Last time I was very, very lucky to win... at least I felt that way. This time, wearing the red,white and blue jerseys I see a team that will not allow itself to lose.
Forgive me if I sound stupid, but honestly, I think this series is just as close, or possibly closer than our last one. Although I still feel that the Jets were the better team, I'm biased. You pulled out some wicked arguments, that were all very convincing.
I agree there is a gap, but it will impact lots. Patrick was a rushing defenseman, and parlayed that playing style into a successful coaching career. He loved wide-open hockey, and Regina has the horses to make that work. Patrick is going to love having Bourne, Cournoyer, Coffey, and St. Louis on his squad, to say nothing of Nighbor, Howe, Nesterenko, Marshall, Patrick, Mantha, and Mortson. This team can outright fly, and he knows how to use them.
I think our team suits the styles of Demers/Ruff too. But even with that considered, I don't believe it does much. Although for sure, you have a team that is very suited to its coach.
I think I've got the better defensemen too. I think it is a big advantage at #1, moderate at #2, and big from 3 through 6. That's what I get for picking my 6th defenseman in round 13. Schoenfeld is also the only one who was not a puck-mover, too. the transition game is going to be ridiculous. At the same time, despite all these guys being good with the puck, only Coffey was known as a liability defensively. As well all know, history has overblown this, and Patrick, like Sather, is a coach that knows how to use Coffey.
Disagreed...big time. I'd say you're really underrating Hap Day, Doug Wilson and Ted Green. Most of all, Hap Day. Although he is one our second pairing, I'd say he's our second best defensemen; we took him over Mantha for a reason. I won't even bother arguing Coffey against any of my guys, because I'd be blabbering lies, but I don't think your top pairing is much better than ours. The way I look at it, Langway has a distinct advantage in defensive play over Mantha. Coffey is an elite puckmoving defensemen, in the mold of a current day Sergei Zubov or Mike Green (if you remember from last time, I use my current-day player analogies a lot). I'd say Doug Wilson is a tier or so below, say, a Tomas Kaberle (this is a series thread, naming undrafted players here is okay, I hope).
Anyways, I'll pull out numbers later, but I think our defense from 2-4 is just as good as yours. The bottom pairing, you have a distinct advantage, although, like you say, that's too be expected since you rounded your defense our early.
Dare to dream, Arnold..... Dare to dream.
I think Rayner's an elite backup too, but in all honesty he won't see any action, nor will Ranford.
Agreed. It definitely won't have any affect on the series, I'm sure we'll both agree with.
I have Sawchuk 5th-6th on my list of goalies and Benedict 9th-11th. So yes, Sawchuk is a better goalie overall, it could be argued that Benedict has a more solid playoff resume. Unfortunately with Benedict it is impossible to quote sv% numbers to really show how he elevated his play, but his GAA dropped from 2.44 in the regular season (counting NHL and NHA) to 2.20 in the playoffs - a 10% drop. Sawchuk's goes up 1% - from 2.51 to 2.54. In both eras, scoring levels dropped in the playoffs.
Both have had two Smythe-worthy performances. Sawchuk in 52 and 54, Benedict in 26 and 28. Actually, he wasn't too shabby in 23 either.
The thing about Sawchuk is, aside from his two excellent performances early on, he was very underwhelming in the playoffs for the rest of his career after the demise of Detroit's dynasty. He was just 26-33 (.441) in the playoffs, even though he was on decent teams - 248-247-107 (.500) in the regular season. Career-wise, both players see the same drop in their win% from the regular season to the playoffs - Sawchuk from .562 to .529 and Benedict from .584 to .536, drops of 6% and 8%, respectively, which is not bad considering most win%'s of great goalies go down in the playoffs because they are only playing good teams.
I have lots on sawchuk's save% and shots against in the playoffs throughout his career, but it's much too late tonight to talk about that. Not that the numbers show him to be bad - just not a game-stealer or anything.
In the end, most people will consider Sawchuk an advantage for you, no matter what numbers I dig up. And goaltending was the most important thing last series.
I'm interested to see what you pull out. Will discuss this when you come up with those numbers.
Definitely am going to point out though, there should be no doubt that goaltending is and will play a huge part in this series; and both teams have solid goaltenders, because the advantage of Sawchuk over Benedict isn't tremendous, but IMO, bigger than your trying to make it out to be.
Let's put that on the Thursday backburner. I'd love to go over the offensive depth and the regular season and playoff accomplishments of our players. I'm not going to say for sure who I think has the edge... actually, whoever does, I think it has to be slim.
All right. I'll start off things, I guess, and I'll focus mostly on our team, rather than criticizing the weakness of your team.
-Jaromir Jagr is in my honest opinion, the best offensive player out of both teams. I've seen everything you've argued in favour of Lalonde, the physical dimension, the leadership and so on. Purely from an offensive standpoint though, I like Jagr, quite easily. Looking at your post on Lalonde, I'd say Jagr's numbers back this up. Although I'm sure everyone is aware of all of this, here are the stats:
* Stanley Cup Winner - 1991, 1992
* Hart Trophy (MVP) - 1999
^Finalist: 1995, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006
* Art Ross Trophy - 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001
* Lester B. Pearson Award - 1999, 2000, 2006
* NHL First Team All-Star - 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2006
* NHL Second Team All-Star - 1997
* NHL All-Rookie Team - 1991
-Norm Ullman is THE perfect linemate for JJ. The guy played with Lindsay and Howe; he definitely knows how to to feed pucks to a supreme offensive talent, while also being able to score when Jagr decides to feed him. Ullman had 16 seasons out of his 20 year NHL career of 20 or more goals, and topped the 30 goal mark five times, most notably in 64-65 when he led the league with 42, and missed the scoring title by four points, losing to Stan Mikita. That same season, he was voted a first team AS. Finished top-10 in points eight times. Most importantly, he was renowned for his two-way play and forechecking, which will open up room for Jagr and Reg Noble, big time. Legends of Hockey also says he was a tremendous faceoff man, which can't be anything but helpful for us, and harder for Regina to defend against.
