Based on these stats, it seems Fairbairn is the better offensive player in the playoffs.
For intangibles, I have seen reference to Flett as a tough as nails player; but that's all. Fairbairn, meanwhile was an "exemplary two-way forward" accoring to LOH, who went on to say he earned his famed nickname of "Bulldog" for his tenacity on the ice. It seems that Fairbairn brought more to the table outside of offence, but even if that's not the case, I haven't seen any evidewnce of Flett being better in intangibles than Fairbairn, which I think he needs to be based on these offensive playoff numbers to be better than Fairbairn. Overall, I'd say edge to Fairbairn.
Fourth-Lines overall: I think my line is the clear better offensively, and gets chemistry points for this quote:
The only clear intangible edge I see here would be Sutter over Blair (unless I see more evidence to the contrary), and I don't think that's nearly enough to make up for the offensive gap here, and would say my 4th-line is the better of the two.
1. Bob Gracie vs Martin Gelinas: Each have one major scoring run in the playoffs: Martin Gelinas placing 7th in goals and 8th in points with Calgary in 04, and Gracie placing 4th in goals and 9th in points for Tornto in '32. In addition to this, Gracie placed 4th in asssts in a run with the Maroons where he won a second stanley cup, and has a few other top 20's to go along with those 3 high finishes (although those top 20's aren't that specal, I'll admit) From what I can see, Gelinas's offesive production in the playoffs wasn't as good as Gracie's (and it's not as if Gelinas didn't have god oppurtunities). Gracie also has a reglar season scoring peak that Gelinas can't touch; a 3rd in assists and a 6th in points in 1937. I've only managed to find one top-20 in goal for Gelinas, while Gracie has one more top-20 in assists bsides his big peak season. Overall, I think Gracie is the better offensively of the two.
On the other side of the puck, from what I've seen, Gelinas was a hard-working, physical guy while Gracie was a good defensive, "Pepper" or "aggressive" guy. Nothing that suggests one is necessarrily better than the other in the intangibles department (unless more evidence rises to the surface), although defensive game is not something I have seen noted for Gelinas; but I never saw im play, so perhaps I wrong. For the fairly clear offensive edge however, I think Gracie is the better of the two.
2. Andy Blair vs Ron Sutter- Sutter's only notable offensive finishes in major categories both come in the playoffs: a 20th in points and a 16th in assists is all I can find. Sutter can't dream of Blair's best regular-season offensive peak: a 2nd in assists and a 3rd in points. Blair also has a 1st in playoff goals and points in 1929, in addition to two more top 10's in playoff assists, a top-15 in points, and a top-20 in goals. Blair is easily the better offensively of the two.
Of course, I can not deny Sutter's superiority on the other aspects of the game; Blair brings an aggresive style of game and played on the third-line in Toronto '32 cup win, but Sutter was one of the best defensive forwards around for a time, peaking as a Selke runner-up, and was tough as well. I suppose this depends on what you like more out of your 4th-liners; but at the moment at least, I call Blair's offence and Sutter's defence about equal, making this a wash more-or-less, until I see/find evidence showing otherwise.
3. Bill Fairbairn vs Bill Flett- Interesting match-up; particularly as these two met in the playoffs before, in the 1974 playoff semi-finals to be precise. They also were both in the playoffs the previous year, where Flett was 5th in goals, his only time in the top-20 (unless you count his 8th in the WHA). Fairbairn outproduced Flett in both years, playing less games in both years; let us elaborate, and include top-20 finishes
'73 Playoffs
Fairbairn GP:10 G:1 A:9 P:10- 8th in Playoff Assists
Flett GP:11 G:3 A:4 P:7
'74 Playoffs
Fairbairn GP:13 G:3 A:5 P:8
Flett GP:17 G:0 A:6 P:6 - 17th in Playoff Assists
Very interesting, considering Flett played on better teams in those years.
Flett's other notable finishes in the playoffs would be his 19th in points in the '69 playoffs, and his 10th in goals in WHA '79 playoffs. Fairbairn's other notable playoff finishes are a 12th in goals, 13th in assists, and a 12th in points during the '72 playoffs. Based on these stats, it seems Fairbairn is the better offensive player in the playoffs.
