2019 OPPF divisional semi-final: Montreal Wanderers vs. Pittsburgh Professionals
- Thread starter VanIslander
- Start date
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Wanderers
PP1: Lindsay - Gretzky - Conacher - Leetch - Harvey
PP2: Krutov - Trottier - Martinec - Boucher - Pilote
PK1: Kesler - Trottier - Harvey - Foote - Parent
PK2: Northcott - Schmidt - Boucher -Pilote - Parent
vs.
Professionals
PP1: Hull - Crosby - Richard - MacInnis - Zubov
PP2: Tkachuk - Forsberg - Malone - Bentley - Fetisov
PK1: Madden - Alfredsson - Fetisov - Horton - Brimsek
PK2: Howe - Bourne - Schoenfeld - Johnson - Brimsek
PP1: Lindsay - Gretzky - Conacher - Leetch - Harvey
PP2: Krutov - Trottier - Martinec - Boucher - Pilote
PK1: Kesler - Trottier - Harvey - Foote - Parent
PK2: Northcott - Schmidt - Boucher -Pilote - Parent
vs.
Professionals
PP1: Hull - Crosby - Richard - MacInnis - Zubov
PP2: Tkachuk - Forsberg - Malone - Bentley - Fetisov
PK1: Madden - Alfredsson - Fetisov - Horton - Brimsek
PK2: Howe - Bourne - Schoenfeld - Johnson - Brimsek
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Good luck to @BenchBrawl For a guy who got "scooped" often you put together a FANTASTIC team.
Coaching Advantage = Solid Advantage to Pittsburgh
-Blake is pretty much thought of as 1st or 2nd best all time. He's the most versatile coach ever. Sather is a solid coach here but is over matched. Both teams fit what the coaches want to do IMO, I just think Blake is obviously better and has more flexibility with the roster.
Forward Advantage = Solid advantage to Montreal
-As much as I like my top line, Montreal has the best scoring line in the league. It's a unit that will score quite a bit of goals, against anyone, short of having Harvey-Orr-Roy or something ridiculous. I think the one critique of Montreal's top scoring line is they are suspect defensively overall. Gretzky is pretty close to a black hole in that regard and Conacher wasn't thought of as a back checker at all and the Leafs were porous defensively during his time there. There isn't much on Lindsay in this regard but he's not going to cover up the other 2. Either way the Wanderers enjoy a solid advantage here.
I actually think Pittsburgh wins the 2nd line. Trottier>Forsberg because of durability more than anything. But I certainly like Hull and Bentley over Martinec and Krutov. Pittsburgh has the best sniper between the 2 lines. Both units are solid defensively, gritty, have C's that can fore check. Both units seem to be tremendously balanced, although I really like the Prof's fit. Bentley's great speed and reputation as a great 2 way player allows Forsberg to do what he does best and that's engage physically. Hull plays extremely well off Forsberg's heavily slanted passing abilities.
The depth down the middle for Montreal is an advantage, although I think Pittsburgh has a slight advantage on the wings, in overall ability top to bottom and positional flexibility.
Both F groups have a great blend of speed, grit, checking ability. I do think Montreal's bottom 6 is a bit on the slow side overall.
I think the coolest back and forth will be from the many strong playoff performers on both teams. For Montreal you have the greatest playoff performer of all time in Gretzky, with Harvey being elite defensively and good secondary gamers in Trottier, Foyston, Schmidt and Leetch. But Pittsburgh can counter with Richard who's elite, Crosby and Forsberg who are certainly both top 20 players in this arena, Fetisov who I think should rank very highly given his resume on the international stage for the USSR. Hull was a gamer, Bourne was a stud for the Islander dynasty, MacInnis was a Smythe winner. There could be a lot of fireworks from both teams.
Defensive Advantage = Wash
-I think it would be easy to automatically give the nod to Montreal when looking at the top pair because of Harvey but I think, if any gap exists, it's a small one. While Harvey is certainly superior to Fetisov, Slava is one of the few defensemen all time who is balanced enough not to give away a big advantage going either way. I certainly think Fetisov is superior offensively and the best offensive player on either pairing.
The reason I have this as a very small gap, like our first round match up, the opponent features a top pairing where one player is weaker defensively. While Leetch isn't a black hole like Coffey was in the last round, I think he's easily the weakest defender on either unit. Fetisov-Horton is just so damn good no matter where they are or what they're going to be asked to do. Leetch-Harvey is a great fit from a stylistic standpoint but Harvey is going to have to carry the defensive burden far more than Horton will have to on Pittsburgh's side.
The 2nd pairing features 2 players that I have relatively close all time. Pilote and MacInnis. I think Pilote is slightly better as a regular season player (His Norris record is slightly overrated as it came between Harvey and Orr) whereas MacInnis faced much tougher peers along the blueline in the 80's/90's. But MacInnis is a superior postseason player in my book. Just more meat on his resume there.
But again, which unit is going to give up more defensively? I think Montreal will. Pilote and Mac are a wash defensively but Ching Johnson outclasses Boucher comfortably in that regard IMO.
I think Pittsburgh enjoys a comfortable advantage on the bottom pairing. I don't really see either of Gio or Foote as viable starters in a 12 team league here.
I absolutely believe that on the blueline, top to bottom, Pittsburgh is a stronger defensive group.
Not to mention, the Pittsburgh defense enjoys a comfortable advantage in the physicality department as well. Pittsburgh's defenders are less prone to wilting under forechecking pressures from Montreal.
Also, I wanted to point out that all my defenders in the top 4 are on their strong side (LH-RH on 1st pair, LH-RH on 2nd pair) whereas Montreal has 4 left handed shots in the top 4. Pitt is actually LH-RH on all 3 pairs.
Goalie Advantage = Solid advantage to Pittsburgh
-Brimsek gives Pitt a solid advantage in net. Bernie Parent gets all of his accolades from two seasons and the mileage he gets with voters is to much IMO. You strip those away and he's not even a MLD level goaltender. Seriously, look at his career. It is more or less fodder minus the 2 Cup and Smythe runs. While that's a great peak, is it even really a true peak? 2 years is not enough to make me feel comfortable when talking about a 12 team league where talent is more condensed.
