ATD #10 - Rene Lecavalier Semifinals: New Jersey Devils (2) vs. Rocket de Montreal (3

[papershoes]

New Jersey Devils
GM: BM67
Coach: Tommy Ivan

Bun Cook - Frank Boucher - Bill Cook (A)
Vladimir Krutov - Ted Kennedy (C) - Didier Pitre
Jack Walker - Mickey MacKay - Ace Bailey
Gordon Roberts - Vincent Lecavalier - Eddie Oatman (A)
extras: Ernie Russell, Erich Kühnhackl

Moose Johnson - Harry Cameron
Eddie Gerard - Edward Ivanov
Lloyd Cook - Art Duncan
extra: Bob Dailey

Glenn Hall
Al Rollins

Power play units:
PP1: Cook - Boucher - Cook - Oatman - Cameron
PP2: Krutov - Kennedy - Pitre - Cook - Duncan

Penalty killing units:
PK1: MacKay - Walker - Johnson - Gerard
PK2:Kennedy - Bailey - Ivanov - Cook


VS.


Rocket de Montreal
GM: God Bless Canada & raleh
Coach: Al Arbour

Alexander Ovechkin - Howie Morenz (A) - Bernie Geoffrion (C)
Busher Jackson - Joe Primeau - Tod Sloan
Dick Duff - Rick MacLeish - Jerry Toppazzini
Keith Tkachuk - Red Sullivan - John McKenzie
extras: Art Chapman, Peter McNab

Serge Savard (A) - Jimmy Thomson
Wally Stanowski - Moose Vasko
Jimmy Watson - Behn Wilson
extra: Joe Watson

Gump Worsley
Hugh Lehman

Power play units:
PP1: Ovechkin - Morenz - Sloan - Geoffrion - Thomson
PP2: Jackson - Primeau - MacLeish - Savard - Vasko

Penalty killing units:
PK1: Duff - MacLeish - Watson - Vasko
PK2: Toppazzini - Primeau - Savard - Stanowski​

Click to read more...

 

[God Bless Canada]

I knew from the start that we would have to beat two of three teams - the Maroons, the Habs and the Devils - to emerge from our division. Playing NJ is fine by us.

Best of luck to BM and the Devils. It'll be a real honour playing one of the innovators and founders of the ATD. We wouldn't be doing this thing if not for BM, LL, Spit, Sather and a few others. I've always wanted to play BM. Our means are very different, but the ends are the same.

I'll post full thoughts in the coming days. But not tonight. It's Christmas Party season. Anything I post when I get home tonight (or early tomorrow morning?) will only aid the Devils cause. And while it wouldn't be the first time I've posted something in an inebriated state, this is not the time for drunken posts.

 

[seventieslord]

This will be my favorite 2nd round matchup - easily.

"Team Pre-1926" vs. The guy who thinks all pre-1926 accomplishments are questionable.

 

[God Bless Canada]

We're going to try to get the Savard tandem out there as much as the Kennedy tandem. And we want the physicality, mobility and smarts of the Vasko tandem out there against the Bread Line as much as possible.

Teeder Kennedy is an awesome playoff performer. But so is Serge Savard. And that's why we want Savard out there against Kennedy as much as possible. You want to contain someone who is great in the playoffs? Use someone who is also great in the playoffs against him. If we can contain Kennedy, I think we'll contain that second line.

Pitre's a guy we have to watch, he has a great shot and he's aggressive. But if we get to Kennedy, we'll get to Pitre. And I think we will get to Kennedy.

Savard is one of the top 10 or so defensive defencemen of all-time.

This is not a favourable situation for Krutov. His experience in best-of-sevens is minimal, and Le Rocket is not a favourable match-up for him. Sloan and Toppazzini, in particular, could be problematic for Krutov.

Frankly, we're not worried with line-matching per say. We just want to get the right defencemen out there against the forwards for New Jersey. All four of our centres are very good to excellent defensively, so the line-matching isn't an issue.

I think Dick Duff is the best defensive forward in this series, and we would love to get him out there against Bill Cook as much as possible. This is Duff's time of year. He's a tremendous playoff performer, as competitive as they come, and he had a knack for scoring big goals. Excellent defensively and very aggressive. His toughness is why we'd like him out there against Cook. He won't back down against Bill Cook.