For intangibles, I have seen reference to Flett as a tough as nails player; but that's all. Fairbairn, meanwhile was an "exemplary two-way forward" accoring to LOH, who went on to say he earned his famed nickname of "Bulldog" for his tenacity on the ice. It seems that Fairbairn brought more to the table outside of offence, but even if that's not the case, I haven't seen any evidewnce of Flett being better in intangibles than Fairbairn, which I think he needs to be based on these offensive playoff numbers to be better than Fairbairn. Overall, I'd say edge to Fairbairn.
Fourth-Lines overall: I think my line is the clear better offensively, and gets chemistry points for this quote:
The only clear intangible edge I see here would be Sutter over Blair (unless I see more evidence to the contrary), and I don't think that's nearly enough to make up for the offensive gap here, and would say my 4th-line is the better of the two.
Last edited:
So, now that I have shown why I think each of my forward lines are better, and shown why Mowers should be able to match Khabibulin in goal, it's time to move onto defence.
Dave Babych-Billy Coutu vs Bob Dailey-Doug Bodger
I can't deny- Dailey is the better defenceman in the playoffs, although Babych does have some top-5 finishes for defencemen as well.
However, Bodger is the opposite of Dailey in this regard; his playoff record is quite poor. Granted, he wasn't playing with good teams, but still. Of course, I also question the chemistry of this pairing; both of them are more-so known for offence. Dailey is known as a tough defencemen, and Bodger's PIM totals also suggest he too was tough, but I have not seen anything said on their defensive game; and a lack of it is a concern for a top-pairing, especially when it goes up against stars like Patrick, Harris, and Taylor. Perhaps I have not read in the right places or read closely enough, but you'll need to provide evidence of this.
Of course Babych was known as a steady and a solid defensive player during his later days in Vancouver and Hartford, but it's not his specality, which is why we have Coutu to intimidate and shutdown opposing forwards. Coutu also seems to have the better playoff offensive resume to Bodger, with a a cup champion and 4 time finalists, and a couple of top 5's in points for defencemen, while easily being the toughest and likely best defensive defenceman of any of the guys on these pairings. For the reason the difference between Coutu and Bodger in the playoffs is wider than the difference between Babych and Daileyi n the playoffs, I'd give my pairing an edge.
.
Dave Babych-Billy Coutu vs Bob Dailey-Doug Bodger
I can't deny- Dailey is the better defenceman in the playoffs, although Babych does have some top-5 finishes for defencemen as well.
However, Bodger is the opposite of Dailey in this regard; his playoff record is quite poor. Granted, he wasn't playing with good teams, but still. Of course, I also question the chemistry of this pairing; both of them are more-so known for offence. Dailey is known as a tough defencemen, and Bodger's PIM totals also suggest he too was tough, but I have not seen anything said on their defensive game; and a lack of it is a concern for a top-pairing, especially when it goes up against stars like Patrick, Harris, and Taylor. Perhaps I have not read in the right places or read closely enough, but you'll need to provide evidence of this.
Of course Babych was known as a steady and a solid defensive player during his later days in Vancouver and Hartford, but it's not his specality, which is why we have Coutu to intimidate and shutdown opposing forwards. Coutu also seems to have the better playoff offensive resume to Bodger, with a a cup champion and 4 time finalists, and a couple of top 5's in points for defencemen, while easily being the toughest and likely best defensive defenceman of any of the guys on these pairings. For the reason the difference between Coutu and Bodger in the playoffs is wider than the difference between Babych and Daileyi n the playoffs, I'd give my pairing an edge.
.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Joe Jerwa-Jason Smith vs Gord Fraser-Bob Rouse
Joe Jerwa is an great defencemen; placed top 10 in defenceman scoring virtually every year he played, and one would think he would be better than the guy carrying my offence on this pairing in Fraser. Not necessarily the case here. Jewa's problem: he went to the playoffs four times, and only produced points in one of those times. Now, Jerwa produced very well in that year, topping defencemen in playoff point and goal-scoring, and placing 7th in playoff points plus 10th in playoff goals. However, Fraser also has a playoff year in which he led defencemen in goals and points, placed top 10 in playoff goals an points, and won the stanley cup too.
Now, Fraser had another big playoff year in 1927 where, if he was a defenceman, he led defencemen in playoff goals and placed 3rd in points. seventies said Fraser was a forward that year so I ask him,are you sure?
From LOH:
Kind of suggests he spent at least sometime as a defenceman..