Brimsek has more postseason AS nods than any goalie not named Glenn Hall. He was stellar as a postseason player for Boston more than once (like Parent was for Philly). In fact his rookie season in 38-39 is one of the all time underapreciated years in league history among goalies. First team AS, Vezina (even though it meant least amount of goals given up he was still easily the best goalie in the NHL), Calder, Cup winner and almost surely the Smythe winner had the award existed then. Brimsek simply put has way more meat on his resume, mainly in the regular season and I don't think gives up anything to Parent as a postseason player either.
I think Brimsek is ranked properly around 9th all time but Parent is slightly overrated at 17th all time (in the old goalie project). Players with such pedestrian careers beyond 2 years really shouldn't be near somebody like a Belfour for example. Just my opinion.
Special Teams Advantage = Slight advantage to Pittsburgh because of the PK
-The power play unit for both squads is elite. I think Pitt clearly enjoys a goal scoring advantage with Richard, Hull and MacInnis up top, but with Gretzky and Harvey Montreal has better facilitators than Sid and Zubov. Both groups have strong depth on the PP as well although Fetisov, Malone and Forsberg are more explosive offensively IMO than Trots, Martinec and Pilote. Plus Tkachuk is a beast near the net for Pittsburgh. Either way, again, I think both teams have stellar PP groups and one side doesn't really stand out from the other.
Pittsburgh is better on the kill because of our defensemen and we have a stronger goalie. Harvey is the cream of the crop but Foote is very weak for a 1st team killer. Fetisov-Horton is lights out defensively, and physically speaking elite as well. Good luck getting near the net for rebounds or general commotion against those 2 not to mention Ching Johnson and Schoenfeld on the second unit. Madden is the best PK forward on either unit and I don't think any of Alfredsson, Howe or Bourne are out of place in their roles. Boucher and Pilote on the penalty kill in a 12 team league? I'm sorry but that's pretty weak. There is just no way to argue that Harvey-Foote and Boucher-Pilote is close to Fetisov-Horton and Schoenfeld-Johnson from a pure PK perspective.
Overall:
-I think this is an extremely close match up overall. Obviously I think Pittsburgh enjoys enough of an advantage behind the bench, in net and is every bit as good as Montreal defensively (Pitt is the deeper unit IMO when you look at the 3 pairs) to get the win but I certainly don't expect to get the W here going against Gretzky and Harvey. Hoping this at least goes 7 because I do think Pitt and Montreal are very close in overall ability/fit.
Coaching Advantage = Solid Advantage to Pittsburgh
-Blake is pretty much thought of as 1st or 2nd best all time. He's the most versatile coach ever. Sather is a solid coach here but is over matched. Both teams fit what the coaches want to do IMO, I just think Blake is obviously better and has more flexibility with the roster.
Forward Advantage = Solid advantage to Montreal
-As much as I like my top line, Montreal has the best scoring line in the league. It's a unit that will score quite a bit of goals, against anyone, short of having Harvey-Orr-Roy or something ridiculous. I think the one critique of Montreal's top scoring line is they are suspect defensively overall. Gretzky is pretty close to a black hole in that regard and Conacher wasn't thought of as a back checker at all and the Leafs were porous defensively during his time there. There isn't much on Lindsay in this regard but he's not going to cover up the other 2. Either way the Wanderers enjoy a solid advantage here.
I actually think Pittsburgh wins the 2nd line. Trottier>Forsberg because of durability more than anything. But I certainly like Hull and Bentley over Martinec and Krutov. Pittsburgh has the best sniper between the 2 lines. Both units are solid defensively, gritty, have C's that can fore check. Both units seem to be tremendously balanced, although I really like the Prof's fit. Bentley's great speed and reputation as a great 2 way player allows Forsberg to do what he does best and that's engage physically. Hull plays extremely well off Forsberg's heavily slanted passing abilities.
The depth down the middle for Montreal is an advantage, although I think Pittsburgh has a slight advantage on the wings, in overall ability top to bottom and positional flexibility.
Both F groups have a great blend of speed, grit, checking ability. I do think Montreal's bottom 6 is a bit on the slow side overall.
I think the coolest back and forth will be from the many strong playoff performers on both teams. For Montreal you have the greatest playoff performer of all time in Gretzky, with Harvey being elite defensively and good secondary gamers in Trottier, Foyston, Schmidt and Leetch. But Pittsburgh can counter with Richard who's elite, Crosby and Forsberg who are certainly both top 20 players in this arena, Fetisov who I think should rank very highly given his resume on the international stage for the USSR. Hull was a gamer, Bourne was a stud for the Islander dynasty, MacInnis was a Smythe winner. There could be a lot of fireworks from both teams.
Defensive Advantage = Wash
-I think it would be easy to automatically give the nod to Montreal when looking at the top pair because of Harvey but I think, if any gap exists, it's a small one. While Harvey is certainly superior to Fetisov, Slava is one of the few defensemen all time who is balanced enough not to give away a big advantage going either way. I certainly think Fetisov is superior offensively and the best offensive player on either pairing.
The reason I have this as a very small gap, like our first round match up, the opponent features a top pairing where one player is weaker defensively. While Leetch isn't a black hole like Coffey was in the last round, I think he's easily the weakest defender on either unit. Fetisov-Horton is just so damn good no matter where they are or what they're going to be asked to do. Leetch-Harvey is a great fit from a stylistic standpoint but Harvey is going to have to carry the defensive burden far more than Horton will have to on Pittsburgh's side.
The 2nd pairing features 2 players that I have relatively close all time. Pilote and MacInnis. I think Pilote is slightly better as a regular season player (His Norris record is slightly overrated as it came between Harvey and Orr) whereas MacInnis faced much tougher peers along the blueline in the 80's/90's. But MacInnis is a superior postseason player in my book. Just more meat on his resume there.
But again, which unit is going to give up more defensively? I think Montreal will. Pilote and Mac are a wash defensively but Ching Johnson outclasses Boucher comfortably in that regard IMO.