I think we can take advantage of NJ's fourth line. I think the world of Doc Roberts. If we didn't get Tkachuk, we probably would have picked Roberts. But I'm not sure if this is the right role for Lecavalier or Oatman. I've watched Lecavalier since he came into the league, and I think he'd be good enough for a bottom end second line centre. But fourth line? I'm not sold, unless you want this to be a scoring line. There's a reason a lot of people, after the draft, were saying that this line was the worst assembled line in the draft. I think this is a match-up that could be exploited by our top two lines.

Goaltending isn't as much of an edge as people might think. Hall's playoff record is a roller coaster. Even BM has targeted Hall's playoff record in the past. You have the good (his debut in 56, his Cup win in 61, his Cup final appearances in 62 and 65 [note: he lost to Gump Worsley in that one] and his Conn Smythe win in 68. There's also some bad, like the three losses to Detroit in four years when Chicago should have definitely beat the Red Wings.

I'm not worried about Hall's losses to Montreal early in his career. Chicago had zero chance against the Habs. It'd be like us faulting Gump Worsley for losses to Montreal and Toronto when Gump was on a dreadful Rangers team. If BM wants to make an issue of Gump's playoffs with the Rangers, he can. But it's not a smart move to throw stones at glass houses.

Gump showed what he could do once he got to Montreal. Four straight post-seasons with a GAA under 2.0, and a fifth at 2.2-something. That's tremendous. Two of those years came after expansion. An incredible 1.88 GAA and 11-0 record in 68. Four Cups in five years. It's too bad he spent so much time on terrible teams in New York. He could have really done some special things in his career.

Coaching is a wash. If we didn't get Arbour, we would have gone with Ivan. I think Arbour is the better coach. But not by much at all. We're thrilled to have Arbour, but I'll admit: I was pretty choked when I saw Day and Ivan wind up in my division.

 

[MXD]

For all the comparisons between our first line from this draft (Olmstead - Lemieux - Neely) and NJ's first line in ATD 8 (Iginla - Lemieux - Neely)....

I would add that NJ's fourth line (Roberts - Vinny - Oatman) is awfully similar to our first line in MLD8 (Roberts - Datsyuk - Oatman)...

 

[BM67]

Krutov has had plenty of experience of vital must win games even if he hasn't had to play best of seven, and he's done just fine against better players than Sloan and Toppazzini.

Although slightly built, "Slinker" Sloan played aggressively and had strong offensive skills. Unfortunately, the NHL defensemen could push him around almost at will, and he was sent back to the AHL.

- Hockey All-Stars The NHL Honor Roll

Even a beefed up "Slinker" isn't likely to scare "The Tank".

If Dick Duff is the best defensive forward in this series, then half my team must be out injured. It also doesn't say much for your supposedly excellent defensive centers.

Since Lecavalier has entered the NHL in 98-99 he has thrown 130 fewer hits than Tkachuk, had 2 fewer fights, taken 445 fewer PIM, and out scored him by 8 goals and 64 points. After the first 9 years of his career Tkachuk ranked 33rd in scoring over the 9 years. He moved up to 31st after his 10th year. Lecavalier ranks 14th after his 9th year.

I'll take the extra points over the extra hits.

Re: Oatman: He was defensively sound enough to be used as a defenseman, and at rover, and physical enough to lead the PCHA in PIM. He also finished in the top-5 in assists and points more times than your entire 4th line finished in the top-10. Add in that he was captain of 5 different teams, and I see no reason to think he'll be anything but a fine 4th liner.

The fact that most of the Rocket forwards are better goal scorers than they are playmakers, and they have almost no offensive support from the defense, doesn't do much for their hopes of generating much offense.

The only Rocket defender to crack the top 10 is Jimmy Thomson with a 6th and 8th in assists. The Devils' Eddie Gerard and Harry Cameron both have two assist titles to their credit, and Art Duncan has a point scoring title.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Lots of statistical smoke...

You underestimate the offensive ability of our defence. We actually have very good offensive ability from our defencemen. Top 10 finishes are nice, but they aren't the be-all and end-all. Why don't you tell me how they actually played the game? I'll tell you how they played the game. All of our defencemen were mobile. And with the exception of Watson (who's a stellar defensive defenceman on our third pairing), they are all very good offensively. All of them are capable of moving the puck. They can rush it up the ice, or they can make a strong first pass. We have three defencemen who played in the Original 6. Defencemen usually didn't put up big numbers back then. And Savard and the Watsons came up at a time when defencemen didn't get involved offensively.

We will have absolutely no problem scoring goals.

What's the context of your quote on Sloan? What year was he sent to the AHL? The last season I could find with him in the AHL was 1949-50. When he was 22 years old. If that happened in 57, after his second team all-star birth, that argument might have credibility. But it wasn't. So your argument doesn't. A pretty chincey, desperate argument for this stage in the series.

I firmly believe Duff is the best defensive forward in this series. Better than any of my centres. And those players are good defensively. Better defensively than your forwards.

We have some excellent playmakers on our team. Primeau's an elite playmaker. And Morenz is a better playmaker than you give him credit for. He tied a league record for assists in 28. A lot of Morenz's best hockey was before 1929, when the forward pass was introduced to the game. He was top seven in assists seven times, too. He is an excellent playmaker.

Tkachuk's best hockey, for my money, was from 92 to 98. Around 96-98, he was, for my money, one of the top 10 players on the planet. Lecavalier's peak is better, but I think the Tkachuk I watched from 92 to 98 is better-suited to fourth line duty. I probably watched Tkachuk play more than anyone else, thanks to the games against Vancouver. He did it all. He ranged from effective to a force in every facet of the game. I don't know what happened after 98. He was still an excellent goal-scorer and a dangerous offensive player, and he was still physical, still a force in front of the net and in the corners, but he wasn't as effective as a leader, and he wasn't effective defensively anymore. His playoff record also took a dive. (I though he was Winnipeg's most consistent forward in 92 and their best forward in 93, and he played well in 97 and 98, but since then his playoff efforts struggled).

 

[Sturminator]

All of them are capable of moving the puck. They can rush it up the ice, or they can make a strong first pass. We have three defencemen who played in the Original 6. Defencemen usually didn't put up big numbers back then. And Savard and the Watsons came up at a time when defencemen didn't get involved offensively.

Making the top-10 assists list as a defenseman in the O6 era was not an easy feat. Doug Harvey did it 4 times and Bill Gadsby 3. I'll take Jimmy Thompsons two appearances on the list (and fairly consistent numbers throughout his career) as a sure sign that the guy can move the puck. He's not ATD elite, but Thomson can certainly get the job done.

Le Rocket's 2nd pairing is a bit more problematic. Vasko could certainly skate the puck up ice, but he didn't have the world's best hands and was known more as a dump-it-in guy once he neared the offensive zone. That's not really an ideal match when you're sporting a skill-oriented 2nd line like Jackson - Primeau - Sloan. Stanowski was a decent puckmover, but only cracked 20 assists once in his career. Really not a special offensive defenseman by ATD 2nd unit standards.

I firmly believe Duff is the best defensive forward in this series. Better than any of my centres. And those players are good defensively. Better defensively than your forwards.

I think Jack Walker is the best defensive forward in the series, but Duff is very strong, as well.

Agree with you that Morenz's playmaking is underrated.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I think Dick Duff is the best defensive forward in this series, and we would love to get him out there against Bill Cook as much as possible.

Shenanigans!

Dick Duff is good, but I have never read anything on him that calls him an elite defensive forward. You need to back that statement up.

 

[Sturminator]

This is not a favourable situation for Krutov. His experience in best-of-sevens is minimal, and Le Rocket is not a favourable match-up for him. Sloan and Toppazzini, in particular, could be problematic for Krutov.

This "lack of experience in best-of-sevens" argument could be used against any non-NHL player, and seems quite irrelevant to me. The Soviets competed in plenty of high-pressure playoff environment games. In terms of approximate playoff value, I judge the Soviets by how they did in international competition, and Krutov comes off fine in this analysis. Of all the Soviet-era forwards in the ATD, it is surprisingly Mikhailov's international record which is (IMO) the most disappointing relative to his Soviet League achievements.

I should not that I am most definitely not a fan of Krutov, but for entirely different reasons which I don't feel like revisiting at this point.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Making the top-10 assists list as a defenseman in the O6 era was not an easy feat. Doug Harvey did it 4 times and Bill Gadsby 3. I'll take Jimmy Thompsons two appearances on the list (and fairly consistent numbers throughout his career) as a sure sign that the guy can move the puck. He's not ATD elite, but Thomson can certainly get the job done.

Le Rocket's 2nd pairing is a bit more problematic. Vasko could certainly skate the puck up ice, but he didn't have the world's best hands and was known more as a dump-it-in guy once he neared the offensive zone. That's not really an ideal match when you're sporting a skill-oriented 2nd line like Jackson - Primeau - Sloan. Stanowski was a decent puckmover, but only cracked 20 assists once in his career. Really not a special offensive defenseman by ATD 2nd unit standards.



I think Jack Walker is the best defensive forward in the series, but Duff is very strong, as well.

Agree with you that Morenz's playmaking is underrated.

I've actually noted on a couple of occasions that there were five defencemen who cracked the top 10 in assists at least twice from 46 to 67: Harvey, Kelly, Pilote, Gadsby and Thomson. (Talbot and Mohns also did it). Thomson was the first to crack the top 10.

During the O6 era, defencemen did not get involved in the rush. Bill Quackenbush and Carl Brewer both had the potential to be highly productive offensively, but they had to look after their defensive responsibilities above all else.

So my defence is not going to have a lot of guys in the top 10 in scoring races, because we have three O6 guys, and two more who came up during the O6.

A lot of BM's blue-liners played at a time when defencemen were more encouraged to be involved in the rush, in that stretch from about 1910 to 1926. They wouldn't have been leading leagues in assists, or points, or any of the other statistical smoke that we saw earlier, if the standards of 46-67 existed when they were playing.

 

[BM67]

Lots of statistical smoke...

Like "We have three defencemen who played in the Original 6"? Playing in the O6 doesn't mean automatic excellence.

You underestimate the offensive ability of our defence. We actually have very good offensive ability from our defencemen. Top 10 finishes are nice, but they aren't the be-all and end-all. Why don't you tell me how they actually played the game? I'll tell you how they played the game. All of our defencemen were mobile. And with the exception of Watson (who's a stellar defensive defenceman on our third pairing), they are all very good offensively. All of them are capable of moving the puck. They can rush it up the ice, or they can make a strong first pass. We have three defencemen who played in the Original 6. Defencemen usually didn't put up big numbers back then. And Savard and the Watsons came up at a time when defencemen didn't get involved offensively.

Your idea of very good and excellent must be quite different from mine. Jimmy Thomson is the best of your D offensively, and the only one worth calling very good. Savard, Stanowski and Wilson are good,
but fall short of very good. Vasko has good skills, but his scoring results are a little lower than that. The Watsons aren't even "very good" for 3rd pairing guys.

Stanwoski only led his team in D scoring once, and never led in points/game, and he wasn't playing with many elite offensive D either, so it wasn't just the times that were keeping him down.

We will have absolutely no problem scoring goals.

You seem to be operating under the delusion that nobody could play decent defense before the O6 era, and that anyone from the O6 era that played aggressively is excellent defensively. Both ideas are absurd.

What's the context of your quote on Sloan? What year was he sent to the AHL? The last season I could find with him in the AHL was 1949-50. When he was 22 years old. If that happened in 57, after his second team all-star birth, that argument might have credibility. But it wasn't. So your argument doesn't. A pretty chincey, desperate argument for this stage in the series.

Sloan spent 4 years in the AHL before he was able to bulk up enough to earn a full-time spot on a declining Toronto team. The AHL was no cake-walk at the time, and he did bulk up, but a power forward he was not. His offense was also inconsistent from year to year. He never scored 50 points in consecutive seasons, and never scored a point in consecutive playoffs. He is not a difference maker in the series in any way that helps your team win.

I firmly believe Duff is the best defensive forward in this series. Better than any of my centres. And those players are good defensively. Better defensively than your forwards.

Dick Duff is a very good penalty killer, but he is not an elite defensive forward or shadow. He's better than decent, but he isn't even close to the best in the series.

We have some excellent playmakers on our team. Primeau's an elite playmaker. And Morenz is a better playmaker than you give him credit for. He tied a league record for assists in 28. A lot of Morenz's best hockey was before 1929, when the forward pass was introduced to the game. He was top seven in assists seven times, too. He is an excellent playmaker.

Morenz is a very good playmaker, but he is a better goal scorer. All three of your first line players are goal scorers first. They are good enough that the line doesn't qualify as dysfunctional, but it's far from ideal. It would be hard to argue that your first line doesn't have more talent than the Bread Line, but I'd certainly argue that Boucher and the Cooks make a better line by meshing better as a whole.

Tkachuk's best hockey, for my money, was from 92 to 98. Around 96-98, he was, for my money, one of the top 10 players on the planet. Lecavalier's peak is better, but I think the Tkachuk I watched from 92 to 98 is better-suited to fourth line duty. I probably watched Tkachuk play more than anyone else, thanks to the games against Vancouver. He did it all. He ranged from effective to a force in every facet of the game. I don't know what happened after 98. He was still an excellent goal-scorer and a dangerous offensive player, and he was still physical, still a force in front of the net and in the corners, but he wasn't as effective as a leader, and he wasn't effective defensively anymore. His playoff record also took a dive. (I though he was Winnipeg's most consistent forward in 92 and their best forward in 93, and he played well in 97 and 98, but since then his playoff efforts struggled).

Tkachuk is the best player by far on your 4th line, and he is comparable to Lecavalier and Roberts on my 4th line, so I don't really see how you can claim that my 4th line is one of the worst in the draft. Having a 4th line center who is your primary playmaker who is "not overly gifted in the stickhandling department" and has a career total of 3 playoff points in 18 games is hardly scary.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Three GMs in this draft picked the Roberts-Lecavalier-Oatman line as the worst in the draft. I think the only line that had more selections was Ferguson-Tkaczuk-Smyl, and that line was altered. (That team was also eliminated in the playoffs).

As I said before, I think highly of Roberts and we would have gladly welcomed him to our fourth line. But it's not a line that can handle more than six to eight minutes per game. That's the difference between our fourth lines. We're confident that our fourth line can play a regular shift and get us 10 to 12 minutes a game. Our fourth line is a much tougher line to play against than your fourth line.

Do you have anything beyond stats to question the offensive ability of our defence? Because all you have blown is statistical smoke. Nothing about how they played the game. Just stats. Nothing on how Savard, Vasko, Stanowski and Wilson played the game. Just stats. Please counter my arguments of how they played the game. Or is it because you know that when you talk about how they play the game, you only reinforce my point?

If you have something to contribute about how our defencemen played the game, then I look forward to continuing this conversation. Tomorrow. Won't have internet access tonight. But so far all I've seen is statistical smoke.

I've had Gerard and Cameron before - Cameron as a No. 4-5 defenceman in ATD's 5 and 6, Gerard in MLD 5. (After you took Si Griffis. Man, those were the days). But would Cameron, Gerard and Duncan have reached the statistical accomplishments (or even come close to them) if they were in the Original 6, when defencemen weren't encouraged to jump in the rush? Would Cameron have reached the top 10 in assists twice?

Jimmy Watson is good enough to be a No. 4 defenceman in this draft. He's outstanding defensively. His first pass is good - he's not just a bank it off the boards and out guy - but he's not as good as our other defencemen. To a certain extent, he is our No. 4. We just slotted him on the third pairing because we couldn't pass up the mobility, hockey sense and physicality of a Stanowski-Vasko tandem.

I think we have a significant edge on the blue-line. Savard's the only legit ATD No. 1 defenceman in this series, but even he is in that 21-25 all-time range as opposed to a top 20 all-time spot. A lot of 2/3s in this series - Thomson and Vasko for us, Gerard and Johnson for the Devils. (I do believe that the latter three are best-served as No. 3s). BM has excellent depth on his blue-line, but the Devils lack that legit No. 1 defenceman that you need in this draft.

Both teams are loaded with forwards who backcheck - Krutov and Lecavalier are the only ones on New Jersey with legit backchecking issues.

As for this comment:
"You seem to be operating under the delusion that nobody could play decent defense before the O6 era, and that anyone from the O6 era that played aggressively is excellent defensively. Both ideas are absurd."

The only thing absurd is that you made that comment. Frank Boucher was an excellent defensive forward. So was Primeau. Morenz was strong in his own zone. And I said in the last series that MacKay and Walker are good enough to be on my list for two-way line players. We had Duff and MacLeish ahead of them. Duff because we believe he is one of the best defensive LWs of all-time; MacLeish because of his strong offensive ability, especially in the playoffs.

Playing in the O6 doesn't guarantee excellence, but if you played in the O6 from 46 to 60, you were in a six-team league that was far and away superior to any other league in the world.

