ATD #11, Bob Cole Quarterfinals. Trail Smoke Eaters (4) vs. Killarney Country Bear(5)
- Thread starter EagleBelfour
- Start date
Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 76,590
- 21,129
Oh yeah, we'll eventually mix it up reeeaaal good. But I'm a little preoccupied this weekend too, selling my house and all.
Anyway, when's the voting for this thang?
EagleBelfour
Registered User
I think the difference swinger for me will be to be convince that the Country Bears Left Winger group is ok at most. I see that group as perhaps the worst of all 28 teams. I can buy Northcott as a 2nd line LW, I can definitely buy Westwick as a 4th line LW, but Datsyuk as a left winger, on a 1st line in an ATD team is very odd. Can Datsyuk be as slick of a playmaker than he is as Detroit center? Galbraith is probably the worst offensive forward of all 28 teams. He was known as a good defensive winger and a good shadower though. I'm just not sure a winger that probably won't get more than 3 points in a 82 games schedule should play regular minute in an ATD, even though he was good defensively.
- I just don't want to give negative, so I'll say the the duo of Savard - Cameron is VERY good. I'm more a fan of Harry Cameron than I ever was before. He's easily the best offensive defenseman of both team, and good enough defensively to not be a liability. Also, the biggest mismatch of this series is probably the Schmidt-Keats confrontation, especially if they end up matching both 2nd line.
- I just don't want to give negative, so I'll say the the duo of Savard - Cameron is VERY good. I'm more a fan of Harry Cameron than I ever was before. He's easily the best offensive defenseman of both team, and good enough defensively to not be a liability. Also, the biggest mismatch of this series is probably the Schmidt-Keats confrontation, especially if they end up matching both 2nd line.
Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 76,590
- 21,129
You think the difference swinger is the LW situation when down the middle I can run Morenz, Schmidt, and Carbonneau against Keon, Keats, and Murray?
Eep.
I have 2 high-end 1st line ATD centers, while Keon is questionable as a #1 line center and Keats is a fair #2 center, at best. Throw in arguably the best defensive center ever in Carbo, and you've got a classic mismatch.
Well, I don't think Datsyuk needs to be a top 5 assist man in the ATD as he's been in the NHL over the last two years, or a top 10 assist man, like he was the 2 years before that. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I can imagine being a 4-time top 10 playmaker compares pretty well versus a lot of other ATD LWs.
It could be argued that Datsyuk wasn't primarily an LW over that time, but he's a very versatile player and I think he can make the transition, especially when his style meshes so well with a player like Morenz. There are only a select few left wingers who could play with Howie in a Joliat style, but Datsyuk's one of them.
Galbraith isn't an offensive player by any stretch. But to say he's merely a "good" defensive player is selling him short. He was a specialist named in Ultimate Hockey to the trifecta of Top Defensive Forward, Top Penalty-Killer, and Top Shadow of his decade (FWIW, Nick Metz is the only other player in the book with this honour), ahead of such luminaries as Frank Nighbor, Jack Walker, Frank Boucher, Frank Finnigan, and Mickey MacKay.
That's considerably better than "good". That's elite.
In a division with so many good RWs, I wanted an LW who could shadow with the best of them, and Galbraith fits that mold to a tee. My 3rd line is intently focused on defense, with my 4th line as more of a two-way type (particularly if Broten's in...Westwick - Broten - Stuart).
Again, as good as Keon was, I think he's overmatched as a 1st line center and will have his hands more than full playing Morenz.
Will he have time to contribute anything offensively if he's focusing on one of the most dynamic players the game's ever known, and if he doesn't, can Keats pick up the slack against the likes of Schmidt and Carbonneau?
Especially when his team faced the Senators in the '23 Finals, he was said to have been covered by my very own Punch Broadbent "like a wet horse blanket"?
I don't count on one player on every line to uphold defensive duties. ALL my forwards can supply suffocating backside pressure, and then their forwards have to get by stalwarts like Savard, Mantha, Heller, and Burrows. It's a commitment to team defense that will prevent my opposition from getting much, if any, time or space to operate.
Last edited:
obviously, i cannot say with any certainty, but datsyuk with morenz does not strike me as a good combination.
from what i have read, morenz was a north/south player who relied on speed. datsyuk plays a more soviet style--slower, east/west game based on passing plays. hossa plays a more north/south speed game, and he and datsyuk do not play well together. they are actually more effective separately.
datsyuk can play a more up and down style, but that is not how he usually plays.
Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 76,590
- 21,129
Read about Joliat's style, and how he played the game. It's virtually identical to Datsyuk (I'll hit the library to find the exact quotes I'm trying to recall), and it's why I was intent on keeping another good playmaker like Aurie on Morenz' right flank, rather than a more traditional set-up with Broadbent there. Both Joliat and Gagnon conceded that they didn't so much play with Howie as make plays with one another until they could launch Morenz into orbit.
Which both Datsyuk and Aurie are perfectly capable of doing.