I think Pittsburgh enjoys a comfortable advantage on the bottom pairing. I don't really see either of Gio or Foote as viable starters in a 12 team league here.
I absolutely believe that on the blueline, top to bottom, Pittsburgh is a stronger defensive group.
Not to mention, the Pittsburgh defense enjoys a comfortable advantage in the physicality department as well. Pittsburgh's defenders are less prone to wilting under forechecking pressures from Montreal.
Also, I wanted to point out that all my defenders in the top 4 are on their strong side (LH-RH on 1st pair, LH-RH on 2nd pair) whereas Montreal has 4 left handed shots in the top 4. Pitt is actually LH-RH on all 3 pairs.
Goalie Advantage = Solid advantage to Pittsburgh
-Brimsek gives Pitt a solid advantage in net. Bernie Parent gets all of his accolades from two seasons and the mileage he gets with voters is to much IMO. You strip those away and he's not even a MLD level goaltender. Seriously, look at his career. It is more or less fodder minus the 2 Cup and Smythe runs. While that's a great peak, is it even really a true peak? 2 years is not enough to make me feel comfortable when talking about a 12 team league where talent is more condensed.
Brimsek has more postseason AS nods than any goalie not named Glenn Hall. He was stellar as a postseason player for Boston more than once (like Parent was for Philly). In fact his rookie season in 38-39 is one of the all time underapreciated years in league history among goalies. First team AS, Vezina (even though it meant least amount of goals given up he was still easily the best goalie in the NHL), Calder, Cup winner and almost surely the Smythe winner had the award existed then. Brimsek simply put has way more meat on his resume, mainly in the regular season and I don't think gives up anything to Parent as a postseason player either.
I think Brimsek is ranked properly around 9th all time but Parent is slightly overrated at 17th all time (in the old goalie project). Players with such pedestrian careers beyond 2 years really shouldn't be near somebody like a Belfour for example. Just my opinion.
Special Teams Advantage = Slight advantage to Pittsburgh because of the PK
-The power play unit for both squads is elite. I think Pitt clearly enjoys a goal scoring advantage with Richard, Hull and MacInnis up top, but with Gretzky and Harvey Montreal has better facilitators than Sid and Zubov. Both groups have strong depth on the PP as well although Fetisov, Malone and Forsberg are more explosive offensively IMO than Trots, Martinec and Pilote. Plus Tkachuk is a beast near the net for Pittsburgh. Either way, again, I think both teams have stellar PP groups and one side doesn't really stand out from the other.
Pittsburgh is better on the kill because of our defensemen and we have a stronger goalie. Harvey is the cream of the crop but Foote is very weak for a 1st team killer. Fetisov-Horton is lights out defensively, and physically speaking elite as well. Good luck getting near the net for rebounds or general commotion against those 2 not to mention Ching Johnson and Schoenfeld on the second unit. Madden is the best PK forward on either unit and I don't think any of Alfredsson, Howe or Bourne are out of place in their roles. Boucher and Pilote on the penalty kill in a 12 team league? I'm sorry but that's pretty weak. There is just no way to argue that Harvey-Foote and Boucher-Pilote is close to Fetisov-Horton and Schoenfeld-Johnson from a pure PK perspective.
Overall:
-I think this is an extremely close match up overall. Obviously I think Pittsburgh enjoys enough of an advantage behind the bench, in net and is every bit as good as Montreal defensively (Pitt is the deeper unit IMO when you look at the 3 pairs) to get the win but I certainly don't expect to get the W here going against Gretzky and Harvey. Hoping this at least goes 7 because I do think Pitt and Montreal are very close in overall ability/fit.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Pittsburgh will also make a few lineup changes.
Jim Malone will switch with Doug Bentley.
-Bentley is a stronger defensive player so I want him manning the 3C and Malone jumps into a scoring line role to bolster the top 6 scoring.
Keith Tkachuk drops to the 4th line for Claude Giroux.
-There is plenty of toughness and checking ability (both ways) now with Bentley and Alfredsson on the 3rd line so Giroux help increase the offensive ability/output.
-Tkachuk dropping to the 4th line really adds a couple of things. Heavy fore check, will still maintain solid offense relative to Giroux, and a mean streak to an already formidable unit with Madden and Bourne.
Syd Howe - Sidney Crosby (C) - Maurice Richard
Joe Malone - Peter Forsberg - Brett Hull
Claude Giroux - Doug Bentley - Daniel Alfredsson (A)
Keith Tkachuk - John Madden - Bob Bourne
Slava Fetisov - Tim Horton (A)
Ching Johnson - Al MacInnis
Jim Schoenfeld - Sergei Zubov
Frank Brimsek
Braden Holtby
Jim Malone will switch with Doug Bentley.
-Bentley is a stronger defensive player so I want him manning the 3C and Malone jumps into a scoring line role to bolster the top 6 scoring.
Keith Tkachuk drops to the 4th line for Claude Giroux.
-There is plenty of toughness and checking ability (both ways) now with Bentley and Alfredsson on the 3rd line so Giroux help increase the offensive ability/output.
-Tkachuk dropping to the 4th line really adds a couple of things. Heavy fore check, will still maintain solid offense relative to Giroux, and a mean streak to an already formidable unit with Madden and Bourne.
Syd Howe - Sidney Crosby (C) - Maurice Richard
Joe Malone - Peter Forsberg - Brett Hull
Claude Giroux - Doug Bentley - Daniel Alfredsson (A)
Keith Tkachuk - John Madden - Bob Bourne
Slava Fetisov - Tim Horton (A)
Ching Johnson - Al MacInnis
Jim Schoenfeld - Sergei Zubov
Frank Brimsek
Braden Holtby
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
I have people over for dinner so I'll respond to some points quickly. Will probably add more thoughts tomorrow or tuesday.
Thanks and likewise for you.
I don't feel this is fair. Yeah, Toe Blake is a better coach than Glen Sather, but he's not a better coach than Glen Sather if you're coaching a team reminiscient of the 1980s Edmonton Oilers, since Sather proved his worth with that type of team. I wouldn't trade Sather for Blake to coach my team.
