The Montagu Allan Division Final: Regina Capitals vs. Cornwall Royals

[VanIslander]

Montagu Allan divisional final:


Regina Capitals

coach Eddie Gerard

Nikolai Drozdetsky - Craig Janney - Keith Crowder
Billy Gilmour - Bill Hay (A) - Jiri Lala
Don Maloney - Mike Ridley - Charlie Sands
Jim Peplinski - Orest Kindrachuk (A) - Dimitri Khristich

Paul Shmyr (C) - Adrian Aucoin
Dave Ellett - Barry Gibbs
Dave Manson - Kim Johnsson

Pete Peeters
Charlie Hodge


vs.


Cornwall Royals

coach Dave King

Nick Mikoski – Anze Kopitar – Dustin Brown
Herb Cain – Mike Ribeiro – Grant Warwick
Vincent Lukac – Jozef Golonka – Ulf Dahlen
Dutch Hiller - Todd Marchant – Alex Burrows

Alexei Zhitnik – John van Boxmeer
Tomas Kaberle – Scott Hannan
Billy Coutu – Mario Marois

Seth Martin
Cam Ward


​

Click to read more...

 

[VanIslander]

Post your special teams, any of your extra skaters you might want to sub-in in this series, links to bio or any other information.

The format of the first post is standardized for easy, clean, equal comparison, both teams viewable without having to scroll down.

The first seed versus second seed.

Have a good series!

 

[VanIslander]

This series could go either way.

Seth Martin and Jiri Lala are the x-factors for each team given their limited competition against the best of their era. Both are 2nd team all stars in MLD 2013. Both were top-3 stars in their first round series.

 

[Dreakmur]

I'm more interested in a Lala vs. Lukac comparison

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm more interested in a Lala vs. Lukac comparison

IIRC, they are close domestically with perhaps even a small edge for Lukac, but internationally, it's a blowout for Lala. For whatever reason, Lukac never really did much in international tournaments.

 

[Dreakmur]

IIRC, they are close domestically with perhaps even a small edge for Lukac, but internationally, it's a blowout for Lala. For whatever reason, Lukac never really did much in international tournaments.

Lala blows Lukac out of the water in World Championships only. Lukac actually performed better at both the Olympics and Canada Cups. If you combine all of their top-level international games (Olympics, Canada Cups, and World Championships), Lukac has 41 points in 53 games, and Lala has 62 points in 72 games.

Lala did have a few really dominant tournaments, which got him all-star recognition, and that is something that Lukac was never able to do. Lukac was able to be very consistently productive though, and his offensive output isn't all that far behind Lala.

 

[VanIslander]

Add to that the fact that Lukac is on the third line (not second) and hence not pressured to put up top-6 type numbers, plus he's playing with Golonka, and the result is: whatever advantage Lala had disappears.

 

[seventieslord]

My apologies for not giving this serious more attention until today. My highly esteemed opponent deserves better. Tonight it's on!

 

[seventieslord]

Unfortunately I don't have time for a more nuanced comparison and will have to stick to the old comparisons of lines and pairings.

Dreakmur, best of luck to you. The last time we were in the same series it was as teammates and we kicked ***** and took names. In this draft I've seen an even greater level of intellectual honesty in your arguments than usual and it's always welcomed.

Dreakmur has stated repeatedly that his line is a matchup line and not a typical first line. That much is clear, from looking at the personnel. I realize that this line defies the usual type of comparison, but I'm going to try anyway. In a matchup situation, it's all too easy to say "my line is good defensively, therefore it will shut your line down" and the opposite also has to be true: "your line has no firepower and will still not outscore mine". So isn't it true that the line with the most overall talent should come out on top in the end?

At center there's no question that my opponents have the better player. Offensively, it's not a huge edge, but there's an edge (0.99 to 0.90 APPG though Janney's maintained his over 40% more games as of now). Defensively, Kopitar is proven to be better, so there's little argument for Janney being the better overall player.

Similarly, on the right side I don't see an argument for Brown being better than Crowder. He's not a major offensive threat and would never lead his line or team in scoring like Crowder did. Despite being a "motor always running" type player just like Crowder who hits everything, he lacks the size to actually intimidate on a regular basis, which Crowder was able to do. Defensively, I see no reason to choose one over the other.

on the left side, Drozdetsky and Mickoski couldn't be more difficult to compare, considering when and where they played. It's probably safe to say that Drozdetsky has a significant edge in offensive ability (though Mickoski is a capable finisher himself) and Mickoski has a good edge in intangibles (they may be a tad overstated but they are at least documented unlike Droz, who's an unknown). Considering we're talking about scoring lines here, and considering Mickoski seems to provide less of what his line needed in its third member than Droz does, I'm gonna have to take Droz. YMMV.