No offense to GBC, but I think that based on everything I've read, that his line of "Ovy - Morenz - Boom Boom" last year was a poor fit and didn't play to the strengths of any of them. Less than the sum of their parts, because there wasn't a natural digger or passer in the lot. Conversely, despite their lower relative draft positions, I think Datsyuk and Aurie are much better suited to ignite Morenz' offense. The line is built around him and his unique skillset
I said from the outset I wasn't sold on Killarney's top line wingers. I can buy into Aurie as a second line winger, I can buy into Datyuk as a second line guy or a two-way line guy. But as first liners, they're miscast. (Datsyuk's playoff record isn't sterling, either. I'll never take away from him his two rings, but there are some underwhelming playoff totals for a player of his skill level).
The top line is one of the fastest in the draft, and they're excellent defensively. But outside of Morenz, they lack the true physical presence. So Morenz will have to create the offence, and create room for himself. That's asking a lot of even Howie Morenz.
On the other hand, I love Killarney's second line. That's a tough, aggressive second line. When your second line centre is a top-30 player of all-time, there isn't much you can do to screw it up.
Interesting to watch how both teams play their lines. Killarney can play any line against the Trail top lines. That's a big advantage to have. They don't have to worry whether Morenz can play against Keats or Nilsson or Keon. And it opens up so much in terms of other elements of the game.
The flip side is that Trail can get scoring from all four lines. As I've said before, I'm not sold on Keon as a first line playmaker for Bossy. But playing with Bossy, it's as simple as get him the puck, and let him go. Bossy's a multi-dimensional offensive threat. He isn't effective in other roles, but as far as offence goes, he's lights out. His playmaking abilities are underrated, too. He didn't set a league record for points by an RW in 81-82 (later broken by Jagr) by being strictly a goal-scorer.
Even Trail's third line is capable of getting goals. They could get four or five goals in a best-of-seven, and when your two-way line scores that much in this thing, when the teams are close, it could be a difference.
So it is going to be fun to watch the line-matching and the strategic jostling between these two teams. One team has four lines that can score, and make a difference offensively. The other has four lines that can log big minutes against an opponent's top lines.
A key guy for Trail is Moose Vasko. I said during the reviews that while Vasko is a No. 3 d-man/second pairing guy, he's more valuable than a typical No. 3 defenceman. There just aren't many 6'3" defenceman with mobility, aggressiveness, hockey sense, consistency and an ability to contribute in all facets of the game. He's mobile enough to keep up with the speed of the Morenz line, he's tough enough to battle with the Schmidt line. He's going to be a very important player for Trail in all series, but especially in this one, since Killarney's 1-2 punch down the middle is so imposing. (They also have an outstanding No. 3 centre and a rough-and-tumble No. 4, but the Vasko match-up isn't so important for Carbonneau and Skov).
Trail has an edge in goal, but not much of one come playoff time. It's Billy Smith time. This is when Smith built his legacy. This is when he cemented his greatness. Intangible time: it will be worth watching to see Smith against Bossy and Gillies. Will Gillies and Bossy find holes in their money-in-the-bank goalie? And how will Gillies and Bossy's past experience with Smith affect how the scorers on the second and fourth lines play against Smith? Give the edge to Sawchuk, but it's minimal, and certainly not as big as Trail's edge in...
Coaching. Few have done more than Dick Irvin. He's tough. He's demanding. He expects a total effort from his charges every night. And he's been to a whopping 14 Stanley Cup finals. It's one of hockey's most unbeatable records. Green's a good second-tier coach. Irvin's a top-tier coach. With the line match-ups so intriguing in this series, coaching could be the kingmaker.
The top line is one of the fastest in the draft, and they're excellent defensively. But outside of Morenz, they lack the true physical presence. So Morenz will have to create the offence, and create room for himself. That's asking a lot of even Howie Morenz.
On the other hand, I love Killarney's second line. That's a tough, aggressive second line. When your second line centre is a top-30 player of all-time, there isn't much you can do to screw it up.
Interesting to watch how both teams play their lines. Killarney can play any line against the Trail top lines. That's a big advantage to have. They don't have to worry whether Morenz can play against Keats or Nilsson or Keon. And it opens up so much in terms of other elements of the game.
The flip side is that Trail can get scoring from all four lines. As I've said before, I'm not sold on Keon as a first line playmaker for Bossy. But playing with Bossy, it's as simple as get him the puck, and let him go. Bossy's a multi-dimensional offensive threat. He isn't effective in other roles, but as far as offence goes, he's lights out. His playmaking abilities are underrated, too. He didn't set a league record for points by an RW in 81-82 (later broken by Jagr) by being strictly a goal-scorer.
Even Trail's third line is capable of getting goals. They could get four or five goals in a best-of-seven, and when your two-way line scores that much in this thing, when the teams are close, it could be a difference.
So it is going to be fun to watch the line-matching and the strategic jostling between these two teams. One team has four lines that can score, and make a difference offensively. The other has four lines that can log big minutes against an opponent's top lines.