I have an onslaught of offensive talent on my blueline to support Gretzky, Trottier as the "Messier-like" 2nd line center, Leetch as the "Coffey-like" defenseman on the 1st pairing, but even Harvey, Pilote and Boucher are Top 15 offensive defensemen of all-time.
I feel I succeeded in recreating an ''1980s Oilers-like'' team to sufficient extent that Sather is significantly bonified coaching that team.
I mean... maybe? Let's not underestimate the advantage Trottier has over Forsberg who was made of glass. I don't think Hull & Bentley are that much better than Martinec & Krutov. This seems pretty close, and with Trottier, our lines are at worst equal but I'd probably take mine. Problem is what happens to Brett Hull's efficiency if(read when) he loses Forsberg? Martinec and Krutov are better all-around offensive players.
MacInnis is a Smythe winner but is that more impressive than what Pilote did in 1961? And you forgot to include two extraordinary playoff performers on my team in Bernie Parent and Georges Boucher. Not to mention you go so far as to include Bob Bourne, but then let's just include Ted Lindsay for me. I know Lindsay wasn't the best playoff performer, but certainly he's better than Bob Bourne?! Or maybe Baldy Northcott, who played great and led the playoffs in goals when the Maroons won the cup? Or Adam Foote? Let's just go down to Ryan Kesler who was excellent for Vancouver while we're at it
Just that your choice of players to enumerate seemed pretty random and borderline misleading.
A lot of crazy stuff going on in this wall of text. Yeah, if we assume that the gap between Harvey and Fetisov is not that big after all, and you know for all matters and purpose let's just posit Pilote = MacInnis (while we're at it !), let's overfocus on defense and ignore offense (even though my team is clearly build as a 1980s Oilers replica and possesses four of the Top 15 offensive defensemen of all-time with none of them being bad defensively !), then yeah, I mean in that case it's a wash.
I want to point out that all of my defensemen are also on their strong side. Harvey played primarily on the right side once Bouchard retired. Leetch played on the left side. Pilote on the right side and G.Boucher on the left side with both Gerard, Hitchman and Clancy.
Why is Foote very weak for a 1st unit PK?
Why are Boucher and Pilote pretty weak for a 2nd PK unit? I feel like they are fairly strong.
I have another advantage concerning my PP (but not on the actual PP), in that my 1st and 2nd PP units correspond exactly to my 1st and 2nd ES units. The lines and pairings don't change from ES to PP. Even on the PK there's no difficulty for Sather to operate it once the man-disadvantage ends because there's no mixing of 1st and 2nd ES unit players.
Thanks and likewise for you.
I don't feel this is fair. Yeah, Toe Blake is a better coach than Glen Sather, but he's not a better coach than Glen Sather if you're coaching a team reminiscient of the 1980s Edmonton Oilers, since Sather proved his worth with that type of team. I wouldn't trade Sather for Blake to coach my team.
I have an onslaught of offensive talent on my blueline to support Gretzky, Trottier as the "Messier-like" 2nd line center, Leetch as the "Coffey-like" defenseman on the 1st pairing, but even Harvey, Pilote and Boucher are Top 15 offensive defensemen of all-time.
I feel I succeeded in recreating an ''1980s Oilers-like'' team to sufficient extent that Sather is significantly bonified coaching that team.
I mean... maybe? Let's not underestimate the advantage Trottier has over Forsberg who was made of glass. I don't think Hull & Bentley are that much better than Martinec & Krutov. This seems pretty close, and with Trottier, our lines are at worst equal but I'd probably take mine. Problem is what happens to Brett Hull's efficiency if(read when) he loses Forsberg? Martinec and Krutov are better all-around offensive players.
MacInnis is a Smythe winner but is that more impressive than what Pilote did in 1961? And you forgot to include two extraordinary playoff performers on my team in Bernie Parent and Georges Boucher. Not to mention you go so far as to include Bob Bourne, but then let's just include Ted Lindsay for me. I know Lindsay wasn't the best playoff performer, but certainly he's better than Bob Bourne?! Or maybe Baldy Northcott, who played great and led the playoffs in goals when the Maroons won the cup? Or Adam Foote? Let's just go down to Ryan Kesler who was excellent for Vancouver while we're at it
Just that your choice of players to enumerate seemed pretty random and borderline misleading.
A lot of crazy stuff going on in this wall of text. Yeah, if we assume that the gap between Harvey and Fetisov is not that big after all, and you know for all matters and purpose let's just posit Pilote = MacInnis (while we're at it !), let's overfocus on defense and ignore offense (even though my team is clearly build as a 1980s Oilers replica and possesses four of the Top 15 offensive defensemen of all-time with none of them being bad defensively !), then yeah, I mean in that case it's a wash.
I want to point out that all of my defensemen are also on their strong side. Harvey played primarily on the right side once Bouchard retired. Leetch played on the left side. Pilote on the right side and G.Boucher on the left side with both Gerard, Hitchman and Clancy.
Why is Foote very weak for a 1st unit PK?
Why are Boucher and Pilote pretty weak for a 2nd PK unit? I feel like they are fairly strong.
I have another advantage concerning my PP (but not on the actual PP), in that my 1st and 2nd PP units correspond exactly to my 1st and 2nd ES units. The lines and pairings don't change from ES to PP. Even on the PK there's no difficulty for Sather to operate it once the man-disadvantage ends because there's no mixing of 1st and 2nd ES unit players.
Last edited:
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I have people over for dinner so I'll respond to some points quickly. Will probably add more thoughts tomorrow or tuesday.
Thanks and likewise for you.
(1) I don't feel this is fair. Yeah, Toe Blake is a better coach than Glen Sather, but he's not a better coach than Glen Sather if you're coaching a team reminiscient of the 1980s Edmonton Oilers, since Sather proved his worth with that type of team. I wouldn't trade Sather for Blake to coach my team.
I have an onslaught of offensive talent on my blueline to support Gretzky, Trottier as the "Messier-like" 2nd line center, Leetch as the "Coffey-like" defenseman on the 1st pairing, but even Harvey, Pilote and Boucher are Top 15 offensive defensemen of all-time.
I feel I succeeded in recreating an ''1980s Oilers-like'' team to sufficient extent that Sather is significantly bonified coaching that team.
