Round 2, Vote 6 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[overpass]

I read through every NYT article (and a couple of other papers) from his time in New York and found exactly 1 game where he played forward. Moreover, I am finding that the more I read about Conacher, the more overlooked he seems to me. Here's a survey of his career with the Americans:












These accounts from his first season in New York portray him as very much on the level of Johnson, Clancy and Cleghorn. He's consistently noted in game summaries for his dazzling offensive abilities and the tone of the last two articles quoted indicate he was a very stout defensive presence as well. There is no indication that he played forward or that his numbers (4th in d-scoring behind Clancy, Shore and Gord Fraser) were inflated.

Rk | Player | Age | Team | GP | G | A | P | PIM
1| Gord Fraser| 25 |CBH | 44| 14 |6 |20 |89
2| King Clancy| 23 |OTS | 43| 9| 10| 19| 78
3| Eddie Shore |24 |BOS |40 |12 |6 |18 |130
4| Lionel Conacher| 25| PTP/NYA | 39| 8| 9| 17| 93
5 |Sylvio Mantha| 24| MTL|| 43| 10| 5| 15| 11| 77

At this point it sounds like Conacher was more or less a one-man team, carrying the Americans when he was on the ice. On occasions where he was out of the lineup or in the box, reporters unfailingly mention that the Americans wilted and waited for him to return. In a few games, it's noted that the outcome basically hinged on his individual ability to break through the opposing defense. On occasions where he failed or was snakebitten, the Americans struggled badly to produce offense. It's worth noting that Conacher was one of the league PIM leaders, along with Shore.

Rk | Player | Age | Team | GP | G | A | P | PIM
1| Lionel Conacher|26| NYA | 35| 11| 6| 17| 82
2| Eddie Shore |25| BOS | 43| 11| 6 |17| 165
3| Ching Johnson| 29| NYR | 42| 10| 6| 16| 146
4| King Clancy |24| OTS | 39| 8| 7| 15| 73
5| Sylvio Mantha |25 |MTL | 43 |4 |11| 15| 61

Conacher definitely played (and scored a goal) at center on 12/21/1927. He was back at defense the next day (and scored again). Apparently he thrived on rink-long rushes, so perhaps playing defense made more sense:



Having read a whole lot of game summaries from this period for the top-60 project, I can't honestly say I've seen anyone described as such a one-man offensive force. It sounds like Conacher may have been a legitimate superstar who was simply stuck on a bad team while Shore and Clancy were also reaching that level.

Summaries over the next couple of seasons are pretty much more of the same. Conacher was put in the slightly ridiculous position of being the manager, coach, captain, top offenseive and defensive player, and main pugilist for the Americans. When he was sold to Montreal the following season and replaced with Eddie Gerard as manager, a Times editorial remarked that it was easier for ownership to find a new manager than to find a good forward.

It's pretty clear from summaries and editorials that his play suffered as he took on management responsibility. One writer compared it to making Babe Ruth the manager of the Yankees.

Here are his final two seasons with the Americans:

Rk | Player | Age | Team | GP | G | A | P | PIM
1| Eddie Shore| 26 |BOS |39 |12 |7 |19 | 96
2 |King Clancy |25 |OTS |44 |13| 2| 15| 89
3 |Sylvio Mantha|26 |MTL |44 |9 |4 |13 |56
4 |Albert Leduc |26 |MTL |43 |9| 2| 11| 79
5 |George Owen | 27| BOS | 27 |5 |4 |9 |48
6 |Art Duncan |37| TOR | 39| 4| 4| 8| 53
7 |Alex Smith |26| OTS | 44 |1 |7 |8 | 96
8 |Lionel Conacher| 27 |NYA | 44 |5| 2 |7 | 132
9 |George Boucher| 32| OTS/MTM|41 |4 |2 |6 | 70
10 |Marty Burke |24 |MTL |44 |4 |2| 6| 4| 68