A key guy for Trail is Moose Vasko. I said during the reviews that while Vasko is a No. 3 d-man/second pairing guy, he's more valuable than a typical No. 3 defenceman. There just aren't many 6'3" defenceman with mobility, aggressiveness, hockey sense, consistency and an ability to contribute in all facets of the game. He's mobile enough to keep up with the speed of the Morenz line, he's tough enough to battle with the Schmidt line. He's going to be a very important player for Trail in all series, but especially in this one, since Killarney's 1-2 punch down the middle is so imposing. (They also have an outstanding No. 3 centre and a rough-and-tumble No. 4, but the Vasko match-up isn't so important for Carbonneau and Skov).
Trail has an edge in goal, but not much of one come playoff time. It's Billy Smith time. This is when Smith built his legacy. This is when he cemented his greatness. Intangible time: it will be worth watching to see Smith against Bossy and Gillies. Will Gillies and Bossy find holes in their money-in-the-bank goalie? And how will Gillies and Bossy's past experience with Smith affect how the scorers on the second and fourth lines play against Smith? Give the edge to Sawchuk, but it's minimal, and certainly not as big as Trail's edge in...
Coaching. Few have done more than Dick Irvin. He's tough. He's demanding. He expects a total effort from his charges every night. And he's been to a whopping 14 Stanley Cup finals. It's one of hockey's most unbeatable records. Green's a good second-tier coach. Irvin's a top-tier coach. With the line match-ups so intriguing in this series, coaching could be the kingmaker.
Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 76,590
- 21,129
An easy way to remedy this is to just pretend my 2nd line is my 1st line. There's little doubt that Schmidt and Broadbent are legit 1st line players, and Northcott can serve as a complementary player.
Then I have 2 legit 2nd line wingers on my 2nd line, with the added bonus of being able to boast the 3rd or 4th best center in the entire draft on my 2nd line. Problem solved!
Also, Datsyuk's playoff production is quite good in the 4 years since the lockout, which is essentially the crux of my argument for his elite play. He wasn't any more than a merely good player before that, either in the regular season or playoffs, and his numbers are skewed by a long playoff run in his rookie year. He's also plainly been playing injured this year.
I don't know. Howie never required a big banger to make room for him before, why should he need it now?
His game was based on speed and having quick, creative, determined players who can get him the biscuit. I think that environment has been provided.
Glad my plan was idiot proof.
I wonder though, is Vasko the calibre of player who's going to limit Howie Morenz? Or the imposing Northcott-Schmidt-Broadbent trio? If so, he ought to be drafted a hell of a lot earlier...I think your Original Six leanings may be skewing the evaluation a tad here.
Further, is his size, strength, and speed combination (with Colville) more formidable than a Heller/Mantha duo for a second pairing? I wouldn't say so. Mantha's generally considered a player who can fortify a 1st pairing, never mind a 2nd, and he's coupled with a very fast, very strong, very big (for his era), solid ATD #3 in Heller.
Last edited:
pappyline
Registered User
I am taking off on a big trip in a few days and am quite busy but I want to sneak in a few comments before I go.
I do think Killarney is weak on the wings but they do have a nice centre lineup. Morenz & Schmidt as #1 & #2. Two of my favs. Schmidt is easily a #1 on most teams in this draft. Carbonneau & Skov are nice defensive players who won't score much.
Keon for sure is a legit 1st line centre. He is easily a top 100 player & is one of the best 2 way players of all time. His stats were hurt playing with a well balanced defense first leaf team. On a first line between Gillies & Bossy, he would put up Trottier numbers.
As far as 2n d goes, I really like Vasko-Colville. Two under-rated guys who were good with the puck & were known for their defense. Colville was awarded a retro-Selke (Ultimate Hockey) as a forward.
GBC mentioned Smith as a better clutch playoff goalie than sawchuk. I would disagree 100%. Sawchuk won his cups with an incredible GAA in his early years & was the main reason Leafs won in 67.
As far as coaching goes, Irvin vs green- no contest.
I do think Killarney is weak on the wings but they do have a nice centre lineup. Morenz & Schmidt as #1 & #2. Two of my favs. Schmidt is easily a #1 on most teams in this draft. Carbonneau & Skov are nice defensive players who won't score much.
Keon for sure is a legit 1st line centre. He is easily a top 100 player & is one of the best 2 way players of all time. His stats were hurt playing with a well balanced defense first leaf team. On a first line between Gillies & Bossy, he would put up Trottier numbers.
As far as 2n d goes, I really like Vasko-Colville. Two under-rated guys who were good with the puck & were known for their defense. Colville was awarded a retro-Selke (Ultimate Hockey) as a forward.
GBC mentioned Smith as a better clutch playoff goalie than sawchuk. I would disagree 100%. Sawchuk won his cups with an incredible GAA in his early years & was the main reason Leafs won in 67.
As far as coaching goes, Irvin vs green- no contest.
I never said Smith was a better playoff goalie than Sawchuk. I said that the gap between the two is smaller than it is in the regular season. In the regular season, Smith's record is that of an ATD back-up. One first team all-star nod. Led the league in wins once. Because of what he did in the playoffs, he's in the HHOF, and he's getting picked in the first round.