(2) I mean... maybe? Let's not underestimate the advantage Trottier has over Forsberg who was made of glass. I don't think Hull & Bentley are that much better than Martinec & Krutov. This seems pretty close, and with Trottier, our lines are at worst equal but I'd probably take mine. Problem is what happens to Brett Hull's efficiency if(read when) he loses Forsberg? Martinec and Krutov are better all-around offensive players.
(3) MacInnis is a Smythe winner but is that more impressive than what Pilote did in 1961? And you forgot to include two extraordinary playoff performers on my team in Bernie Parent and Georges Boucher. Not to mention you go so far as to include Bob Bourne, but then let's just include Ted Lindsay for me. I know Lindsay wasn't the best playoff performer, but certainly he's better than Bob Bourne?! Or maybe Baldy Northcott, who played great and led the playoffs in goals when the Maroons won the cup? Or Adam Foote? Let's just go down to Ryan Kesler who was excellent for Vancouver while we're at it
Just that your choice of players to enumerate seemed pretty random and borderline misleading.
(4) A lot of crazy stuff going on in this wall of text. Yeah, if we assume that the gap between Harvey and Fetisov is not that big after all, and you know for all matters and purpose let's just posit Pilote = MacInnis (while we're at it !), let's overfocus on defense and ignore offense (even though my team is clearly build as a 1980s Oilers replica and possesses four of the Top 15 offensive defensemen of all-time with none of them being bad defensively !), then yeah, I mean in that case it's a wash.
I want to point out that all of my defensemen are also on their strong side. Harvey played primarily on the right side once Bouchard retired. Leetch played on the left side. Pilote on the right side and G.Boucher on the left side with both Gerard, Hitchman and Clancy.
(5) Why is Foote very weak for a 1st unit PK?
Why are Boucher and Pilote pretty weak for a 2nd PK unit? I feel like they are fairly strong.
I have another advantage concerning my PP (but not on the actual PP), in that my 1st and 2nd PP units correspond exactly to my 1st and 2nd ES units. The lines and pairings don't change from ES to PP. Even on the PK there's no difficulty for Sather to operate it once the man-disadvantage ends because there's no mixing of 1st and 2nd ES unit players.
1st Bolded Part:
-Like, I said, I think Glen Sather is a great fit for your team.
But is mine not a Toe Blake wet dream?
He gets Maurice Richard, which is probably the most important coach-player relationship ever. He gets a player similar in many ways to Jean Beliveau (great leaders with similar all time resumes) with Crosby. Pittsbugh has very similar goal scoring depth the 50's Habs dynasty (Hull is much like Geoffrion to compliment Richard).
Blake enjoys strong glue guys on each of his wings with strong 2 way depth down the middle at C. Has numerous players who can flex all over the place, and we know Blake was a proponent of being able to do that. Versatility. Pittsburgh has that in spades. You have superstars up front, numerous glue guys, strong 2 way play up and down the lineup.
Defensively, like those mid to late 50's Habs, Blake has Fetisov to play a similar role to Harvey. Fetisov was considered the best defensemen in the world by many at his peak. Fetisov can do anything that Harvey can as far as deployability (good high, good music). I simply think Harvey is one of the great defensive dman (honestly he's probably #1) and is still also well above average offensively. But where I think Montreal is better as an offensive duo on the top pair, Pittsburgh is clearly better defensively speaking. I absolutely think less will break past a Fetisov-Horton pairing than Leetch-Harvey (Leetch is going to see A LOT of Richard and Hull. I like my chances there).
And if I want my defensive pairing to have an advantage I'd want it to be defensively, especially with the offensive talent our teams have up front.
The same thing is true of the 2nd pairing and 3rd. Boucher-Pilote is better offensively than Johnson-MacInnis but it's also going to be more prone to getting beat IMO.
Same thing with the bottom pairing. Giordano, IMO, looks well out of place here. I think Pittsburgh simply enjoys a deeper half dozen dmen.
I'm not claiming Pittsburgh has any real advantage with the defensemen, but I think I've illustrated that I'm clearly on par, at least, top to bottom.
2nd Bolded Part:
-The injury thing has to be taken lightly here no? Especially since we didn't draft spares and obviously aren't going to play a man short over the course of a series. With that being said, as I opened with, Pittsburgh is ery flexible. There are all sorts of options I can go with. I could move Joe Malone up to the 2nd line, flip Howe, Bentley or Giroux there from LW as well.
And I certainly agree Trottier is better than Forsberg. They are similar players overall (both uber physical, both clutch players, both strong defensively, both playmakers, though Forsberg was more creative and Trottier the better goal scorer). Not to mention, Trottier was used to having Mike Bossy, a winger who was more of a sniper, north south. Martinec, is more of a puck on his stick, creative wizard. Forsberg has an elite sniper who plays much more of a cycle game, which suits Forsberg perfectly. I think Hull is at least a half step above Martinec here because of fit and overall resume, and there is zero doubt in my mind that Malone is a full notch better than Krutov. .
I absolutely think Pittsburgh has a solid enough advantage on both wings to make up the difference at C.
3rd Bolded Part:
-I wasn't misleading at all. Gretzky, as a I said is the best playoff performer (I have him #2 behind Roy but whatever) ever. Harvey is elite as well. Trottier made the top 25 of the all time playoff performers list. Foyston took the last top 40 spot. Leetch is certainly above average. Same with Martinec and Krutov. Obiously Parent had the 2 legendary runs with Philly but as I critiqued, fairly IMO, is that 2 years is not enough of a resume to feel good about in a 12 team league like this. IMO. Parent has essentially nothing of note beyond 74 and 75.
Is Lindsay really THAT much better than Bourne in the playoffs? Bourne was a STUD for 4 consecutive years for one of the all time great dynasties in sports history. I drafted him in the 1st year I ever participated because I thought he was really undervalued as a bottom 6 glue guy, with some hidden offensive pop when he's surrounded by high end talent, and strong playoff showings. He scored 74 points in 74 games across 4 years of Islander titles. He had 5 shorthanded goals (at least 1 each year), 4 game winners. Bourne could really play anywhere in the lineup. He was a strong shadow, elite, elite skater. Good checker. Just the ultimate utility man. Obviously, Lindsay is MILES better as a hockey player but in the playoffs, that gap is minimal IMO.