Rk | Name | Age | Team | GP | G | A | P | PIM
1 |King Clancy |26| OTS |44| 17 |23 |40 | 83
2 |Eddie Shore| 27 |BOS |42 |12| 19 |31 |105
3 |Sylvio Mantha |27 |MTL | 44 |13| 11| 24 |108
4 |Joe Simpson |36 |NYA | 44 |8 |13 |21 | 41
5 |John McKinnon| 27| PTP| 41 |10| 7 |17 |42
6 |Red Dutton |31 |MTM |43 |3 |13 |16 | 98
7 |Albert Leduc |27| MTL |44 |6| 8| 14 |90
8 |Leo Bourgeault| 27 |NYR| 44| 7| 6| 13 | 54
9 |Marty Burke |25 |MTL |44 |2| 11| 13| 71
10 |George Owen |28| BOS | 42 |9 |4 |13 | 31
11 |Bert McCaffrey |36 |PTP/MTL| 43 |4 |7 |11| 38
12 |Lionel Conacher| 28| NYA | 40 |4 |6| 10| 73
13 |Gord Fraser | 28 |PTP/MTL| 40 |6 |4 |10 |41
14 |Art Duncan| 38 |TOR| 38 |4 |5| 9| 49
15| Lionel Hitchman |28| BOS| 39| 2| 7 |9 | 58

Anyway, having looked at all the available Times summaries I can only find 1 instance of Conacher playing at a forward position. His stats, minus that one goal, appear to be legitimate.

I don't have access to good Montreal papers to provide a narrative of his later career. However, I'm actually starting to do a bit of a 180 on Conacher. I'll go out on a limb and say that for peak, he is the best player left on the list. He was truly dominant at both ends of the ice, an elite scorer as well as providing "airtight" and hard-hitting defense along the lines of a peak Robinson or Pronger. The only defensemen at that time who were clear-cut ahead of him were Shore (our #4) and Clancy (our #12), and the only one before him who seems to have peaked as high was Cleghorn (our #15).

Conacher's biggest flaws are that he played for 3 ill-fated franchises, and that he was better known in other sports. Put this guy on the Leafs and I honestly believe he becomes a Shore-level superstar in short order.

If we're evaluating Conacher's skills, he wasn't a strong skater. He only started skating at age 16, as a great athlete who came to hockey relatively late.

He may have been great offensively and defensively but still been lacking in the transition game in the middle of the ice.

 

[seventieslord]

Tarheel - Gord Fraser was a forward in1927.

 

[tarheelhockey]

If we're evaluating Conacher's skills, he wasn't a strong skater. He only started skating at age 16, as a great athlete who came to hockey relatively late.

Apart from having started skating late, do we have a good reason to believe he wasn't a strong skater in his 20s?

It's very hard for me to imagine an average skater weaving at will through the best defenders in the world.

He may have been great offensively and defensively but still been lacking in the transition game in the middle of the ice.

Similarly, is there a specific reason to think this is true? All accounts suggest he scored primarily off the rush, ie the transition game.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Tarheel - Gord Fraser was a forward in1927.

Thank you!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Having read a whole lot of game summaries from this period for the top-60 project, I can't honestly say I've seen anyone described as such a one-man offensive force. It sounds like Conacher may have been a legitimate superstar who was simply stuck on a bad team while Shore and Clancy were also reaching that level.

A big part of the case for Clancy and Cleghorn was that they had the ability to turn teams around. Why couldn't Conacher? I mean, that's probably not a criticicism of him compared to the guys who are left, but it does raise doubts as to whether he was really on the level of Shore or Clancy like you claim.

It's pretty clear from summaries and editorials that his play suffered as he took on management responsibility. One writer compared it to making Babe Ruth the manager of the Yankees.

His play also suffered because of his developing alcoholism.

Anyway, having looked at all the available Times summaries I can only find 1 instance of Conacher playing at a forward position. His stats, minus that one goal, appear to be legitimate.

You read a game log of every game he played in New York? Wow.

I don't have access to good Montreal papers to provide a narrative of his later career. However, I'm actually starting to do a bit of a 180 on Conacher. I'll go out on a limb and say that for peak, he is the best player left on the list.

I don't see any reason to believe this. We have Hart voting for his whole career and All-Star voting for most of it. He never finished 1st in either among defensemen. He was never the best defenseman in the league. Most of the guys who are still available were 1st Team All Stars multiple times; Conacher was once. And as I posted earlier, there is no reason to believe he'd be a 1st Team All Star prior to the introduction of the official teams (based on Hart voting).