So what if Sloan spent four years trying to reach the NHL? The bottom line is what did he do when he reached the NHL? A heck of a lot. We didn't pick him to be a power forward. He isn't a power forward. We picked him because of his all-round game, because he's a very effective grinder, because he'll open up room for Jackson and Primeau, and because he can finish off their plays, too. Top 10 in goals four times. Jackson's a good, physical player, but we'd rather let him focus on the offensive side of the game. (Note: Busher Jackson is a perfect example of a physically aggressive player who was not strong defensively).

sturm, a best-of-seven is far different from what Krutov faced on the international stage. International tournaments are usually best-of-ones. You might play a team twice in a tournament. In a best-of-seven, you're constantly making adjustments. You're making changes on a game-by-game basis. I think that's why a lot of European players have really struggled in the post-season in their initial taste of North American playoff hockey.

 

[seventieslord]

Gerard and Johnson are easily in the top-56 defensemen ever. They are not #3 defensemen.

GBC, if you're questiong whether guys like Gerard and Duncan would have had the points they had if the league was like the O6 league, that's valid, but if they topped the league then they still topped all defensemen, and logically would have done so whether it was a wide open league or a stay at home league. In other words, it would just affect their point totals, not where they stand among other defensemen. There's no evidence that would suggest otherwise.

 

[raleh]

BM, I'm assuming you've seen Savard and Vasko play. Actually watch a game, and then say that those two were not elite offensive dmen in their eras. I watched a couple of games of Moose Vasko play and was completely blown away by his transition game. He was as good at skating the puck out of the zone and finding the open man as almost anyone I watch in the league today (obviously with one or two exceptions).

I think the bottom line in this series is that while the Devils do have an edge in goaltending, we have the two best offensive weapons in the series, the best defensive dman in the series, more clutch scoring from all four lines, and better scoring. I like Boucher. And I LOVE Kennedy, but in Boomer and Morenz we have the clear cut two best offensive game breakers in this series and in Geoffrion is the best playoff performer on either team.

 

[Sturminator]

BM, I'm assuming you've seen Savard and Vasko play. Actually watch a game, and then say that those two were not elite offensive dmen in their eras.

I'm not exactly a Moose Vasko expert, but I've seen plenty of Serge Savard, and "elite" is definitely not the word I'd have used to describe his offensive game; he was the third best offensive defenseman on his own team. And that's in real life. In ATD terms, I wouldn't call Guy Lapointe elite offensively for a 1st pairing defenseman, so how, exactly, is Savard elite? He's really nothing special offensively for a first pairing defenseman. Elite defensively, but that is all.

 

[BM67]

BM, I'm assuming you've seen Savard and Vasko play. Actually watch a game, and then say that those two were not elite offensive dmen in their eras. I watched a couple of games of Moose Vasko play and was completely blown away by his transition game. He was as good at skating the puck out of the zone and finding the open man as almost anyone I watch in the league today (obviously with one or two exceptions).

I think the bottom line in this series is that while the Devils do have an edge in goaltending, we have the two best offensive weapons in the series, the best defensive dman in the series, more clutch scoring from all four lines, and better scoring. I like Boucher. And I LOVE Kennedy, but in Boomer and Morenz we have the clear cut two best offensive game breakers in this series and in Geoffrion is the best playoff performer on either team.

Neither Vasko or Savard are elite offensively. Harry Cameron is the only elite offensive defenseman in the series. Thomson, Gerard and Duncan are very good. The rest are good to decent.

The #1 offensive weapon in this series is the Bread Line. They played together and were healthy for 9 years. During that time you can take any other three players and they outscored them, regular season, playoffs or combined.

Year|Player|RS GP|Rank|RS G|Rank|RS A|Rank|RS Pts|Rank|PO GP|Rank|PO G|Rank|PO A|Rank|PO Pts|Rank
26-35|Bill Cook|409|3|221|1|124|8|345|3|46|1|13|3|11|3|24|2
26-35|Boucher|408|5|130|11|219|1|349|2|45|5|14|2|17|1|31|1
26-35|Bun Cook|407|8|150|6|134|5|284|5|46|1|15|1|3|45|18|5

Leading scorers 27-35

Leading Playoff Scorers 27-35

 

[God Bless Canada]

I don't think Cameron is elite offensively. Savard isn't elite offensively, either, but he certainly is elite defensively, and his playoff record is outstanding. I think Cameron's excellent offensively, tremendous skater and puck-mover who can curve his shot. But elite? That's the top 10, 15 or 20 offensive defencemen of all-time. Harry Cameron is not in that group.