Pittsburgh has it's own mega elite postseason guy in Richard. Crosby is easily a top 20 player now all time after the back to back Cups/Smythes. Forsberg is just inside that top 20 line. Brett Hull can't be terribly far outside the top 40. I absolutely believe Fetisov would be ranked very highly if the top playoff performer listed had included non NHL players. Fetisov's international record for that group is arguably the greatest ever.
I think you have 2 guys that are average to below average postseason players on the 1st line alone in Lindsay and Conacher.
Where is Pittsburgh's short comings in the top 6 from a big game standpoint? Malone who moved up to the 2nd line LW was very strong in his 3 SC challenge games. Steller in 1919. Didn't have a ton of chances but generally played above the mean. Howe, is probably a lot like Lindsay in all honesty. I just think in the top 4 Pittsburgh has a bit more clutch. Schmidt and Foyston obviously give you a nice leg up in the bottom 6 though.
Defensively Harvey is a legend in the playoffs, but honestly, is Fetisov not in that tier? If he's not, he's darn close. I think Leetch and Horton are in similar places (Leetch with peak, Horton with longevity on Cup winners). Mac and Pilote are both close. Same with Boucher and Johnson. Zubov>Foote.
4th Bolded Part:
-Harvey is usually ranked in the 5-8 range all time and I'm more than comfortable with that. But Fetisov is a bordline top 20 player who is equally strong offensively and defensively. I think he's one of the few defensemen all time without much of a gap from one side of the spectrum to the other in that regard. He controlled the pace of a game much like Harvey. I think Horton is a full notch better than Leetch. He came in 30+ places above Leetch in the recently completed top 100 project, for reference sake. There is less of a gap between Pilote and MacInnis. And I certainly think Johnson is a touch better than Boucher. As I said before, depth matters. I like Pittsburgh's bottom pair more than Montreal's.
Plus, again, I don't see Leetch as anything more than an average defensive player at ES. I don't have that problem with Fetisov-Horton. Now, MacInnis falls into the same camp as Pilote, objectively speaking but Johnson>Boucher defending at ES.
Leetch, Boucher, Gio are going to have Richard, Hull and Alfredsson coming down their sides.
I don't think there is anything crazy with that analysis. I think it's accurate and more than a fair assessment.
5th Bolded Part:
-Foote doesn't belong on a 1st team PK unit here IMO. His usage is good enough I think, but it's not like the units he manned were better than average at defending on the PK. In a 20+ team league, sure, but he seems light in this tournament. He's just over his head against a lot of the players that will be manning PP units, including guys like Crosby, Richard, Hull, Forsber, Mac, Fetisov, etc. Pilote played a decent amount on the kill, but again he's not somebody that's going to give you strong returns there IMO. He probably won't kill you but compared to Fetisov/Horton-Schoenfeld/Johnson Pittsburgh simply has a better group of defensemen on the kill based on talent, reputation or cold hard numbers. And lastly I really like how physical the Pittsburgh group is. Not only are my 4 defensemen on the kill great or elite defensively, they can bang at a high level. You're going to have a real tough time getting shots through, people to the net, etc.
Special teams roles - 1960-2017
As for Sather having an easier time rolling lines out, especially between special teams and ES? I actually think that benefits Pittsburgh in multiple ways.
First, you're predictable. Toe Blake will know exactly what you're doing before you do. If you want to keep things simple, you're playing right into the brilliance of Blake. The chess master.
Secondly, Blake having the ability to flex players all over the lineup, W to C and C to W mirrors what he was about in real life. He was a grand master at mixing and matching lines until the right fits were found and you need the right kind of versatile players to pull that off. Pittsburgh accomplishes that.
Last edited:
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Food for thought:
Red Army is about a lot of things, but the respectful rivalry between Gretzky and Fetisov nicely encapsulates them. Gretzky considers Fetisov the best defenseman he ever played against, along with Islanders great Denis Potvin. “Slava could skate sideways and backwards as fast as I could skate forward,” says Gretzky
Fetisov head to head against Gretzky is a very close matchup when looking at their real life encounters.
1. Fetisov won gold against Wayne in the 81 Canada Cup. Both played fantastically.
2. Fetisov won gold against Wayne at the 82 WC's. Fetisov was named to the AS team and best defensemen. Wayne made the AS team.
3. Gretzky and Canada beat out Fetisov and the Soviets in the 87 Canada Cup. Gretzky had a legendary performance. MVP of the tournament although Fetisov was on the AS team.
Consider Fetisov scored 146 points in 143 senior games between 1977 and and 1996. His teams won a ridiculous 10 gold medals over 17 tournaments, never placing lower than 3rd.
Fetisov and teammate Igor Larionov, along with Scott Niedermayer, Corey Perry, Joe Sakic, Patrice Bergeron, Sidney Crosby, and Jonathan Toews are the only players to win the "Grand Slam of Ice Hockey", winning the Stanley Cup, World Ice Hockey Champions, Ice Hockey at the Winter Olympics, World Ice Hockey Junior Championship, and Canada/World Cup Championship.
Red Army is about a lot of things, but the respectful rivalry between Gretzky and Fetisov nicely encapsulates them. Gretzky considers Fetisov the best defenseman he ever played against, along with Islanders great Denis Potvin. “Slava could skate sideways and backwards as fast as I could skate forward,” says Gretzky
Fetisov head to head against Gretzky is a very close matchup when looking at their real life encounters.
1. Fetisov won gold against Wayne in the 81 Canada Cup. Both played fantastically.
2. Fetisov won gold against Wayne at the 82 WC's. Fetisov was named to the AS team and best defensemen. Wayne made the AS team.
3. Gretzky and Canada beat out Fetisov and the Soviets in the 87 Canada Cup. Gretzky had a legendary performance. MVP of the tournament although Fetisov was on the AS team.