-Dale Hawerchuk>Pete Mahovlich. As simple as that. Actually, while our first lines are fairly close, with the advantage going to you, I'd say my second line is a lot, lot better, mainly because of Hawerchuk. In fact, I'm going to go as far as saying your team may lack secondary scoring.
Although it was in the high-scoring 80's, Hawerchuk had 5 consecutive seasons of over 100 points - 8 of over 90. He only had less than a PPG in two seasons of his career; and both those seasons he was riddled with minor injuries.
Here are Hawerchuk's credentials:
# Rookie-of-the-Year (QMJHL) Winner (1980)
# Playoff MVP (QMJHL) (1980)
# QMJHL Championships (1980 & 1981)
# Memorial Cup Championships (1980 & 1981)
# Memorial Cup All-Star First Team (1980 & 1981)
# QMJHL Scoring Champion (1981)
# QMJHL First Team All-Star (1981)
# QMJHL Player of Year (1981)
# QMJHL MVP (1981)
# Memorial Cup MVP (1981)
# Canadian Major-Junior Player of Year (1981)
# Played in NHL All-Star game 5 Times
# Calder Memorial Trophy Winner (1982)
# World Championships Bronze Medalists (1982 & 1986)
# World Championships Silver Medalist (1989)
# NHL Second Team All-Star Centre (1985)
# Canada Cup Championships (1987 & 1991)
# Inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 2001
Compared to the fleet footed Mahovlich, who outside of two incredible seasons, was extremely average.
As for the rest of the line, meh, I think that comparison alone says a lot. I like Syd Howe, I had him in my first draft. I would say he's a better version of Martin, with improved defensive play. Vaive I like better than Recchi, because I like that he provides more than one dimension. While Vaive doesn't have the offensive numbers that Recchi does, he provides a lot of toughness, and can open up room for Hawerchuk and Martin. I actually think our second line is kinda similar to the French Connection for Martin, as Hawerchuk and Perreault aren't very different IMO, while Vaive is basically a grittier, more physical, and better offensively version of Robert (yes, that sounds weird, and I think I'm starting to kind of blabber to myself)
I agree, you've got 3 or 4. But we've got six who can play with your forwards too!
All
7 of our guys can play with any of your guys!
Coffey, as I mentioned, is the only potential liability, but when he always has the puck he won't have to worry about defending.
Pfft. At least you don't have him on the PK.
We can certainly analyze the defense more later too. But, a quick note about defense from the forwards. I have it in spades. Really, the worst defensive forward I see on my team is Lalonde, and that is only by default because I know nothing about his defensive game. Second worst would probably be Recchi, who is a really good two-way player, and third...... god, I don't even know who I'd name. These guys all have the speed to go hard both ways so they can effectively play Patrick's system while being as defensively responsible as that allows.
Mahovlich definitely stands out. Guys like St.Louis and Bourne, while not at all terrible defensively, in an ATD context, can not be commended for their "defensive play".
You've got a few of those good gritty, corner guys. Like Corson and Peplinski. But these are not defensive guys, just tough, hard workers. Primeau's reputation as a shutdown player was short lived (although he did come by this reputation honestly later in his career). Ullman was a two-way forward but wouldn't have been challenging for the Selke either. No one on your 2nd line likes to backcheck all that much, nor does Jagr. Noble spent time on D so he has to be a good backchecker. Overall, though, there are some holes in that wall. None in mine.
For real? Disagreed, big time. Ullman from what I'm reading would've easily been in consideration for a Selke or two. Above his offensive numbers, he was the middle man of Lindsay and Howe for the one year, and with Howe for a few after that, and while it's unlikely the opposition ever had the puck against those three, from what I've understood, Ullman was just as two-way as Lindsay and Hower during that season, his second in the league, and I don't think his defensive game went anywhere but up after that, along with his offensive game.
As a matter a fact, Punch Imlach, who from what I hear, hated weak one-dimensional players, said Ullman was the best center he ever coached. So it doesn't matter that Jagr won't be the most avid backchecker, the other two will cover for that just fine.
The second line, Vaive was a fairly tenacious forechecker, I think. he was definitely physical, so I'd imagine he'd be a capable forechecker, although you said no one on this line particularly liked it, so if your claiming Vaive floated at times, I'm going to have to look for stuff against that, if you have something to back up your own claim.
The fourth line was built as a scrappy line with a bunch of guys who aren't defensive liabilities, and can provide a bit of offense. Mostly though, yes, this is a grit line, and a pretty good one if I do say so myself, as this line is loaded with some of my personal favourites.
Your D is very good defensively, but as far as forwards go, not so much. They're going to have to do what they're best at, and that's score. As such, the offensive analysis will be interesting to work on - I look forward to it.
I given some offensive analysis, and I'm going to disagree for now that my forwards are weak defensively. Interested in hearing why you claim the "weakness" of my forwards in their own zone, although I've provided some stuff above.
Your checking line is awesome, though - one of the best in the league. Winnipeg is one of the very few teams that I would hesitate to say has an inferior checking line to mine.
I think it could be called a wash. I'm definitely taking it as that until we get into things more. Part of the reason this line was built this way is after I found out you wanted Luce and Ramsay.
You got that right.
As for physicality, that is another thing we can revisit. There is a lot to go over still. Way to go, you made me stay up over an hour longer than I wanted to!
Looking forward to it.
I've spent the better part of the last two hours doing this, when I only planned on looking at this for about 20 monutes!
)