Now, if Fraser was a forward, then I suppose it depends on if you think his accomplishments in the playoffs as a forward count at all towards defence. From what I see, Fraser's an Jerwa's best years in the playffs were about even; Fraser's 2nd year was better than Jerwa's, but it might have been as a forward. I suppose I'll let forwards decide on that, but I don't see how Fraser is worse than equal to Jerwa in the playoffs.
Now, both of these guys were fairly large for their days, both of these guys played a rugged, physical, tough game, and both were good all-around defencemen. Don't see much that suggests one was better than the other in intangibles, so these two defencemenare about equal in the playoffs all things considered, unless you factor Fraser's year in 1927, in which case Fraser would be the better of the two.
As for Rouse and Smith, Rouse easily has the best offensive peak in the playoffs, placing 5th in points amongst defencemen, 7th in assists amongst defencemen, and 14th in goals amongst defencemen during the '93 playoffs. Rouse also tied for 8th in goals amongst defenceen in '89 and 7th in goals amongst defencemen in the '90 playoffs. Smith"s best finish from what I see would be tieing for 17th in points amongst defencemen during the Oilers run. Rouse is clearly the better of the two offensively in the playoffs.
I suppose I"ll let voters decide on who"s better on the other side of the pucK; both of these guys are known as tough, rock-solid stay-at-home guys. Is Smith really that much better than Rouse to make-up the offensive gap? I'm not sure. Keep in mind Rouse also has a bit more in the way of Stanley cup success, along with more cnferece final than Smith.
At first-glance, one woul probably say Weyburn has the better second-pairing. Looking more closely however, these pairings are actually pretty close and about equal.
Joe Jerwa is an great defencemen; placed top 10 in defenceman scoring virtually every year he played, and one would think he would be better than the guy carrying my offence on this pairing in Fraser. Not necessarily the case here. Jewa's problem: he went to the playoffs four times, and only produced points in one of those times. Now, Jerwa produced very well in that year, topping defencemen in playoff point and goal-scoring, and placing 7th in playoff points plus 10th in playoff goals. However, Fraser also has a playoff year in which he led defencemen in goals and points, placed top 10 in playoff goals an points, and won the stanley cup too.
Now, Fraser had another big playoff year in 1927 where, if he was a defenceman, he led defencemen in playoff goals and placed 3rd in points. seventies said Fraser was a forward that year so I ask him,are you sure?
From LOH:
Kind of suggests he spent at least sometime as a defenceman..
Now, if Fraser was a forward, then I suppose it depends on if you think his accomplishments in the playoffs as a forward count at all towards defence. From what I see, Fraser's an Jerwa's best years in the playffs were about even; Fraser's 2nd year was better than Jerwa's, but it might have been as a forward. I suppose I'll let forwards decide on that, but I don't see how Fraser is worse than equal to Jerwa in the playoffs.
Now, both of these guys were fairly large for their days, both of these guys played a rugged, physical, tough game, and both were good all-around defencemen. Don't see much that suggests one was better than the other in intangibles, so these two defencemenare about equal in the playoffs all things considered, unless you factor Fraser's year in 1927, in which case Fraser would be the better of the two.
As for Rouse and Smith, Rouse easily has the best offensive peak in the playoffs, placing 5th in points amongst defencemen, 7th in assists amongst defencemen, and 14th in goals amongst defencemen during the '93 playoffs. Rouse also tied for 8th in goals amongst defenceen in '89 and 7th in goals amongst defencemen in the '90 playoffs. Smith"s best finish from what I see would be tieing for 17th in points amongst defencemen during the Oilers run. Rouse is clearly the better of the two offensively in the playoffs.
I suppose I"ll let voters decide on who"s better on the other side of the pucK; both of these guys are known as tough, rock-solid stay-at-home guys. Is Smith really that much better than Rouse to make-up the offensive gap? I'm not sure. Keep in mind Rouse also has a bit more in the way of Stanley cup success, along with more cnferece final than Smith.
At first-glance, one woul probably say Weyburn has the better second-pairing. Looking more closely however, these pairings are actually pretty close and about equal.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Pretty sure. He definitely played forward in the playoffs, and had offensive numbers that were really out of line with the rest of his career.
He MIGHT have been half and half or something, but I really doubt it. That was a very low-scoring season across the board.
Jeff Brown-Sylvain Cote vs Al Arbour-Bryan McCabe
Jeff Brown is the better playoff defencemen than McCabe, with 2 more top 5's in points amongst defencemen (neither did much outside the top-5), although he's had more oppurtunity in the playoffs. Neither is these guys is good defensively- seventies likened Bryan McCabe to Jeff Brown plus physicality, and McCabe has been erratic. Edge to Jeff Brown here.