Consider Fetisov scored 146 points in 143 senior games between 1977 and and 1996. His teams won a ridiculous 10 gold medals over 17 tournaments, never placing lower than 3rd.
Fetisov and teammate Igor Larionov, along with Scott Niedermayer, Corey Perry, Joe Sakic, Patrice Bergeron, Sidney Crosby, and Jonathan Toews are the only players to win the "Grand Slam of Ice Hockey", winning the Stanley Cup, World Ice Hockey Champions, Ice Hockey at the Winter Olympics, World Ice Hockey Junior Championship, and Canada/World Cup Championship.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
A couple of other observations:
1. Gretzky played his best hockey when he had an elite defensive winger in Kurri to cover up for his heavily slanted offensive focus. Montreal doesn't posses that here. In fact, Conacher (and his Leaf teams) were pretty bad defensively speaking. I don't think Lindsay is anything more than an average defensive player at this level so who is going to play the role of Kurri here? As I said before, this is a line that will score goals. Nobody will deny that. But I think they're going to give up a good many going the other way.
2. Montreal is built much like the 80's Oilers, which I agree, makes a lot of sense when you have 99 and Sather as HC. But is Bernie Parent a goalie you want to leave on an island to face the counter attacks that will come here? In a 12 team league, Bernie is over his head IMO.
1. Gretzky played his best hockey when he had an elite defensive winger in Kurri to cover up for his heavily slanted offensive focus. Montreal doesn't posses that here. In fact, Conacher (and his Leaf teams) were pretty bad defensively speaking. I don't think Lindsay is anything more than an average defensive player at this level so who is going to play the role of Kurri here? As I said before, this is a line that will score goals. Nobody will deny that. But I think they're going to give up a good many going the other way.
2. Montreal is built much like the 80's Oilers, which I agree, makes a lot of sense when you have 99 and Sather as HC. But is Bernie Parent a goalie you want to leave on an island to face the counter attacks that will come here? In a 12 team league, Bernie is over his head IMO.
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 48,759
- 29,265
I think your causation is off on Gretzky. Gretzky's best seasons were with solid defensive wingers, but I dont think it was necessarily because of the defensive wingers.
Agreed on Parent though.
Agreed on Parent though.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I think Gretzky's best seasons were with an elite defensive winger because said elite defensive winger allowed Wayne to freelance and be an offensive wizard.
If you take that away, you, at least to some degree force him to alter his play or give up more chances against if he refuses to.
That's not to say Gretzky isn't going to score a boatload of points with a defensive winger like Kurri. But will he be as effective?
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
If Gretzky had played with a Bourque, Lidstrom, Roy, Hasek instead of Lowe, Coffey, Fuhr, Moog... he wouldn't have needed an excellent defensive winger.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
You're conflating defensive responsibilities of F's and Dmen.
Glen Sather's Oilers were a run and gun team. It specifically required a certain partner for Gretzky to be most effective. Unless Harvey is going to play wing and D at the same time, you're minimizing the importance of having a defensive conscious on a line with 99.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
*Sigh*
Who is conflating?
Backchecking and forechecking and transition game.
They are three different things.
You talk about a run-and-gun offense when we were talking about the need for a defensive winger (let's not conflate with checking).
Edmonton did not play a wing lock like Bowman designed. Nor an aggressive forecheck like Burns preached.
Tikkanen and Kurri were excellent at breaking up scoring attempts, something an elite dman or goalie could have done more often than Coffey or Fuhr ever could maintain.
"A great defenseman covers up a multitude of sins."
Who is conflating?
Backchecking and forechecking and transition game.
They are three different things.
You talk about a run-and-gun offense when we were talking about the need for a defensive winger (let's not conflate with checking).
Edmonton did not play a wing lock like Bowman designed. Nor an aggressive forecheck like Burns preached.
Tikkanen and Kurri were excellent at breaking up scoring attempts, something an elite dman or goalie could have done more often than Coffey or Fuhr ever could maintain.
"A great defenseman covers up a multitude of sins."
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
In a run and gun system, why would you want to waste some of Harvey's ability covering up for the lackadaisical defensive efforts of a particular player or line.
Harvey is already going to be covering up for some of Leetch's ventures offensively. Should we expect him to do the same for Gretzky and Conacher?
ChiTownPhilly
Not Too Soft
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
In a 12 team league Bernie Parent is a stable backup.
#OGAmerican!! (Brimsek for the folks in the balcony)
Seriously, this is one of the best matchups I've been in to date. BB always builds a high end squad.
#OGAmerican!! (Brimsek for the folks in the balcony)
Seriously, this is one of the best matchups I've been in to date. BB always builds a high end squad.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
Sorry but it's been a busy week for me, even missed starting the voting process. Will try to comment on some things quickly later.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
This series could have gone either way.
A true Game 7 OT match up.
(IMO... A slight edge to coach Blake, Brimsek Mr. Zero and MacInnis on the powerplay. Slight.)
A true Game 7 OT match up.
(IMO... A slight edge to coach Blake, Brimsek Mr. Zero and MacInnis on the powerplay. Slight.)
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Yeah that was a fun matchup. Honestly, I didn't expect to win but felt the advantage behind the bench and in net was just enough to tilt it in my favor.
BB put together a great team. Always a pleasure to battle with you sir.
BB put together a great team. Always a pleasure to battle with you sir.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
Good game and good luck forward IE. Sorry for not being there as much as this would have deserved.
ChiTownPhilly
Not Too Soft
@BenchBrawl : If the quality of your arguments had equalled the quality of your drafting...
Ultimately, I decided to stand down, as I conceded the point that it was the responsibility of the collective GMs to defend their players from refutable assertions such as this:
The contention that Parent was a two-season wonder- torpedoed
One more thing, BB- I took note of your HoH Prelim List- you had Parent scrape into position 120... but your voting patterns showed that after discussion, you moved him around some players that you'd ranked higher- and (from my view)- if you had your list to do over again, he'd probably be be comfortably in your top-100. So, some points such as mine, above, AND @Hockey Outsider
sending whatever remained of the Parent-libel beneath-the-waves
must have found some traction with you.