He was truly dominant at both ends of the ice, an elite scorer as well as providing "airtight" and hard-hitting defense along the lines of a peak Robinson or Pronger. The only defensemen at that time who were clear-cut ahead of him were Shore (our #4) and Clancy (our #12), and the only one before him who seems to have peaked as high was Cleghorn (our #15).

Well, there is Ching Johnson and the fact that he has a much better record than Conacher in awards voting.

I also don't see why you think Conacher peaked higher than Gerard, who came before Conacher, and who most observers seemed to think was better. Edit: I guess I can see the argument for Conacher for career, but peak? I can't see it.

Conacher's biggest flaws are that he played for 3 ill-fated franchises, and that he was better known in other sports. Put this guy on the Leafs and I honestly believe he becomes a Shore-level superstar in short order.

IMO, his biggest flaw is that in the middle of what should have been his prime, he was playing at such a poor level, he was waived and every team in the league took a pass on him. Kudos to Conacher for getting rid of the bottle and making a comeback, though.

I still see him as someone who had one really great regular season and playoffs (1934) and a lot of very good, but not elite seasons both at the beginning and end of his career (with a few poor years in the middle).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If we're evaluating Conacher's skills, he wasn't a strong skater. He only started skating at age 16, as a great athlete who came to hockey relatively late.

He may have been great offensively and defensively but still been lacking in the transition game in the middle of the ice.

I have read that Conacher had one of the best slapshots in the league and relied on it for much of his offense. That makes sense. He was an incredibly strong man (from other sports) but had issues skating.

Apart from having started skating late, do we have a good reason to believe he wasn't a strong skater in his 20s?

Other than the fact that his official biography calls him a poor skater who watched other players closely to develop defensive strategies to overcome his deficiency?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I googled "Lionel Conacher skating" and found an old post by Sturminator ripping him in ATD8. Heh.

Here is the post: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=11621281&postcount=11

For those who don't want to follow the link.

From the History of Canadian Sport article I posted earlier:

He didn't even strap on skates until he was 16 years old, and had to develop cunning defensive strategies to overcome his limited skating abilities.

From referee Red Storey (who saw Conacher play):

He was a very, very poor skater, but he had an awful lot of determination and he became the most awkward all-star I guess the league ever had.

From HOH One-on-One:

What he lacked in skating skills was compensated for in shotblocking, positioning and sheer desire.

 

[tarheelhockey]

A big part of the case for Clancy and Cleghorn was that they had the ability to turn teams around. Why couldn't Conacher? I mean, that's probably not a criticizism of him compared to the guys who are left, but it does raise doubts as to whether he was really on their levels.

An explanation that jumps immediately to mind is that Clancy and Cleghorn were much better players.

As noted upthread, Conacher was virtually a one-man team in New York. He probably made the Amerks as good at both ends of the ice as any defenseman could have, shy of adding a generational talent.

You read a game log of every game he played in New York? Wow.

Every one that is in the NYT archive, yes. I wasn't counting, so I can't say how many games were missing, but it was a pretty good sample from each season.

I still see him as someone who had one really great regular season and playoffs (1934) and a lot of very good, but not elite seasons both at the beginning and end of his career (with a few poor years in the middle).

I don't know how to qualify an "elite season", but he was absolutely an elite player in New York.

Other than the fact that his official biography calls him a poor skater who watched other players closely to develop defensive strategies to overcome his deficiency?

That just isn't congruous with first-hand reports of his "dazzling" rushes past NHL defenders. I don't know where to go with this conflict.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't know how to qualify an "elite season", but he was absolutely an elite player in New York.

Then why wasn't he more of a factor in Hart voting?

Hart voting when Conacher was in New York, with all New York Americans bolded:

1926-27
1. Herb Gardiner, Mtl D 89
2. Bill Cook, NYR RW 80
3. Frank Frederickson, Bos C 75
4. Dick Irvin, Chi C 73
5. King Clancy, Ott D 48
6. Billy Burch, NYA C 43
7. Dunc Munro, Mtl M D 37
8. Howie Morenz Mtl C 30
9. Bill Carson, Tor C 25
T10. Georges Boucher, Ott D 19
T10. Roy Worters, Pit G 19

1927-28
1. Howie Morenz, Mtl C 123
2. Roy Worters, Pit G 82
3. Eddie Shore, Bos D 78
4. George Hay, Det LW 73
5. Ching Johnson, NYR D 31
6. Frank Nighbor, Ott C 28