As far as Cote and Arbour goes, Arbour has an edge. Cote''s playoff record isn't great, a 10th in points amongst defencemen his only notable points finishes along with tieing for a couple more top-10 goals finishes amongst defencemen. Arbour's best year was tieing for 5th in points and 2nd in goals amongst defencemen, besting Cote in the overall offensive playoff regard, plus Arbour has 3 stanley cups as a player. In addition, it seems Arbour is the better of the two defensively, as Arbour's defenseive play and shot-blocking was his bread and butter, and I have trouble finding things written on Cote's defensive game (Although he's modern enough that some guys here likely watched him and can comment- I didn't) It seems to me that Arbour should be able to make up for the defensive weakness of his partner better than Cote can for his.
From the evidence I have seen, I think the gap between Arbour and Cote may be wider than the gap between Brown and McCabe in the playoffs; but not something I can determine certainly with my lack of kinowledge on Cote's defensive and physical game.
-----------------------------------------
I believe that covers everything. All in all, I think my forwards and top-pairing can win me this series. Bottom-4's and goaltending's are fairly close, and could lean either way, but I think my forwards are a quite a bit better than his. In addition, it seems that Weyburn has all it's eggs in one basket as far as defence from the defence go; it doesn't seem they have a true defensive prescence outside of their second pairing, and with the array of offensive talent on my four lines and home-ice advantage in the series, I think that's a weakness.
On a side-note, I request that Johnny Mowers name be placed above Edwards in the first post. Wouldn't want people getting confused.
Jeff Brown is the better playoff defencemen than McCabe, with 2 more top 5's in points amongst defencemen (neither did much outside the top-5), although he's had more oppurtunity in the playoffs. Neither is these guys is good defensively- seventies likened Bryan McCabe to Jeff Brown plus physicality, and McCabe has been erratic. Edge to Jeff Brown here.
As far as Cote and Arbour goes, Arbour has an edge. Cote''s playoff record isn't great, a 10th in points amongst defencemen his only notable points finishes along with tieing for a couple more top-10 goals finishes amongst defencemen. Arbour's best year was tieing for 5th in points and 2nd in goals amongst defencemen, besting Cote in the overall offensive playoff regard, plus Arbour has 3 stanley cups as a player. In addition, it seems Arbour is the better of the two defensively, as Arbour's defenseive play and shot-blocking was his bread and butter, and I have trouble finding things written on Cote's defensive game (Although he's modern enough that some guys here likely watched him and can comment- I didn't) It seems to me that Arbour should be able to make up for the defensive weakness of his partner better than Cote can for his.
From the evidence I have seen, I think the gap between Arbour and Cote may be wider than the gap between Brown and McCabe in the playoffs; but not something I can determine certainly with my lack of kinowledge on Cote's defensive and physical game.
-----------------------------------------
I believe that covers everything. All in all, I think my forwards and top-pairing can win me this series. Bottom-4's and goaltending's are fairly close, and could lean either way, but I think my forwards are a quite a bit better than his. In addition, it seems that Weyburn has all it's eggs in one basket as far as defence from the defence go; it doesn't seem they have a true defensive prescence outside of their second pairing, and with the array of offensive talent on my four lines and home-ice advantage in the series, I think that's a weakness.
On a side-note, I request that Johnny Mowers name be placed above Edwards in the first post. Wouldn't want people getting confused.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
It's too bad my opponent was not able to post more than once in this thread before voting opened. Oh well; perhaps GDC will have time for debate tomorrow.
In the meantime...Vote North Pole Dancers!
and good luck to Weyburn
In the meantime...Vote North Pole Dancers!
and good luck to Weyburn
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
North Pole defeats Weyburn in 5 games.
3 Stars:
1. Lynn Patrick
2. Alf Skinner
3. Nikolai Khabibulin
3 Stars:
1. Lynn Patrick
2. Alf Skinner
3. Nikolai Khabibulin
Ad
Latest posts
-
Series Talk: Rangers vs. Carolina (Game 1, Sunday May 5th @ 4pm ET, ESPN)- Latest: Mike in Houston
Upcoming events
-
-
-
UFC 301 - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Paul Craig vs Caio BorralhoWagers: 2Staked: $29,273.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-