I really like Keon. I think he might just be the best defensive centre to ever play the game. Keon, H. Richard, Clarke, Schmidt would probably be my top four. Keon's in my top 100 list, too. A top 100 would be incomplete without him. I said in the line-up assassination thread that I thought his numbers were somewhat victimized by playing for Imlach and other coaches in Toronto who favoured defence first. But don't undersell Trottier. Trotts led the league in points once, was top five in points three times, led the league in assists twice and was top five in assists six times. To expect a guy who never was top 10 in assists to put up those kind of numbers is a stretch. It would help to get away from Imlach, and to play with Bossy, but Trotts put up some whopping numbers.
As I said before, I think Moose Vasko is a No. 3 guy. But because of all he brings to the table, he's more valuable than most No. 3 guys. There just aren't many six-foot-three guys with his mobility and all-round game. He's nimble enough and smart enough to play against Morenz's dragster line; he's tough enough to match up against the double-tough Schmidt line. I wouldn't give him 25 minutes a game, but 21-22 minutes a game as a No. 3 who can play effectively against different styles, he's a really valuable guy. And yeah, I would take Vasko-Coville ahead of Heller-Mantha. You could argue that Mantha's the best of the four. He was solid. But Heller's also the least of the four. Not a shot against Ott - I'm a big fan. But Vasko, Coville and Mantha are No. 3's. Heller's a No. 4. Damn good No. 4. We wanted him as our No. 4. Still a No. 4.
I think you underestimate how good Datsyuk was before the lockout, and how bad his playoffs were. He finished the 2002-03 season with a flourish - 38 points in 30 games after the all-star break. He followed that up with zero points in the playoffs. He wasn't the only Red Wing to struggle in the post-season that year, thanks to JS Giguere, but the bottom line is zero points. He was contending for the Art Ross Trophy for the first half of the 2003-04 season, then ran into some injury problems, and tougher checking, and his production fell off. Then he laid an egg in the playoffs with six points in 12 games. He took a lot of heat for Detroit's second round elimination, and for good reason. In 2005-06, he was excellent in the regular season. Then he laid another egg with three points in five games. Only Manny Legace took more heat for the Wings' first round failure.
If you want to forgive Datsyuk for his numbers in 2001-02, I'll give you that. Ironically, it was his best playoff performance until 2007, even though the stats maybe don't show it. In 2002, he was so good in a limited role that people were already predicting stardom for him. But after his breakthrough in late 2003, he provided nine points in 21 games. In those 21 games, zero goals. Sixteen points in 18 games in 2007 was an improvement, and he silenced those who said he absolutely couldn't deliver in the playoffs, but everyone knew he could do more.
I really like Keon. I think he might just be the best defensive centre to ever play the game. Keon, H. Richard, Clarke, Schmidt would probably be my top four. Keon's in my top 100 list, too. A top 100 would be incomplete without him. I said in the line-up assassination thread that I thought his numbers were somewhat victimized by playing for Imlach and other coaches in Toronto who favoured defence first. But don't undersell Trottier. Trotts led the league in points once, was top five in points three times, led the league in assists twice and was top five in assists six times. To expect a guy who never was top 10 in assists to put up those kind of numbers is a stretch. It would help to get away from Imlach, and to play with Bossy, but Trotts put up some whopping numbers.
As I said before, I think Moose Vasko is a No. 3 guy. But because of all he brings to the table, he's more valuable than most No. 3 guys. There just aren't many six-foot-three guys with his mobility and all-round game. He's nimble enough and smart enough to play against Morenz's dragster line; he's tough enough to match up against the double-tough Schmidt line. I wouldn't give him 25 minutes a game, but 21-22 minutes a game as a No. 3 who can play effectively against different styles, he's a really valuable guy. And yeah, I would take Vasko-Coville ahead of Heller-Mantha. You could argue that Mantha's the best of the four. He was solid. But Heller's also the least of the four. Not a shot against Ott - I'm a big fan. But Vasko, Coville and Mantha are No. 3's. Heller's a No. 4. Damn good No. 4. We wanted him as our No. 4. Still a No. 4.
I think you underestimate how good Datsyuk was before the lockout, and how bad his playoffs were. He finished the 2002-03 season with a flourish - 38 points in 30 games after the all-star break. He followed that up with zero points in the playoffs. He wasn't the only Red Wing to struggle in the post-season that year, thanks to JS Giguere, but the bottom line is zero points. He was contending for the Art Ross Trophy for the first half of the 2003-04 season, then ran into some injury problems, and tougher checking, and his production fell off. Then he laid an egg in the playoffs with six points in 12 games. He took a lot of heat for Detroit's second round elimination, and for good reason. In 2005-06, he was excellent in the regular season. Then he laid another egg with three points in five games. Only Manny Legace took more heat for the Wings' first round failure.
If you want to forgive Datsyuk for his numbers in 2001-02, I'll give you that. Ironically, it was his best playoff performance until 2007, even though the stats maybe don't show it. In 2002, he was so good in a limited role that people were already predicting stardom for him. But after his breakthrough in late 2003, he provided nine points in 21 games. In those 21 games, zero goals. Sixteen points in 18 games in 2007 was an improvement, and he silenced those who said he absolutely couldn't deliver in the playoffs, but everyone knew he could do more.