In the end this line is a matter of personal preference. Over a seven game series, if they were matched up, I really doubt that either line would end up better than +1.

 

[seventieslord]

Second lines might be even more difficult to compare.

At center I have no doubt that Hay is a much better player than Ribeiro. Ribeiro may have done a little maturing lately, but overall in his career he has been a rather one-dimensional, selfish player. Hay did everything very well, and has percentage scores that stack up well with Ribeiro's after accounting for him being a pre-expansion player. How to handle that is up to the individual, but Hay is pretty clearly the best pre-expansion center in this draft, and Ribeiro is at least behind Kopitar, Apps, Janney, Savard, lacroix, and Pederson, so unless there were 7+ post expansion centers better than the best pre-expansion centers here, it's a safe bet Hay is better.

Lala and Cain deserve to be compared more than RW-to-RW. Both are offense-only players for all we know. I made the point earlier that being considered a top-3 European player for a period of five years is a lot more than a lot of European forwards in the ATD can even say (Mogilny, Bondra, Palffy, Yakushev and on and on and on...). With Cain, we have a perfectly good idea of where he stands in his generation and his ATD/MLD draft position reflects this. Jiri Lala's draft position is still "developing" as the case for him builds. Still, at this point it seems to be generally accepted that he's at least a good player for this point, with a potential upside MUCH higher. Cain is also a good player for this point, without a doubt, but he's not on the rise, either. Take that for what you will. (the way I take it, Lala is "almost certainly" "a lot" better than Cain, but taken literally that still means he "could" be "no better" than Cain, too.)

Gilmour vs. Warwick is interesting. Warwick is an old favourite of mine; I've had him twice before and he's finally getting rated properly. In fact, maybe an ATD 4th line role is in his future if people get over his size; it's too bad his defensive game isn't established. Warwick is quite obviously a better goalscorer than Gilmour and Gilmour is an Alex Steen type: a possession player who does everything well (except finish) but nothing elite. That's about the best that we can say with any certainty. Although an early player being in the HHOF is no guarantee that he is better than a very good non-HHOF NHLer, I should note that Gilmour was inducted into the hall by people who still remembered him, and of course Warwick doesn't really have a shot. What made him good? Even that is tough to say. Quotes rave about his "skills" and that he was "good" and a "star". All we can conclude for sure is that he was a great player, but not for his goal scoring skills.

Both players add some needed grit to their respective lines. The comparison hurts my head, to be honest, and it doesn't make a difference when Regina's two other players are already better. Our second line should be considered the better one.

 

[seventieslord]

I can't really say anything bad about Golonka or Ridley. Golonka was my next choice for 3rd line center and I wanted him on my 4th. If I got him, this series isn't even worth talking about - I like Golonka that much. The only question about Golonka is what his upside in the NHL would exactly be, but considering I've had him as a top line player in the MLD (yes, in a draft that started at pick #1001) I have to admit I see him as a potential team-leading player in his era. Whatever gap exists here, it ain't worth talking about.

Clearly these lines are built differently, because mine was built to play both ways and Cornwall's appears to be more for offense. It's pretty safe to say that Lukac is a better offensive player than Don Maloney, but Maloney brings a lot that, to our knowledge, Lukac doesn't. Dahlen is a solid player but I'm not sure if he's better than Sands at anything except his very well established play along the boards.Sands' defensive game is not the most ironclad case ever, but I do think he's got the edge in that regard as well. Dahlen never killed penalties, and it's debatable whether he was of any value defensively at even strength either. This is from 1991-92 Hockey Scouting report, the first I opened up:

"Dahlen is in and out of the lineup because of his inconsistent play, but he always seems to come back strong after a benching... has good size but doesn't always play to it. was criticized this season for being a 198 pound player in a 208 pound body. He is not a very aggressive player except in pursuit of the puck - meaning he doesn't play as well as he should without it. Dahlen has to be judged by harsher standards because of his capabilities. He could become a tremendous two-way player but needs to develop a more forceful game."

Further up in the page, his strength along the boards is raved about, however, showing that this aspect of his game was appreciated early in his career, but it doesn't appear that he made a habit of using this skill to any defensive benefit.

Considering Lukac is the better scorer than Maloney the two wings can more or less offset, and our third lines are about even. One will excel more defensively, the other offensively.