1928-29
1. Roy Worters, NYA G 74
2. Ace Bailey, Tor RW 64
3. Eddie Shore, Bos D 62
4. Sylvio Mantha, Mtl D 60
5. King Clancy, Ott D 50
6. Andy Blair, Tor C
7. Lionel Conacher, NYA D

1929-30
1. Nels Stewart, Mtl M C 101
2. Lionel Hitchman, Bos D 94
3. Cooney Weiland, Bos C 79
4. King Clancy, Tor D 77
5. Frank Boucher, NYR C 75
6. Normie Himes, NYA C 70
T7. Howie Morenz, Mtl C 60
T7. Charlie Gardiner, Chi G 60

For at least 3 of the 4 seasons, Conacher had at least 1 teammate finish ahead of him in Hart voting. In the other season (28-29), we only have Hart voting down to the top 6, and no NY Americans make the cut. But we do have that GM-voted on All-Star team and Conacher was not voted a 1st or 2nd Team All Star.

 

[overpass]

That just isn't congruous with first-hand reports of his "dazzling" rushes past NHL defenders. I don't know where to go with this conflict.

I believe attacks of the rush were based on stickhandling as much as speed in the 1920s. George Boucher, who was a slow skater after his broken leg in 1924, was still effective offensively because he was a wonderful stickhandler.

Conacher's size and reach would also have been an advantage on the rush, allowing him to protect the puck and shrug off defenders when he got a lane. Think of Dustin Byfuglien rushing the puck today - his size definitely helps.

But while Conacher could have good individual rushes, his skating abilities probably prevented him from being all over the ice like Shore or Clancy.

 

[nik jr]

Apart from having started skating late, do we have a good reason to believe he wasn't a strong skater in his 20s?

It's very hard for me to imagine an average skater weaving at will through the best defenders in the world.

i doubt very much conacher got through the D at will, but generally only 5-12 men per team were playing in a game. pace was much lower and for much of the game they were standing still.

there are many other examples of poor skaters getting through the D. nels stewart, duke keats, babe dye. i think harry and tommy smith were 1st and 2nd in goals during their careers, but were later described, along with keats and dye, as 'not being able to skate fast enough to keep themselves warm'.

Similarly, is there a specific reason to think this is true? All accounts suggest he scored primarily off the rush, ie the transition game.

that is probably how most goals were scored in that era, especially for weak teams, i would think.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I believe attacks of the rush were based on stickhandling as much as speed in the 1920s. George Boucher, who was a slow skater after his broken leg in 1924, was still effective offensively because he was a wonderful stickhandler.

Conacher's size and reach would also have been an advantage on the rush, allowing him to protect the puck and shrug off defenders when he got a lane. Think of Dustin Byfuglien rushing the puck today - his size definitely helps.

But while Conacher could have good individual rushes, his skating abilities probably prevented him from being all over the ice like Shore or Clancy.

i doubt very much conacher got through the D at will, but generally only 5-12 men per team were playing in a game. pace was much lower and for much of the game they were standing still.

there are many other examples of poor skaters getting through the D. nels stewart, duke keats, babe dye. i think harry and tommy smith were 1st and 2nd in goals during their careers, but were later described, along with keats and dye, as 'not being able to skate fast enough to keep themselves warm'.


that is probably how most goals were scored in that era, especially for weak teams, i would think.

Right. This has also caused confusion before in the All Time Draft.

 

[Hardyvan123]

- If Langway, Howe and Lapointe were to make the list this round, we would have a situation where 14 of our top 30 were active in 1984 -- Bourque, Chelios, Coffey, Fetisov, Howe, Langway, Lapointe, MacInnis, Park, Potvin, Robinson, Salming, Stevens, Vasiliev. They were all great defensemen, but when the numbers skew THAT hard it's hard not to see evidence of era bias.

Let's look at those numbers more carefully.

There would still be only 8 post expansion Canadian Dmen and 6 from the newer streams of Europe and the United States. Looking at the Canadian Dmen list above it's pretty clear that they belong on this list

That would leave 16 from pre expansion.

If there is any era bias going on perhaps we are looking at the wrong place here. Frankly I don't care when a player played except that the level of competition that he played in might come into play for PART of the equation. When doing the "how he compared to his peers" comparison this information is use full.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Let's look at those numbers more carefully.