Last edited:
Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 76,590
- 21,129
So Datsyuk is out of place on the 1st line, despite being tailor-made for Morenz and having had 2 top 5 finishes in assists and 2 more top 10 finishes, but Keon's a great fit who would put up Trottier numbers with Bossy, even though he never once finished in the top 10?
We can't really use the system excuse here either pappy, because we know how dedicated Detroit and particularly Datsyuk are to team defense first and foremost.
Heller did all of those things. Perhaps not to the degree that Vasko did, but he too was very big for his day, had superb speed and strength, and played such a consistent and sturdy game in his own zone that Lester Patrick called him "the perfect hockey player".
Now how you can say definitively that Colville, a slash player who only played defense for the last 4 years of his career and hasn't been selected before Heller in the ATD until this current draft, can be considered definitively better than Heller on defense - who played the position for his entire 15 year NHL career and was a major contributor to two Cup wins - is completely baffling and begs to be supported.
There's really no argument. Mantha was the captain of two Cup winners, a very capable puck-mover himself, perhaps the best defensive-defenseman of his era, and a very deserving member of the HHOF. Vasko's a couple of tiers below, and that's reflected in his ATD draft position well below Mantha year after year.
Mantha's not a #3 either, he's a #2. He's been used that way for the past two drafts, as a defensive foil for Coffey and Park, by 70s and Sturm. It's pretty well-established...I'm not being an iconoclast here.
The bottom line is that Datsyuk had 3 years of NHL hockey under his belt at that time and had a career best 68 points. That's undeniably pre-breakout, and I'm hardly basing my argument on that.
Yep, a sub par outing. But then he more than made up for it by leading his team in goals and points in the playoffs the next year, and ending up 2nd in points the year after on a Cup winner. Those two are huge pluses, and despite his injured play this year and consequent production dropoff, Bob McKenzie said it best when he described Datsyuk's 10 game goal-drought as perhaps the best one ever, because he was bringing so many other things to the table.
I don't think anyone can say anything negative about Datsyuk's playoff performances over the last 3 years, all things considered.
Last edited:
i see what you mean about a substitute for joliat. i think it is a concern, though, that there is not really a natural digger, to use your term.
i think there is a super-abundance of physicality on the 2nd line, but a relative lack of it on the 1st line.
schmidt seems be a good fit with datsyuk's style, b/c he was known for passing plays with his linemates.
northcott would be a good digger for the 1st line but then the 1st line would lose some playmaking.
pitseleh reported that a couple of newspapers said northcott was 3rd in hart voting for the '33 hart (behind shore and cook), but the main list by BM67 in the award and all star voting thread says it was roach.
of course, i won't vote based on speculation on how the players would mesh, b/c it would just be a guess.
i give datsyuk a pass on '06 b/c he had a bad leg injury. he missed the last part of the regular season after taking a big hit in calgary, missed game 1, had to have blood drained from his leg before game 2, skated horribly in game 2 (definitely should not have played), and did not play in the WC after the playoffs, even though he loves playing for russia.
pappyline
Registered User
Hey, I think Heller is a great 2nd unit Dman. I just happen to think that Colville is a much better player paricularly if you look at his full career. Colville came back from the war and converted to D after missing a couple of prime years. It appears that he scraped off the rust and made a smooth transition to D as skilled players often do. He may have played only 4 years on D but he did make an AS team. That is the same number of D AS selections that Heller received despite 15 years as Dman including the war years when competition was week.
Ultimate Hockey calls Colville the most under-rated player of the 40's.
"He was one of the finest all round players of all time."
I am always delighted to get Colville with a late pick.
Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 76,590
- 21,129
If we're looking at a full career and Colville's versatility, there's absolutely an argument for him over Heller. In fact, he has more value in a vacuum than Heller because of his AS selections at both positions.
But we aren't considering value in a vacuum here. We're talking about two players who have the same number of AS selections at the position they're posted at for this series, but one has the advantage of having played that position over a decade and a half, for 61 playoff games and 2 Cup wins. The other was put on defense after he had lost a step, played 4 years there, and has 6 playoff games total during 1 appearance to the semi-finals.
I know which one I'd be taking for that role in a playoff series against some of the best who've ever played the game.
High praise, but unless he can play two positions at once, it doesn't help his case much here.
FWIW, Ultimate said Heller had "the speed of a Greyhound and the strength of a Clydesdale" and was "a model of consistency on the blueline, a master of guarding the fort...the definition of an all-around talent". And then there's always Patrick's quote.
Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 76,590
- 21,129
It appears I'm the only one who's not worried about providing the traditional big, strapping corner man on a line that was built around a player who never required one to be successful, and had his greatest successes with speedy playmakers on both his flanks. They're lightning fast, play superb defense (backchecking, takeaways) and create off the rush - that was Howie's strength when he tore up the league, that's their strength as a unit.
Maybe it's just me, but I think sometimes GMs can get a little idiomatic when it comes to balancing a line, especially when history has, in this case, without a doubt proven otherwise.