 

[seventieslord]

we can come back to 4th lines later if we get the time, but safe to say we both did an excellent job of getting players who possess intangibles and the ability to create offense at even strength.

 

[seventieslord]

I am not sure a player-to-player comparison works with our two defense corps. But here's what I can see:

We each have a strict defensive specialist, a very underrated player who has often led his team in defensive minutes and is finally moving upwards in these drafts to where he belongs: Kim Johnsson and Scott Hannan. Hannan's the tougher of the two; Johnsson is the more skilled with the puck and technically better defensively. Johnsson appeared to drive his teams to better defensive results than Hannan did, but on the other hand, Hannan has performed this role for longer and has done so for teams that have gone further in the playoffs. There is no need to split hairs with these two.

We each have a "goon". In each player's case, though in this "all star" format he may be reduced to little more than a goon, in real life there is much reason to believe they were more than just goons. In Manson's case, he was a #1 defenseman twice, an all-star game participant twice, was once one of hockey's highest paid defensemen, and topped 50 points twice in an 1100 game NHL career. In Coutu's case... he played for a long time for teams that were generally good (3 games under .500 in total over his career but that's ruined by two horrible seasons, otherwise they were strong teams that made the most of their playoff opportunities - by 1927, his 38 top-level playoff games were likely 2nd all-time behind Foyston's 46 - can anyone confirm?) Also, there's the fact that in the days of 6-7 man hockey, could anyone have been a useless player compared to the others on the ice? There's no burying a terrible player in the lineup. That said, he was not good offensively and there's very little suggesting he was any good defensively compared to contemporaries. I think calling these two more or less equal is the way to go.

 

[seventieslord]

That leaves Shmyr, Aucoin, Ellett and Gibbs against Zhitnik, JVB, Kaberle and Marois.

There's a lot of depth in the lineup when you have a guy as good as Marois stuck on a 3rd pairing!

For all-around long term minute munchers, I think it's safe to call Aucoin and Zhitnik a wash. And I think I'm being very charitable in saying that, too. No one really ever called Zhitnik great defensively or a defensive specialist, but by 2002, that's exactly what they were calling Aucoin. Also, despite year after year of solid TOI numbers and point totals for a defensively oriented team, Zhitnik once earned a 4th place Norris vote, and that's it. Aucoin, in 2002 and 2004, finished 5th and 8th, and the 5th was with a quite significant fraction of the available votes, too.

Kaberle and Ellett, longtime Leaf puck movers, are two other fairly similar players. Looking at their career TOI profiles, they're almost identical. Kaberle appears to have outproduced Ellett by a reasonable margin, but Ellett was also better defensively and physically. not saying he was a beast but there was a lot written about his physical strength and how well he used it, and that was pretty much Tomas' downfall. These are two more players who reasonable people could agree wash out.

 

[seventieslord]

that leaves Gibbs and Shmyr vs. JVB and Marois.

Let's try Gibbs and Marois. Both were longtime NHL minute munchers. Both had reasonable offensive, defensive and physical abilities. Gibbs was over 25 minutes a game, but for teams 7% below average overall. If we cut off 1978, 1991 and 1992 to give Marois a similar career length, he played 22.4 minutes a game for teams that were exactly average.

So, what's better, 25.15 for teams 7% below, or 22.4 for teams that are average? I realize this is guesswork but I like Gibbs by that metric.

As even strength producers they are dead even. As PP producers, Marois is a touch ahead despite playing a touch less. Marois' teams did achieve better PK results and his 45% usage is not much off from Gibbs' 51%. On the other hand, marois doesn't have the distinction of ever anchoring an elite defensive team like Gibbs did for 3 and a half seasons.

Although I respect the defensive ability of just about anyone who regularly gets big minutes for decent teams and kills penalties, Marois appears to have been more valued for his offense than his defense. I grabbed a scouting report from 1986, halfway through his career, and here is what it says:

if you can't see the pic, here are the concerning parts:

"has a tendency to watch the puck too much, making him a little weak in one-on-one situations... those high levels of vision and puck movement are absent in the defensive zone... will give away the puck if pressured and that means blind passes or simple giveaways..." Contrast that to Gibbs, who was said to be "impossible to beat one on one".

I realize we don't have the benefit of the HSP guides for Gibbs' career to pick his game apart that much more in detail, so this is a little unfair and I don't mean to be. I think these are two more players that we could agree to wash out.

 

[seventieslord]

This leaves us with Shmyr and JVB.