Of course, all this is old-hat, and is as done-and-dusted as the precious attempts to re-litigate Gretzky v. Orr (when we put Orr behind BOTH Gretzky AND Howe) taking place in the 'top-100' main-thread. What's new to me, though, is the assertion that Brimsek doesn't give anything up to Parent in the post-season. First time I've heard THAT one. So... I looked at the "Retro-Smythe" projects [I have lists for both of them] to see if there was anything I missed. No- didn't think so. Both projects pegged Cowley for the first Cup and Schmidt for the second Cup. As a reminder, both of Parent's Finals victories were achieved against the flow-of-play... the first one famously so.
And if I even get started on the "Charlie Conacher-was-a-defensive-nullity" slander...
Ultimately, I decided to stand down, as I conceded the point that it was the responsibility of the collective GMs to defend their players from refutable assertions such as this:
The contention that Parent was a two-season wonder- torpedoed
One more thing, BB- I took note of your HoH Prelim List- you had Parent scrape into position 120... but your voting patterns showed that after discussion, you moved him around some players that you'd ranked higher- and (from my view)- if you had your list to do over again, he'd probably be be comfortably in your top-100. So, some points such as mine, above, AND @Hockey Outsider
sending whatever remained of the Parent-libel beneath-the-waves
must have found some traction with you.
Of course, all this is old-hat, and is as done-and-dusted as the precious attempts to re-litigate Gretzky v. Orr (when we put Orr behind BOTH Gretzky AND Howe) taking place in the 'top-100' main-thread. What's new to me, though, is the assertion that Brimsek doesn't give anything up to Parent in the post-season. First time I've heard THAT one. So... I looked at the "Retro-Smythe" projects [I have lists for both of them] to see if there was anything I missed. No- didn't think so. Both projects pegged Cowley for the first Cup and Schmidt for the second Cup. As a reminder, both of Parent's Finals victories were achieved against the flow-of-play... the first one famously so.
And if I even get started on the "Charlie Conacher-was-a-defensive-nullity" slander...
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
No amount of mental gymnastics or fancy number crunch can move the needle on Parent being, IN AN ALL TIME SENSE, a 2 year wonder.
I appreciate your knowledge CTP. Truly, I do. It's obvious you have a rich and long understanding of hockey and have seen players that many of us did not, in real time.
However, pertaining to Parent.
He has no AS accolades beyond 74 and 75. In fact he's no where near an AS level goal in ANY season beyond 74 and 75. Someone might point to 1977 when he went 35-13-12 but his save % was below average (11th out of 19 starters). His goals against were slightly better at 7th.
Do I really need to point out how many goalies have more than 2 postseason AS nods all time or more than 2 Vezina quality season? And you think he's worthy of top 100 discussion? No. I'm sorry but I'm assuming (possibly incorrectly) that you're a Flyers fan and thus losing some objectivity here. It happens and I think that's exactly what's going on here.
Parent, very important to note, was not a workhorse goalie either. His career is littered with missed games, and seasons where with sub 60 games played. In fact, he started/played in 60 or more games just 4 times. That's incredibly weak for a goalie you're trying to argue among the 100 greatest ever or on par with somebody like Brimsek, who was actually a workhorse, was a consistent top goalie in the league almost every single year he played.
Taking away 74 and 75 Parent won 180 games. He lost 171. He was a sub .900 goalie 4 times outside of 74/75. As I said, injuries, missed games, average play abound. Beyond 74/75 the only meaningful stat he ever led the league in was SO's in 78, with 7.
Beyond 74/75 Parent was NEVER higher than 3rd in save % across the league.
There is no way you can say a guy who went 180-171, with pedestrian numbers across the board was anything more than an average player, not only in the league at the time, but certainly in an all time sense. It's not like he was playing on horrendous teams with nobody of note in front of him.
And lastly, no, his 2 year peak was not the greatest 730 days of goal tending. Dom Hasek's back to back Hart years, IMO, on an average Buffalo team is easily the benchmark for short peak goaltending.
I appreciate your knowledge CTP. Truly, I do. It's obvious you have a rich and long understanding of hockey and have seen players that many of us did not, in real time.
However, pertaining to Parent.
He has no AS accolades beyond 74 and 75. In fact he's no where near an AS level goal in ANY season beyond 74 and 75. Someone might point to 1977 when he went 35-13-12 but his save % was below average (11th out of 19 starters). His goals against were slightly better at 7th.
Do I really need to point out how many goalies have more than 2 postseason AS nods all time or more than 2 Vezina quality season? And you think he's worthy of top 100 discussion? No. I'm sorry but I'm assuming (possibly incorrectly) that you're a Flyers fan and thus losing some objectivity here. It happens and I think that's exactly what's going on here.
Parent, very important to note, was not a workhorse goalie either. His career is littered with missed games, and seasons where with sub 60 games played. In fact, he started/played in 60 or more games just 4 times. That's incredibly weak for a goalie you're trying to argue among the 100 greatest ever or on par with somebody like Brimsek, who was actually a workhorse, was a consistent top goalie in the league almost every single year he played.
Taking away 74 and 75 Parent won 180 games. He lost 171. He was a sub .900 goalie 4 times outside of 74/75. As I said, injuries, missed games, average play abound. Beyond 74/75 the only meaningful stat he ever led the league in was SO's in 78, with 7.
Beyond 74/75 Parent was NEVER higher than 3rd in save % across the league.
There is no way you can say a guy who went 180-171, with pedestrian numbers across the board was anything more than an average player, not only in the league at the time, but certainly in an all time sense. It's not like he was playing on horrendous teams with nobody of note in front of him.
And lastly, no, his 2 year peak was not the greatest 730 days of goal tending. Dom Hasek's back to back Hart years, IMO, on an average Buffalo team is easily the benchmark for short peak goaltending.
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: WCQF- Game 3 Vancouver Canuck @ Nashville Predators 4/26 6:30PM CT- Latest: Sergei Shirokov
-
-
Upcoming events
-
-
Game 3 Edmonton Oilers @ Los Angeles Kings - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 13Staked: $17,782.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Series Winner Edmonton Oilers vs Los Angeles Kings - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 6Staked: $3,487.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
-