It'll probably hurt me in the votes, but I simply don't see much reason to alter a formula that was proven on the ice for a more aesthetically acceptable line configuration.
Thanks man, I wasn't aware of that.
In any case, it shows how well Northcott had played that year (but we know Datsyuk can't finish any worse than 3rd in Hart voting this year, either). Baldy is also awarded a retro Selke for '38 in UH.
Isn't that the whole ATD?
Another useful tidbit. Very much appreciated.
Last edited:
The point is Colville knows how to play at both ends of the ice. It lends credence to his hockey sense and his understanding of what is happening at all times on the ice. He knows what the forwards are going to do as much as the defencemen. He can jump into the rush effectively, he can read the play better than someone with maybe a more limited sense. He can also step up in the line-up if there's an injury.
Quickly I wanted to address how Sawchuk isn't as much of an advantage because Smith is clutch in the playoffs. Smith does have a good record of success in front of one of the best line-ups of all time, but even if we just take their playoff records in their peak...
SAWCHUK:
49-50: 8-0, 1.50 GAA
50-51: 2-4, 1.68 GAA, 1 shut out
51-52: 8-0, 0.62 GAA, 4 shut outs
52-53: 2-4, 3.39 GAA, 1 shut out
53-54: 8-4, 1.60 GAA, 2 shut outs
54-55: 8-3, 2.36 GAA, 1 shut out
SMITH
79-80: 15-4, 2.80 GAA, 1 shut out
80-81: 14-3, 2.54 GAA
81-82: 15-3, 2.52 GAA, 1 shut out
82-83: 13-3, 2.68 GAA, 2 shut outs
83-84: 12-8, 2.72 GAA,
Obviously you have to take era into account to a certain degree, but Sawchuk's numbers are in my view clearly more impressive and dominant. Four times his GAA was under 2, once it was under 0.7! He had as many shut outs in one playoff run as Smith had in his whole peak.
And while it is playoff time, how much of Smith's improved GAA can also be attributed to how much the Islanders tightened up in the post season? They played a different game. Sure he was a clutch goaltender, but that had an impact on his numbers too.
So then when you compare the two on other levels it's not even close.
Smith was a first all star once, Conn Smyth once, Vezina once...
Sawchuck?
Calder Memorial Trophy (1951)
First All-Star Team Goalie (1951, 1952, 1953)
Lester Patrick Trophy (1971)
Second All-Star Team Goalie (1954, 1955, 1959, 1963)
Vezina Trophy (1952, 1953, 1955, 1965)
I don't think anyone was arguing Sawchuk and Smith were equals, I'm just trying to further get the point across that we have a very distinct advantage in goal. Sawchuk is one of the handful of guys who can lay claim to being the best of all time.
Quickly I wanted to address how Sawchuk isn't as much of an advantage because Smith is clutch in the playoffs. Smith does have a good record of success in front of one of the best line-ups of all time, but even if we just take their playoff records in their peak...
SAWCHUK:
49-50: 8-0, 1.50 GAA
50-51: 2-4, 1.68 GAA, 1 shut out
51-52: 8-0, 0.62 GAA, 4 shut outs
52-53: 2-4, 3.39 GAA, 1 shut out
53-54: 8-4, 1.60 GAA, 2 shut outs
54-55: 8-3, 2.36 GAA, 1 shut out
SMITH
79-80: 15-4, 2.80 GAA, 1 shut out
80-81: 14-3, 2.54 GAA
81-82: 15-3, 2.52 GAA, 1 shut out
82-83: 13-3, 2.68 GAA, 2 shut outs
83-84: 12-8, 2.72 GAA,
Obviously you have to take era into account to a certain degree, but Sawchuk's numbers are in my view clearly more impressive and dominant. Four times his GAA was under 2, once it was under 0.7! He had as many shut outs in one playoff run as Smith had in his whole peak.
And while it is playoff time, how much of Smith's improved GAA can also be attributed to how much the Islanders tightened up in the post season? They played a different game. Sure he was a clutch goaltender, but that had an impact on his numbers too.
So then when you compare the two on other levels it's not even close.
Smith was a first all star once, Conn Smyth once, Vezina once...
Sawchuck?
Calder Memorial Trophy (1951)
First All-Star Team Goalie (1951, 1952, 1953)
Lester Patrick Trophy (1971)
Second All-Star Team Goalie (1954, 1955, 1959, 1963)
Vezina Trophy (1952, 1953, 1955, 1965)
I don't think anyone was arguing Sawchuk and Smith were equals, I'm just trying to further get the point across that we have a very distinct advantage in goal. Sawchuk is one of the handful of guys who can lay claim to being the best of all time.
What I really like about our line-up that I don't think has really been touched on too much yet is how we've got scoring and two way play on every line.
Killarny has two nice shut down lines in the 3/4 spot. Both are good, especially at C with Carb and Skov. Can't go wrong with those guys defensively. That being said, they are very light in goal scoring on those two lines.
We do have a third line with Balon/Murray/Provost that is more of a shut down line, but they can also provide scoring. And if Carb is the best third line Cs in the draft, Provost is the best third line RW in the draft. He's also way more of a scoring threat than Carb is.