Shmyr is quite clearly the 2nd best WHA defenseman ever. JVB was more of a PP specialist at the NHL level. He only averaged 21.7 minutes a game for 588 games, though he did play for pretty decent teams in that time (1.03). But really, there's no comparing these two. At 33, Shmyr was a WHA 1st team all-star. At 31, Van Boxmeer quickly lost his spot as an NHL regular. Shmyr's non-offense skills need no introduction at this point. In three Hockey Handbooks, the only thing I can find about JVB is in 1979, where it mentions, "better in opponent's end than he is in his own end". Anyway, there's no need to go any further here.

I think that Regina has the marginally better defense corps because after you deconstruct it all, you can see there's really only one major difference and that is between Shmyr and JVB.

In terms of specialized skill sets, I don't see either sextet being considerably greater in any area. Generally speaking, they're better offensively, we're better offensively and a tad tougher.

 

[seventieslord]

Goalies: Obviously I like Peeters, I took him fairly early in this draft. He's got a season where he's recognized as the best goalie (and 2nd MVP) in the NHL, a few more with norris/all-star support, and his numbers back up his continued greatness throughout the 1980s. I also really like that he was top-10 in sv% for three different teams. While it's probable Philadelphia made him look better than he was (as they did with everyone from 1980-1990), that this happened four times for three teams makes it look like he's nearly as much of a common thread with high save percentages as Philadelphia was.

Martin was really underrated, and is finally getting the recognition that none of us really realized he was due until lately. How much higher should he go? I can't really say. Was he NHL caliber? Certainly. Was he Vezina caliber? Probably not. But his era was tougher to win a goaltending award in than peeters' was. These two were 3rd/4th in MLD all-star voting with no numerical difference, so again this is pretty futile splitting hairs.

Coaches: Gerard seems destined to be a tweener: A bottom of the barrel ATD coach or a top-end MLD guy. The selection of King startled me, as he wasn't even on my radar for the MLD. But you did have your reasons for the pick, as you said before. How the coaching matchup looks will ultimately by up to the individual.

 

[seventieslord]

Send a volley back my way, and I'll be available to reply. Two more days off before I'm back at work!

 

[seventieslord]

Save percentages, 1980-1990, 300+ GP

Smith: .890
Hrudey: .888
Peeters: .886
Lemelin: .886
Moog: .886
Beaupre: .885
Vanbiesbrouck: .885
Meloche: .884
Liut: .884
Barrasso: .883
Hanlon: .882
Wamsley: .882
Fuhr: .882
Bouchard: .880
Edwards: .880
Riggin: .879
Resch: .877
Hayward: .876
Sauve: .874
Brodeur: .872
Millen: .872

 

[seventieslord]

Why Regina would win more than their share if we played this matchup over a million times:

1. Better second line.
2. Better defense corps, by one player, after deconstruction.
3. A better coach.

But that doesn't mean that in the 7 times the matchup is played, Cornwall couldn't win 4 times.

 

[Dreakmur]

Unfortunately I don't have time for a more nuanced comparison and will have to stick to the old comparisons of lines and pairings.

Dreakmur, best of luck to you. The last time we were in the same series it was as teammates and we kicked ***** and took names. In this draft I've seen an even greater level of intellectual honesty in your arguments than usual and it's always welcomed.

Dreakmur has stated repeatedly that his line is a matchup line and not a typical first line. That much is clear, from looking at the personnel. I realize that this line defies the usual type of comparison, but I'm going to try anyway. In a matchup situation, it's all too easy to say "my line is good defensively, therefore it will shut your line down" and the opposite also has to be true: "your line has no firepower and will still not outscore mine". So isn't it true that the line with the most overall talent should come out on top in the end?

At center there's no question that my opponents have the better player. Offensively, it's not a huge edge, but there's an edge (0.99 to 0.90 APPG though Janney's maintained his over 40% more games as of now). Defensively, Kopitar is proven to be better, so there's little argument for Janney being the better overall player.

Similarly, on the right side I don't see an argument for Brown being better than Crowder. He's not a major offensive threat and would never lead his line or team in scoring like Crowder did. Despite being a "motor always running" type player just like Crowder who hits everything, he lacks the size to actually intimidate on a regular basis, which Crowder was able to do. Defensively, I see no reason to choose one over the other.

on the left side, Drozdetsky and Mickoski couldn't be more difficult to compare, considering when and where they played. It's probably safe to say that Drozdetsky has a significant edge in offensive ability (though Mickoski is a capable finisher himself) and Mickoski has a good edge in intangibles (they may be a tad overstated but they are at least documented unlike Droz, who's an unknown). Considering we're talking about scoring lines here, and considering Mickoski seems to provide less of what his line needed in its third member than Droz does, I'm gonna have to take Droz. YMMV.