As for Savard, he's a very smart player who skates well, can advance the puck well, either by skating it up the ice or by passing the puck, and he can quarterback a power play. Who cares if he was the third best offensive defenceman among the big 3? Bottom line is he has the ability to help us win in either the offensive or defensive zones. Definitely the cream of the crop for defencemen in this series.

Bernie Geoffrion is the best playoff performer on either team in this series. Eight straight seasons with double-digits in points. Two other players have done that - Gretzky and Messier. Geoffrion did it in the O6 era, when it was tougher to score, and they played two rounds instead of up to four.

We do have the two best offensive players in this series. We have the best offensive line in this series. We have a dynamic playmaker for the first line. And our Kid Line is almost as dangeorus as the Bread Line.

We have the edge on the blue-line. We have the edge for team defence and team offence. And we have a slightly miniscule edge behind the bench. (I said the same thing in ATD 8 when we had Ivan and HO had Arbour). Give BM the edge in net, but it's not as large as some might think, especially come playoff time.

 

[BM67]

Statistical smoke anyone? Scoring 10 points is just a number. During the 50s a player scored 10 points in the Final 5 times. 18 players score 8 or more points in the Final during the 50s 60s period.

Cameron is one of the top-5 offensive defensemen in scoring dominance. He was the highest scoring defenseman of the pre-26 era. He led the NHL in assists twice. He is elite.

 

[Sturminator]

I guess I disagree with both of you about Harry Cameron. Top-5? Let's see...Orr, Coffey, Kelly and Clancy are my top-4. Crowded field after that. Is Cameron the next best? An argument can be made, but I dunno if I'd necessarily buy it. I do think there's a good argument he's in the top 15-20 range, though, which would make him elite by GBC's standards. At any rate, I consider him a capable 1st pairing puckmover.

 

[MXD]

I guess I disagree with both of you about Harry Cameron. Top-5? Let's see...Orr, Coffey, Kelly and Clancy are my top-4. Crowded field after that. Is Cameron the next best? An argument can be made, but I dunno if I'd necessarily buy it. I do think there's a good argument he's in the top 15-20 range, though, which would make him elite by GBC's standards. At any rate, I consider him a capable 1st pairing puckmover.

I'd have Harvey and McInnis ahead of Cameron, and then comes the crowded field. At any rate, he's pretty equal to Sprague Cleghorn offensively, basically because Cameron put up better offensive season in the WCHL than Cleghorn did in the NHL. While they were in direct competition (ie, same league), Cleghorn did put up better numbers, though. To be fair, I left out 17-18 out of this, because Cleghorn didn't play (WW1, I think), and Cameron put up great offensive stats that year.

 

[Sturminator]

I have more trouble past the top-4, MXD.

I would probably rate Ray Bourque a solid 5th, now that I think about it. The crowded field for me starts after that with Shore, Potvin, MacInnis, Leetch, Lidstrom, Robinson, Gadsby, Pilote, Harvey, Fetisov, Park and maybe Cleghorn (no particular order to the list, by the way) all sort of hard to choose between.

Surprised I place Harvey down in the muck with this group? You shouldn't be. Offensively, he's pretty obviously not top-5, IMO. Doug really wasn't much of a goal-scorer, and he did benefit from that those long Habs powerplays. Not trying to pick on Harvey (I'm not brave enough for that), but I think he definitely falls well short of Bourque's offensive resume, at the very least. Does Harry Cameron belong in this group, or in the next step down with guys like Niedermayer, Horton, etc? At any rate, I certainly think Harry's got a real claim to a place in the top-20, though I might place him more towards the back end of the list than BM.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Statistical smoke anyone? Scoring 10 points is just a number. During the 50s a player scored 10 points in the Final 5 times. 18 players score 8 or more points in the Final during the 50s 60s period.

Cameron is one of the top-5 offensive defensemen in scoring dominance. He was the highest scoring defenseman of the pre-26 era. He led the NHL in assists twice. He is elite.

Again, three players in the history of the league have eight straight 10-point post-seasons. Gretzky (the greatest offensive player of all-time), Messier (considered by many to be a top 20 player of all-time, and one of the top clutch players of all-time) and Geoffrion. That's a pretty exclusive group. Beliveau, as great as he was in the post-season, couldn't do it.

I hold Frank Boucher in highest regard. His .65 PPG pace is actually one of the best for his time, and 10 points in the playoffs in 1928 is incredible. And Ted Kennedy is one of the best clutch players ever.