GBC mentions how good Keon was defensively to the point that an argument could be made that he's the best defensive C of all time. He's on our top line. So is Clark Gillies who is a very good two way player.
Our second line has Litzenberger who killed penalties and could play at both ends while also scoring. It has Duke Keats who is a very good all around player. Krutov was also very tough to play against and physical in addition to being an excellent scorer.
Our fourth line has Rene Robert who is a good physical player that was good defensively and could score. It has Nilson who pappy assures me was very underrated as a two way player who was responsible in his own zone... and pappy watched him play a lot. It's also a fourth line that has enough scoring with Simmer, Nilson and Robert to be a second line on some teams.
The point I'm getting at here is that we're not focusing our energy on having scoring on one line and defensive players on one line. We've created a line-up that will have scoring from the first to the fourth line... and that has shut down players on all those lines as well.
I'd say we'd have Keon's line match up comfortably with their top line while Provost's line would likely match up with the second line. That means both their offensive lines have to contend with one of the best all time defensive players at their position. Except in addition to that, the lines matching with them have the ability to burn you with elite scoring talent... well especially the top line with Bossy.
Bossy is a key player in this series as well. A guy who can score from anywhere at anytime and was a key player on a dynasty while playing alongside Gillies.
I don't really like trying to target and pick on team's weaknesses, but I agree with concerns about Datsyuk as a first line LW. I'd even accept him reasonbly as a second line C, but I think he'd get eaten up pretty badly in the spot he's in.
Both teams are very good and lets be honestly, 80 to 90% of the ATD teams this year are very good. It's going to be a tight series and when you're looking at a tight series what are two key differences that can put a team over the top?
Coaching and goaltending.
We've got the advantage in both. Sawchuk is one of the few who can be considered the best of all time while almost nobody has more playoff coaching experience and success than Dick Irvin.
Killarny has two nice shut down lines in the 3/4 spot. Both are good, especially at C with Carb and Skov. Can't go wrong with those guys defensively. That being said, they are very light in goal scoring on those two lines.
We do have a third line with Balon/Murray/Provost that is more of a shut down line, but they can also provide scoring. And if Carb is the best third line Cs in the draft, Provost is the best third line RW in the draft. He's also way more of a scoring threat than Carb is.
GBC mentions how good Keon was defensively to the point that an argument could be made that he's the best defensive C of all time. He's on our top line. So is Clark Gillies who is a very good two way player.
Our second line has Litzenberger who killed penalties and could play at both ends while also scoring. It has Duke Keats who is a very good all around player. Krutov was also very tough to play against and physical in addition to being an excellent scorer.
Our fourth line has Rene Robert who is a good physical player that was good defensively and could score. It has Nilson who pappy assures me was very underrated as a two way player who was responsible in his own zone... and pappy watched him play a lot. It's also a fourth line that has enough scoring with Simmer, Nilson and Robert to be a second line on some teams.
The point I'm getting at here is that we're not focusing our energy on having scoring on one line and defensive players on one line. We've created a line-up that will have scoring from the first to the fourth line... and that has shut down players on all those lines as well.
I'd say we'd have Keon's line match up comfortably with their top line while Provost's line would likely match up with the second line. That means both their offensive lines have to contend with one of the best all time defensive players at their position. Except in addition to that, the lines matching with them have the ability to burn you with elite scoring talent... well especially the top line with Bossy.
Bossy is a key player in this series as well. A guy who can score from anywhere at anytime and was a key player on a dynasty while playing alongside Gillies.
I don't really like trying to target and pick on team's weaknesses, but I agree with concerns about Datsyuk as a first line LW. I'd even accept him reasonbly as a second line C, but I think he'd get eaten up pretty badly in the spot he's in.
Both teams are very good and lets be honestly, 80 to 90% of the ATD teams this year are very good. It's going to be a tight series and when you're looking at a tight series what are two key differences that can put a team over the top?
Coaching and goaltending.
We've got the advantage in both. Sawchuk is one of the few who can be considered the best of all time while almost nobody has more playoff coaching experience and success than Dick Irvin.
Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 76,590
- 21,129
But it isn't Heller. During his defensive years, Colville was actually less productive than Heller's best from the blueline.
Colville's a good pick, but maybe Trail should be hoping for an injury to a center, because he's not Heller's equal on defense. He has virtually no playoff experience in that capacity, and his regular season peak as a defenseman was no better than Heller's.
You certainly do, but I'm not sure you have. We're comparing one of the highest scoring eras in league history to one of the lowest.
I'd be curious to know what the GPG averages were for those playoffs.
And the Detroit dynasty didn't offer a similar advantage?
But it ain't the regular season, and I had a very good back-up goaltender to platoon with Smith there.
I don't think the advantage is nearly as steep as you make it out to be. Regular season Sawchuk doesn't really have an effect here. Here, now, in the post-season, their play in the playoffs is paramount, and Sawchuk's numbers when adjusting for era is better by the slimmest of margins.
It's not though, because Sawchuk's career was much better for much longer. Smith had five great seasons in the playoffs with average regular seasons. Sawchuk was one of the best of all time for a long, outstanding career. Smith had a great run. Sawchuk had an even better run and was still greater than Smith in every other way as well.