In the end this line is a matter of personal preference. Over a seven game series, if they were matched up, I really doubt that either line would end up better than +1.

Neither Brown nor Crowder are significant scoring threats, but Brown appears to have a very slight edge in offensive production (6 best seasons of 320 vs. 294). I would also take his defensive game over Crowder's. You are right that Brown is more of a pest than a power forward, so Crowder gets the edge there. Does that make him a better player? I don't think so, but I do see them as extremely close.

Droz is defiantly better than Mickoski as an overall player.

I do agree that your line does have the better talent on paper, and if you were to look at them and ignore match-ups, it would be a slightly better line. Having said that, there are other factors to go into how lines will match-up. Kopirar, with the size, strength, and determination advantage over Janney is just going to control the middle of the ice. I think that factor can increase Kopitar's edge over Janney, which could make these lines very close to a wash.

 

[Dreakmur]

Second lines might be even more difficult to compare.

At center I have no doubt that Hay is a much better player than Ribeiro. Ribeiro may have done a little maturing lately, but overall in his career he has been a rather one-dimensional, selfish player. Hay did everything very well, and has percentage scores that stack up well with Ribeiro's after accounting for him being a pre-expansion player. How to handle that is up to the individual, but Hay is pretty clearly the best pre-expansion center in this draft, and Ribeiro is at least behind Kopitar, Apps, Janney, Savard, lacroix, and Pederson, so unless there were 7+ post expansion centers better than the best pre-expansion centers here, it's a safe bet Hay is better.

Lala and Cain deserve to be compared more than RW-to-RW. Both are offense-only players for all we know. I made the point earlier that being considered a top-3 European player for a period of five years is a lot more than a lot of European forwards in the ATD can even say (Mogilny, Bondra, Palffy, Yakushev and on and on and on...). With Cain, we have a perfectly good idea of where he stands in his generation and his ATD/MLD draft position reflects this. Jiri Lala's draft position is still "developing" as the case for him builds. Still, at this point it seems to be generally accepted that he's at least a good player for this point, with a potential upside MUCH higher. Cain is also a good player for this point, without a doubt, but he's not on the rise, either. Take that for what you will. (the way I take it, Lala is "almost certainly" "a lot" better than Cain, but taken literally that still means he "could" be "no better" than Cain, too.)

Gilmour vs. Warwick is interesting. Warwick is an old favourite of mine; I've had him twice before and he's finally getting rated properly. In fact, maybe an ATD 4th line role is in his future if people get over his size; it's too bad his defensive game isn't established. Warwick is quite obviously a better goalscorer than Gilmour and Gilmour is an Alex Steen type: a possession player who does everything well (except finish) but nothing elite. That's about the best that we can say with any certainty. Although an early player being in the HHOF is no guarantee that he is better than a very good non-HHOF NHLer, I should note that Gilmour was inducted into the hall by people who still remembered him, and of course Warwick doesn't really have a shot. What made him good? Even that is tough to say. Quotes rave about his "skills" and that he was "good" and a "star". All we can conclude for sure is that he was a great player, but not for his goal scoring skills.

Both players add some needed grit to their respective lines. The comparison hurts my head, to be honest, and it doesn't make a difference when Regina's two other players are already better. Our second line should be considered the better one.

You can't honestly believe it is fair to look at Red Hay's numbers and give them a upward adjustment. The guy played his whole career with Bobby Hull on his wing. On the PP, he moved back to the point to play on a unit that included Hull, Stan Mikita, and Pierre Pilote. Pre- or post-expansion, a guy who played in that situation has significantly inflated offensive numbers.

The rest of Hay's game is very well-rounded. If I said he has similar intangibles to Anze Kopitar, would that be fair? He was a big, powerful guy, but didn't intimidate. He was consistently reliable defensively.

Ribeiro is one-dimensional, but that's why he landed on a second line. Is Craig Janney any better defensively or physically? I don't see it. I do, unfortunately, see the same kind of physical domination that I benefited from on the 1st lines - Hay is just going to outmuscle Ribeiro.

Did you really use the argument that since Lala might get drafted higher next time, he is a better player? What makes one player actually better than the other? Lala is one of the handful or wingers who could be considered elite scorers at this level - so is Cain.