There would still be only 8 post expansion Canadian Dmen and 6 from the newer streams of Europe and the United States. Looking at the Canadian Dmen list above it's pretty clear that they belong on this list

That would leave 16 from pre expansion.

If there is any era bias going on perhaps we are looking at the wrong place here. Frankly I don't care when a player played except that the level of competition that he played in might come into play for PART of the equation. When doing the "how he compared to his peers" comparison this information is use full.

Where are you getting those numbers?

By my count, our top 25 has 10 pre-expansion Canadians, 9 post-expansion Canadians, 2 Russians, 2 Americans, and 2 Swedes.

Also keep in mind that "pre-expansion" covers quite a few more years than "post-expansion."

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I have read that Conacher had one of the best slapshots in the league and relied on it for much of his offense. That makes sense. He was an incredibly strong man (from other sports) but had issues skating.



Other than the fact that his official biography calls him a poor skater who watched other players closely to develop defensive strategies to overcome his deficiency?

I didn't know anyone used a slapshot when Conacher was in the game.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Babe Dye

I didn't know anyone used a slapshot when Conacher was in the game.

Babe Dye onwards perhaps earlier. None were Boom Boom Geoffrion or Bobby Hull quality but.......

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Babe Dye onwards perhaps earlier. None were Boom Boom Geoffrion or Bobby Hull quality but.......

Charlie Conacher (Lionel's brother) was pretty close.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jay B

First off Jay is playing top minutes for a bad team, Nieds was playing top minutes for teams that were quite a bit better.
TOI isn't the be all or end all (I'm tired, pretty sure I screwed up that quote...lol)but it does tell us part of the story IMO.

Perhaps Nieds wasn't a top 5 Dman for more than 3-4 seasons but in a fully integrated league his top 10 and top 20 seasons have meaning as well when comparing to a 6 team Canadian league for instance.

Our starting point is looking at all star team selections, Norris voting but we have to take a bigger look to fairly compare players from different eras.

And when we are comparing him to Gerard with the different leagues and distribution of talent and quite a different type of game and rules it gets pretty difficult.

I have no problem ranking guys like Clancy and Shore ahead of Nieds but I'm not sure that Gerard playing earlier has enough of a case to be ranked over Nieds.

Seems to be the story of his career from junior onwards. Maybe Jay B has something to do with the teams being bad.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Laperriere vs Tremblay

Thoughts on the scoring numbers I posted above:

- Conacher surprises me. I wasn't even considering him, but now I'm not so sure. Being the runaway third leading scorer of his time, behind Shore and Clancy in particular, seems significant. There's a wide gap from Conacher to Shore/Clancy, but the gap is just as big from Conacher to Mantha. I haven't seen anything to indicate he was a defensive liability so the scoring numbers are impressive. Also, two second-place Hart finishes isn't half bad either. Now I'm chewing on whether he's the #3 defenseman of his time frame and whether that's better than being the #5 guy of the 1950s or the #8 guy of the 1980s.

- Trembley's scoring numbers look much, much more impressive than Laperriere's. I'd have a hard time putting Laperriere over him unless there was a really sound argument to be made about his defensive prowess. Laperriere is generally sinking on my ranking.

- Niedermayer's numbers look impressive until I look at his competition. Then I'm not so sure. Blake has him beat solidly in PPG, while playing on worse teams, and I considered Blake the better defensive player for all but a couple of seasons. Niedermayer's only defense is that he played on the Lemaire Devils, but I'm not sure that excuse closes the gap completely.

- If Langway, Howe and Lapointe were to make the list this round, we would have a situation where 14 of our top 30 were active in 1984 -- Bourque, Chelios, Coffey, Fetisov, Howe, Langway, Lapointe, MacInnis, Park, Potvin, Robinson, Salming, Stevens, Vasiliev. They were all great defensemen, but when the numbers skew THAT hard it's hard not to see evidence of era bias.

Laperriere^played LD an Tremblay played RD. Laperriere was more effective vs Gordie Howe than Tremblay vs Bobby Hull. Terry Harper also a RD paired with Laperriere was more effective against Bobby Hull than J.C. Tremblay. Harper will not make the top 60.

 

[overpass]

I looked a bit more deeply at Mark Howe's 1979-80 season, to see how much forward he played. I have added the full details to my earlier post about his switching to defence.

Summary: He started the year at defence. 4 games in, he had no points, the team was struggling, and he was switched back to forward. 35 games after that, he had 12 G, 17 A and 29 P, and the team record was 9-20-10. He was switched back to defence, and stayed there for the final 41 games. During that time, his scoring stats were 12 G, 39 A, 51 P, and the team went 18-14-9 and made the playoffs.

Howe missed 6 games in there somewhere and I'm not sure when. Any help with that is appreciated. If that came while he was playing forward, that partially explains his and the team's underwhelming performance, but there's no doubt that he was much better while playing defence in the second half of the season.

From Jan 12, 1980 (when he moved back to the blueline for good) up to Dec 26, 1980 (the day before he crashed into the net,) Mark Howe's team played 76 regular season games. Howe scored 25 goals, 69 assists, and 94 points during that stretch. 1980 was a very good year for Mark Howe until disaster struck in the final week.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Where are you getting those numbers?

By my count, our top 25 has 10 pre-expansion Canadians, 9 post-expansion Canadians, 2 Russians, 2 Americans, and 2 Swedes.

Also keep in mind that "pre-expansion" covers quite a few more years than "post-expansion."

I took the number from the "proposed 30", including the 3 guys that might be included in this round and just took the 16 from the remaining 30 without looking at the list.

Sure pre-expansion covers alot more time but player wise (quantity and quality) the gap between pre and post isn't that large and might actually tip in the post factor with population growth ect....

Look I don't want to derail the thread but the makeup of pre and post isn't that bad at all and most of the post difference comes from outside the Canadian stream that was pretty much exclusive pre 80ish except fro Salming.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I looked a bit more deeply at Mark Howe's 1979-80 season, to see how much forward he played. I have added the full details to my earlier post about his switching to defence.

Summary: He started the year at defence. 4 games in, he had no points, the team was struggling, and he was switched back to forward. 35 games after that, he had 12 G, 17 A and 29 P, and the team record was 9-20-10. He was switched back to defence, and stayed there for the final 41 games. During that time, his scoring stats were 12 G, 39 A, 51 P, and the team went 18-14-9 and made the playoffs.

Howe missed 6 games in there somewhere and I'm not sure when. Any help with that is appreciated. If that came while he was playing forward, that partially explains his and the team's underwhelming performance, but there's no doubt that he was much better while playing defence in the second half of the season.

From Jan 12, 1980 (when he moved back to the blueline for good) up to Dec 26, 1980 (the day before he crashed into the net,) Mark Howe's team played 76 regular season games. Howe scored 25 goals, 69 assists, and 94 points during that stretch. 1980 was a very good year for Mark Howe until disaster struck in the final week.

Even if he had played his entire WHA career at D, I would put Howe 1st in this round.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Seems to be the story of his career from junior onwards. Maybe Jay B has something to do with the teams being bad.

Sure Jay B hasn't developed into the star that many predicted but look at those Florida and Calgary teams they are poorly constructed and aside from a generational talent like Lidstrom, no Dman in the league could have changed those teams fortunes very much IMO

At least he hasn't sucked in the playoffs yet :laugh

One does wonder when he will ever play a playoff game, going into the season he has 635 games without a playoff game and is signed through to 2014 and probably won't see one in Calgary by then.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Votes received from: Canadiens1958; Dennis Bonvie; Der Kaiser; Hockey Outsider; intylerwetrust; MXD; overpass; pappyline; reckoning; seventieslord; TheDevilMadeMe; tony D;

Need Votes from: BiLLYShOE1721; chaosrevolver; DaveG; Dreakmur; Epsilon; Hardyvan123; Hawkey Town 18; JaysCyYoung; McNuts; tarheelhockey; VanIslander

 

[Hardyvan123]

Votes received from: Canadiens1958; Dennis Bonvie; Der Kaiser; Hockey Outsider; intylerwetrust; MXD; overpass; pappyline; reckoning; seventieslord; TheDevilMadeMe; tony D;

Need Votes from: BiLLYShOE1721; chaosrevolver; DaveG; Dreakmur; Epsilon; Hardyvan123; Hawkey Town 18; JaysCyYoung; McNuts; tarheelhockey; VanIslander

Mulling over my list, after Howe it gets harder than I thought it would be.