But they do not trump what Geoffrion did in the playoffs over an eight-year span. It's one of the greatest examples of sustained clutch scoring in NHL history.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I have more trouble past the top-4, MXD.

I would probably rate Ray Bourque a solid 5th, now that I think about it. The crowded field for me starts after that with Shore, Potvin, MacInnis, Leetch, Lidstrom, Robinson, Gadsby, Pilote, Harvey, Fetisov, Park and maybe Cleghorn (no particular order to the list, by the way) all sort of hard to choose between.

Surprised I place Harvey down in the muck with this group? You shouldn't be. Offensively, he's pretty obviously not top-5, IMO. Doug really wasn't much of a goal-scorer, and he did benefit from that those long Habs powerplays. Not trying to pick on Harvey (I'm not brave enough for that), but I think he definitely falls well short of Bourque's offensive resume, at the very least. Does Harry Cameron belong in this group, or in the next step down with guys like Niedermayer, Horton, etc? At any rate, I certainly think Harry's got a real claim to a place in the top-20, though I might place him more towards the back end of the list than BM.

As much as I loathe the guy, I think Phil Housley's name should come up when talking about the top 10 offensive defencemen of all-time, and he should be a no-brainer for the top 20. And even though his 20-goal season came during the war years, Flash Hollett was consistently among the top three offensive defencemen in the league.

I think if Harvey would have played post-expansion - after Bobby Orr had revolutionized the position, and expansion had opened the game up - there wouldn't be any discussion about his place in the top 10. He was constrained by the realities of hockey in the 50s. He would have put up eye-popping numbers, likely in the 90-100 point range, if he came up at the same time as Potvin and Robinson.

He didn't score a lot of goals, but I don't think he was there to be a triggerman. With guys like Richard, Geoffrion, Beliveau and Moore around, there were lots of guys who could score goals.

It's easy to say that Harry Cameron is a top 20 offensive defenceman ever. But it's tough to really evaluate the top 20 offensive defencemen ever because of the major changes that occurred in the role of defencemen. In the 1910s and most of 1920s, defencemen were encouraged to be involved in the rush. Same thing with the years of 42/43 to 44/45. And it happened again after Orr arrived.

But how do you evaluate guys who played in those other times, when defencemen had to play defence. I don't think Housley would have lasted as a defenceman in the 50s. He would have been a playmaking offensive forward. But in the 80s and 90s, he was a very dangerous offensive player.

Bill Quackenbush was an excellent defenceman with tremendous offensive skill who would have thrived post-O6. But he never topped 30 points, and he was never top 10 in assists or points.

 

[MXD]

Surprised I place Harvey down in the muck with this group? You shouldn't be. Offensively, he's pretty obviously not top-5, IMO. Doug really wasn't much of a goal-scorer, and he did benefit from that those long Habs powerplays. Not trying to pick on Harvey (I'm not brave enough for that), but I think he definitely falls well short of Bourque's offensive resume, at the very least. Does Harry Cameron belong in this group, or in the next step down with guys like Niedermayer, Horton, etc? At any rate, I certainly think Harry's got a real claim to a place in the top-20, though I might place him more towards the back end of the list than BM.

Well, indeed a valid point of view. My take is that Harvey wasn't a go-to guy, as far as offense is concerned, while Bourque was. Might seems to be a strange point of view, but let's say you're a B's coach. Do you ask Steve Kasper to be an offensive catalyst with..euh.. an unpicked player. Do you ask Kasper to use Bourque's gifts or his gifts? ... Probably Bourque's.

Then, you're Toe Blake, and you speak to Jean Beliveau. You can tell him to use Harvey's offensive flair, but you definitely have some options on the wings. The same goes for Henri Richard. Harvey didn't need to join the offense all the time, because they already have enough firepower on forward.

Seems like a weird point of view, but that's why I have Harvey in higher regards than Bourque as far as offense is concerned. I might be biased -- it wasn't always like that, but the more I dig, the more I consider Harvey to be the best player of the dynasty, and MAYBE of the whole Habs history.

You're right for Bourque though, so I correct : There's a Top-7 group that Cameron don't have any claim at. He's in the tier below, with, well, everyone we both named, including Cleghorn. Cameron had the best year, and was better in the later part of their career (when Cameron was in the WCHL and Sprague in the NHL), but Cleghorn was superior throughout their NHA's stints. NHL is something of a wash.