Gilmour is a good glue guy, but his offensive game just doesn't stack up to Warwick's. Even after considering the war years, Warwick has 1st line offensive production, and that's even before taking into account hit power forward and glue guy talents. Clear edge for Warwick in my opinion.

 

[Dreakmur]

I can't really say anything bad about Golonka or Ridley. Golonka was my next choice for 3rd line center and I wanted him on my 4th. If I got him, this series isn't even worth talking about - I like Golonka that much. The only question about Golonka is what his upside in the NHL would exactly be, but considering I've had him as a top line player in the MLD (yes, in a draft that started at pick #1001) I have to admit I see him as a potential team-leading player in his era. Whatever gap exists here, it ain't worth talking about.

Clearly these lines are built differently, because mine was built to play both ways and Cornwall's appears to be more for offense. It's pretty safe to say that Lukac is a better offensive player than Don Maloney, but Maloney brings a lot that, to our knowledge, Lukac doesn't. Dahlen is a solid player but I'm not sure if he's better than Sands at anything except his very well established play along the boards.Sands' defensive game is not the most ironclad case ever, but I do think he's got the edge in that regard as well. Dahlen never killed penalties, and it's debatable whether he was of any value defensively at even strength either. This is from 1991-92 Hockey Scouting report, the first I opened up:

"Dahlen is in and out of the lineup because of his inconsistent play, but he always seems to come back strong after a benching... has good size but doesn't always play to it. was criticized this season for being a 198 pound player in a 208 pound body. He is not a very aggressive player except in pursuit of the puck - meaning he doesn't play as well as he should without it. Dahlen has to be judged by harsher standards because of his capabilities. He could become a tremendous two-way player but needs to develop a more forceful game."

Further up in the page, his strength along the boards is raved about, however, showing that this aspect of his game was appreciated early in his career, but it doesn't appear that he made a habit of using this skill to any defensive benefit.

Considering Lukac is the better scorer than Maloney the two wings can more or less offset, and our third lines are about even. One will excel more defensively, the other offensively.

You did the same thing as my last opponent...

1st line comparison - my line has more talent, so it wins
3rd line comparison - your line has more talent, but mine is a checking line, so it's even

 

[Dreakmur]

For all-around long term minute munchers, I think it's safe to call Aucoin and Zhitnik a wash. And I think I'm being very charitable in saying that, too. No one really ever called Zhitnik great defensively or a defensive specialist, but by 2002, that's exactly what they were calling Aucoin. Also, despite year after year of solid TOI numbers and point totals for a defensively oriented team, Zhitnik once earned a 4th place Norris vote, and that's it. Aucoin, in 2002 and 2004, finished 5th and 8th, and the 5th was with a quite significant fraction of the available votes, too.

As long-term minute munchers, Aucoin barely qualifies. He has 3 seasons as a #1 defenseman. Outside of those 3 years as an Islander, he was rarely even a top pairing guy, let alone a #1.

Zhitnik, on the other had, was his team's #1 defenseman at least 9 years in a row. No official ice time stats were calculated before 1998, but based on goals for and against statistics, Zhitnik was very likely his team's #1 in 1997 and 1996.

This definitely is not a wash - not even close in my opinion.

Kaberle and Ellett, longtime Leaf puck movers, are two other fairly similar players. Looking at their career TOI profiles, they're almost identical. Kaberle appears to have outproduced Ellett by a reasonable margin, but Ellett was also better defensively and physically. not saying he was a beast but there was a lot written about his physical strength and how well he used it, and that was pretty much Tomas' downfall. These are two more players who reasonable people could agree wash out.

Unless Ellett's defensive game is among the very best in this draft, I don't see how it washes away Kaberle's offensive edge. As shown before, Kaberle is by far the best offensive producer among blueliners here.

 

[Dreakmur]

As for coaching, I do agree that you definitely have a better coach on paper. I don't think Gerard is the borderline ATD coach that you seem to think he is, but he's definitely better than King (on paper). The thing with coaching is that is has a lot to do with chemistry. How does a coach fit his team. We specifically picked King because he fit out team so well. I'm not sure Gerard is best suited for the kind of players to you have.

The biggest question I see is Drozdetsky. He is one of the most talented players in the draft, but he is also a very lazy and selfish one. How is he going to fit into a system? How is he going to fit into a line that has Craig Janney running the offense?

I believe Gerard is a defense-first system coach (though I could be wrong), and if he is, how well do guys like Craig Janney and Jiri Lala fit in?