And scoring didn't go down from regular season to playoffs nearly as much in the original six era as it does in the modern era. They were consistently low scoring.
And scoring didn't go down from regular season to playoffs nearly as much in the original six era as it does in the modern era. They were consistently low scoring.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
A few random comments for hte best-discussed series this far:
- Mantha >>> Vasko. I like Moose and everything he brings but there's no way he's in Mantha's league.
- I am concerned about Datsyuk there too. It's arguable that he can be just as good on the wing, but hard to really prove. I think there's a bit of a double standard being applied regarding him and Keon.
- I'm interested to see if GBC responds to CW's claim that there's little doubt Broadbent is a 1st line player. I didn't have much trouble showing that Odie Cleghorn was a better offensive player than Broadbent (yes, toughness and defensive play are another story) and Cleghorn took a bit of heat as being possibly miscast on a 2nd line.
- Mantha >>> Vasko. I like Moose and everything he brings but there's no way he's in Mantha's league.
- I am concerned about Datsyuk there too. It's arguable that he can be just as good on the wing, but hard to really prove. I think there's a bit of a double standard being applied regarding him and Keon.
- I'm interested to see if GBC responds to CW's claim that there's little doubt Broadbent is a 1st line player. I didn't have much trouble showing that Odie Cleghorn was a better offensive player than Broadbent (yes, toughness and defensive play are another story) and Cleghorn took a bit of heat as being possibly miscast on a 2nd line.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
According to The Hockey Compendium, the regular season to playoff scoring ratios during Sawchuk's career were as follows:
.70
.74
1.13
.87
1.11
1.10
1.02
1.08
1.02
.87
.77
.92
.96
.86
.88
.88
.88
.96
.93
1.03
average: .94
In the bold years sawchuk was not in the playoffs. the average of the seasons he was in the playoffs, was .91.
For Smith it was as follows:
.88
.83
.94
.86
.86
.93
1.01
.87
.96
.80
.96
.82
.85
average: .89
Scoring went down 9% in the playoffs for Sawchuk and 11% for Smith. Practically even.
Sawchuk's career GAA goes up 1%, Smith's goes down 14%.
There's little doubt that Sawchuk is the better goalie overall. But Smith had a better playoff career. How much the voters consider that is up to them.
.70
.74
1.13
.87
1.11
1.10
1.02
1.08
1.02
.87
.77
.92
.96
.86
.88
.88
.88
.96
.93
1.03
average: .94
In the bold years sawchuk was not in the playoffs. the average of the seasons he was in the playoffs, was .91.
For Smith it was as follows:
.88
.83
.94
.86
.86
.93
1.01
.87
.96
.80
.96
.82
.85
average: .89
Scoring went down 9% in the playoffs for Sawchuk and 11% for Smith. Practically even.
Sawchuk's career GAA goes up 1%, Smith's goes down 14%.
There's little doubt that Sawchuk is the better goalie overall. But Smith had a better playoff career. How much the voters consider that is up to them.
pappyline
Registered User
********,
Colville
45-46 9pts
46-47 20pts
47-48 16pts
Heller
42-43 18pts
43-44 35pts
44-45 19pts
Their best 3 were pretty close except for the 35pt war year for Heller, In fact all of Heller's best seasons were during the war years when colville was in the service along with many NHL stars. no question in my mind that Colville was the better player irregardless of the position. The competition was much tougher when Colville played D.
Hold on a minute here! That's a fairly huge leap. A better playoff career because his GAA goes down more? Sawchuk just didn't have very far to drop! Smith had a bigger gap between the regular season and playoffs than Sawchuk, but that DOES NOT mean he was better in the playoffs.
Smith also had far less longevity. Those numbers would be different if you're just talking about Sawchuk's peak... and it's only Smith's peak that really ever gets taken into account.
And in Sawchuk's peak years?
50-51: RS - 1.99, Playoffs - 1.68
51-52: RS - 1.90, Playoffs - 0.63
52-53: RS - 1.90, Playoffs - 3.39 (only 6 games though)
53-54: RS - 1.93, Playoffs - 1.60
His "getting better in the playoffs" number gets a little worse with age and longevity while Smith again really only had that five year run of doing anything. Smith was a clutch goalie on a dynasty for five years. That's a very worthy accomplishment but that's all he did. The rest of his career is basically nothing.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Fair enough. There's some truth in that. If this was my series I would have a lot to say to that. But I'm not here to pimp Smith or smear Sawchuk so I'll leave it at that. More than anything I just posted that to illustrate that the difference in how much scoring dropped from the season to the playoffs between both goalie's careers was negligible.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
GAME 7 - North Bay Battalion @ Oshawa Generals - Series tied 3-3Wagers: 5Staked: $1,097.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Series Winner Florida Panthers vs Boston BruinsWagers: 15Staked: $115,345.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
GAME 6 - Portland Winterhawks @ Prince George Cougars - Portland Winterhawks leads series 3-2Wagers: 2Staked: $110.00Event closes- Updated: